Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Its Smear Campaign a Sign of Democratic Disarray?

Democrats and their allies in the legacy media keep telling us that the GOP is in dire straits.  And I’ll grant that my party has work to do.  But, I do wonder if the president’s party is not in straits even more dire than that of is political rival, its problems papered over by the strong support Barack Obama enjoys in some segments of society (especially in the various newsrooms that dot America’s coasts).

If the Democrats have such an appeal with the American people — and are so confident in their message, why must they regularly resort to dishonest demagoguery, misrepresenting Republican stands on issues and regularly calling their partisan rivals “extreme.” Bear in mind that Barack Obama did not win reelection running on his record but by demonizing Mitt Romney, airing over a quarter-billion dollars of attacks ads — before the party conventions.

Saw two examples of this yesterday on Facebook:

Screen shot 2013-06-20 at 7.18.58 PM

Ms. Gillibrand is trying to advance her own cause by misrepresenting her partisan rivals — and stirring up fears among African-Americans.

Look  likes Ms. Gillibrand’s dishonest, mean-spirited rhetoric has earned her an interesting admirer:

Screen shot 2013-06-20 at 7.20.13 PM

And here the junior Senator from the First State does what he accuses the Tea Party of doing in the very image where he levels his accusation:

Screen shot 2013-06-20 at 7.31.29 PM

Interesting how so many Democrats have decided to smear their adversaries as “extreme.” Were Mr. Coons familiar with the issues the Tea Party actually champions, he would realize that its views were in line with the general views of the American people; polls show (far) more Americans favor smaller government with fewer services than those who favor bigger government with more services.

(Note that both of these Democrats come from “blue” states, Ms. Gillibrand from New York and Mr. Coons from Delaware, but we can probably attribute the latter’s inability to understand Tea Party ideas to his inferior undergraduate education.)

This is what passes for Democratic discourse in the Age of Obama.  Instead of taking issue with Republican ideas, the president’s fellow partisans just misrepresent their political opponents — and distort their policies.  Heck, it worked for Mr. Obama in 2012.

Share

264 Comments

  1. “Tea Party” has basically become a catch-all phrase for whatever unpopular cause or quote or person anyone wants associated with it. I have a hard time thinking of any group more constantly under attack by straw men than Tea Partiers.

    Comment by Chad — June 21, 2013 @ 12:36 pm - June 21, 2013

  2. The Tea Party had a huge rally last Wednesday in Washington, DC, which received little coverage from the MSM. Of course they were polite and probably even cleaned up after themselves, as they normally do. Just how the Democrats and others get away with demonizing this group astounds me.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 21, 2013 @ 12:43 pm - June 21, 2013

  3. The Democrats use smear campaigns because they work, period. Or, have you forgotten that Mitt Romney wanted to outlaw tampons and give women cancer? That Sharron Angle was pro-rape and Christine O’Donnell was a witch? Oh, and every Republican agreed with Todd Akin that rape was a contraceptive.

    Comment by V the K — June 21, 2013 @ 12:52 pm - June 21, 2013

  4. These are the tactics we need to learn from and use. Voting rights? Ya, it was the Dems who voted against civil rights…..Partisan, who is more partisan the Admin we have now? Throw these hot potatoes back to them.

    Comment by Tava — June 21, 2013 @ 12:55 pm - June 21, 2013

  5. Call them out on it. Every time. You won’t change the poster’s mind but other people reading it might be persuaded.

    In regards to the voting rights nonsense… 74 percent of Americans agree with the concept of voter ID laws. They lost this issue but they need to keep voter ID out so they can capture illegal votes.

    Comment by Chris H — June 21, 2013 @ 1:09 pm - June 21, 2013

  6. Dan, honest question: when are you going to get mad about this?

    Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this? Don’t you realize that the people whose Facebook pages these are posted on actually believe, support, and endorse this?

    Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

    Every one of them is calling you a racist. Every one of them is calling you an extremist. And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

    Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

    One can no longer assume leftists are misguided. As statements like these from SENATORS show, they simply are evil and malicious bigots who will say and do anything to hold on to power.

    When are you going to get mad about this, Dan? When are you going to stand up and say that these people cannot call you names any more and tell you to kill yourself?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 5:03 pm - June 21, 2013

  7. Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this?

    People who support gutter politicians ipso facto support gutter politics.

    Comment by V the K — June 21, 2013 @ 5:25 pm - June 21, 2013

  8. I have to agree with NDT on this one. Fight fire with fire. Period. Take no prisoners. Throw it back in their faces.

    If they carp and whine about how “discourse has been shattered,” look them in the face and say these three words:

    “You started it.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 21, 2013 @ 5:58 pm - June 21, 2013

  9. This is a go-to tactic of the Left, not just because it works. It doesn’t work all the time, but it is used all the time because a leftie mindset is always in crisis mode. In crisis mode there really isn’t a lot of time to develop an argument, or create a plausible scenario. Hopelessness is just around the corner and so and so is standing in the way!

    Comment by Rich Kennedy — June 21, 2013 @ 6:58 pm - June 21, 2013

  10. Dan, honest question: when are you going to get mad about this?

    Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this? Don’t you realize that the people whose Facebook pages these are posted on actually believe, support, and endorse this?

    Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty, and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

    Every one of them is calling you a racist. Every one of them is calling you an extremist. And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

    Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

    One can no longer assume leftists are misguided. As statements like these from SENATORS show, they simply are evil and malicious bigots who will say and do anything to hold on to power.

    When are you going to get mad about this, Dan? When are you going to stand up and say that these people cannot call you names any more and tell you to kill yourself?

    Yes Dan! PLEASE DO!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 7:21 pm - June 21, 2013

  11. I agree that it is long past time to fight fire with fire — the one thing to keep in mind, not to dissuade anyone — is that the Media will back the Leftists to the hilt, and keep on the attack on Republicans.

    How much coverage did you hear on DeGette (D Rep, CO) and the “if it saves one life” club being used on HER over abortions on fetuses over five months of age?

    Not much, I bet. And why is that? Because the Media won’t cover it. They can’t put the rampant lies and hypocrisy of the Dems on display.

    We need to turn their words against them, show how their “claims” are not only in many cases diametrically opposed to each other, but how, if they really believe their own arguments, they don’t work.

    The Second Amendment only applies to muskets and Colonial-era firearms?

    Show me where abortion appears in the Constitution and its Amendments, then? You want to limit something spelled out expressly? Then no more broad interpretations for you (Leftists).

    Make them live by their own words and claims. Ask why so many are backing Obama, or why Obama himself is in opposition to things he said about surveillance, or the Debt Ceiling? Is he a lying shill? Or just stupid?

    Make. Them. Own. It.

    Comment by Acethepug — June 21, 2013 @ 7:22 pm - June 21, 2013

  12. Interesting how so many Democrats have decided to smear their adversaries as “extreme.”

    To a leftie, anyone who threatens to end the government-spending gravy train – by saying, for example, that we need to cut our bloated government so that it won’t go bankrupt (and bankrupt all of us with it) – is “extreme”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2013 @ 7:59 pm - June 21, 2013

  13. I just think it’s hilarious that, on a blog post about “smear campaigns”, one which I hadn’t even commented yet, I’m a victim of a smear campaign. :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 8:38 pm - June 21, 2013

  14. Wow, one checks in from time to time on GP and sometimes there’s a surprise waiting.

    So, based on the title of this post, “Is Its Smear Campaign a Sign of Democratic Disarray,” would it then follow suit to question the stability of commenters who continually commit acts of libel?

    Comment by VS — June 21, 2013 @ 8:48 pm - June 21, 2013

  15. Yes Dan! PLEASE DO!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 7:21 pm – June 21, 2013

    Lol.

    Sonic, you are more than welcome at any point in time to say that Gillibrand and Coons are gutter politicians.

    You are more than welcome to state that Obama is wrong when he claims all Republicans are racist, that Gillibrand is wrong when she says voter ID supporters are bigots, and that Coons is wrong when he claims Tea Partiers are extremists.

    You are more than welcome to state that Obama’s use of the IRS, DOJ, FBI, and EPA to target political opponents is wrong, that the Obama Party is wrong for endorsing it, and that liberals who are screaming that it is a legitimate use of government are absolutely reprehensible.

    You are welcome to do all of those things, none of which would in the least compromise your ostensibly “libertarian” beliefs.

    And you don’t. More importantly, you won’t.

    Why?

    Sultan Knish:

    There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.

    The true insidious evil of the man is that he is the face of a machine of power and privilege that turns Americans into UnAmericans, that corrupts and degrades every ideal and principle, suborns every office and picks every pocket, while wrapping that thievery in the flag and every bit of history that it can filch. The Hussein Way is the clearest expression of the rot at the heart of the Democratic Party, the marriage of leftist agitation and powermongering with the old urban political machines for a level of abuse usually seen only in banana republics.

    To borrow from Golda Meir, you hate conservatives more than you value the future. And that is the mistake conservatives have been making for far too long: we honestly believed that liberals like you had a different perspective, rather than acknowledging the ugly reality that you loathe us, you hate everything for which we stand, and that you would prefer that we were dead than to vote “incorrectly”.

    You truly see us as subhuman, Sonic. You and your fellow Obama bigots are so hideously twisted and misshapen that you no longer are capable of dealing with opposition rationally — and as you did with your parents, when you don’t get your way, you will scream, namecall, and abuse them until you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 8:55 pm - June 21, 2013

  16. Vince… Libel probably won’t stick… It’d be pretty easy for him to claim insanity. Lot’s of evidence to back that up! (see above reply)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 8:59 pm - June 21, 2013

  17. Wow, one checks in from time to time on GP and sometimes there’s a surprise waiting.

    So, based on the title of this post, “Is Its Smear Campaign a Sign of Democratic Disarray,” would it then follow suit to question the stability of commenters who continually commit acts of libel?

    Comment by VS — June 21, 2013 @ 8:48 pm – June 21, 2013

    Why?

    Is “Senator” Gillilbrand libeling Dan when she claims he’s a racist?

    Is “Senator” Coons libeling Dan when he calls him an extremist?

    Is the Obama Party organization Truth Wins Out, led by HRC staffer Wayne Besen and Evan Hurst, libeling Dan when it claims that “everything (he) said is true, and then some”?

    Because we wouldn’t want it to be blatantly obvious that you have a double standard when it comes to conservatives, would we?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 9:07 pm - June 21, 2013

  18. The only thing I hate, is the waiting for you to apologize for your constant spew of false characterizations and accusations against me. No, even that’s not hate… It’s disappointment that it’s never going to happen, even though it’s the type of thing an an honest person would do…

    Oh, yeah. That’s why it won’t happen. I keep mistaking you for someone with an ounce of integrity.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 9:08 pm - June 21, 2013

  19. Vince… Libel probably won’t stick… It’d be pretty easy for him to claim insanity. Lot’s of evidence to back that up! (see above reply)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 8:59 pm – June 21, 2013

    Ah yes, the old Obama liberal trick of claiming your opponents are mentally ill.

    Also a good example of why liberals cannot be trusted with health care or other sensitive data; their utter lack of ethics and willingness to do and say anything to smear and destroy conservatives.

    Again, Sonic, you’re behaving typical for type. You hate conservatives more than you respect any moral, ethical, or professional standard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 9:13 pm - June 21, 2013

  20. And as to my last link, isn’t it hilarious how those like Sonic who claim to support what Barry Goldwater believed are so in the tank for the Obama Party liberals and media who libeled Goldwater as mentally ill?

    This really destroys their concern-troll act of how they would support Republicans “if”. There is no “if”. There never will be an “if”. Once the “if” is ostensibly met, they change again and demand something else, like the spoiled brats they are.

    These Obama supporters are bigots who see conservatives as subhuman and want us starved, imprisoned, or dead. That is the reality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 9:21 pm - June 21, 2013

  21. I just think it’s hilarious that, on a blog post about “smear campaigns”, one which I hadn’t even commented yet, I’m a victim of a smear campaign. – Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 8:38 pm – June 21, 2013

    Everyone knows NDT’s routine. Don’t let it bother you.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 21, 2013 @ 9:36 pm - June 21, 2013

  22. Ah, SC.Swampfox, I believe you had a statement of disbelief above.

    The Tea Party had a huge rally last Wednesday in Washington, DC, which received little coverage from the MSM. Of course they were polite and probably even cleaned up after themselves, as they normally do. Just how the Democrats and others get away with demonizing this group astounds me.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 21, 2013 @ 12:43 pm – June 21, 2013

    Let me enlighten you as to why: because their constituents and voting base agree that the Tea Party and those who support the Tea Party, should be demonized and have the IRS et al. sicced on you.

    That constituency and voting base includes people like Sonicfrog.

    You choose to allow people like him to stab you in the back and act indecently toward you.

    You choose to allow people like him to berate you for your behavior while applauding gutter politicians like Gillibrand and Coons and their media allies who call you a racist, bigot, extremist, terrorist, and worse.

    That is an ugly reality to face. As long as you acknowledge the reality and your choice to treat Sonic far better than he and his Obama Party believe you deserve to be treated, that is fine by me.

    But it’s not the choice I make.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 9:59 pm - June 21, 2013

  23. How about today’s smear by , Pelosi? “Republicans want to starve babies” when asked about the “Farm Bill.”

    Comment by Richard Bell — June 21, 2013 @ 10:03 pm - June 21, 2013

  24. Indeed she did, Richard Bell.

    So let’s see: do our board Obama/Pelosi supporters like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike, want to step forward and say that Pelosi, the leader of their Obama Party in the House, libeled Dan and SC.Swampfox as killers who want babies to starve?

    Of course not. Pelosi is repeating the beliefs of Obama/Pelosi supporters like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike that Dan and SC.Swampfox are killers who want babies to starve.

    And I repeat myself to both of them: at what point will you finally recognize that this is what Obama/Pelosi supporters like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike actually believe about you, have believed about you, and will continue to believe about you?

    Do you actually agree that you deserve this kind of abuse, hatred, and contempt from these people?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 10:13 pm - June 21, 2013

  25. NDT, my statement about the Tea Party was rhetorical, of course I know how “they” get away with it. You pick out posters on Gay Patriot and just try to trash them. Try giving it a rest.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 21, 2013 @ 10:14 pm - June 21, 2013

  26. NDT, my statement about the Tea Party was rhetorical, of course I know how “they” get away with it. You pick out posters on Gay Patriot and just try to trash them. Try giving it a rest.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 21, 2013 @ 10:14 pm – June 21, 2013

    Correction, SC.Swampfox.

    I pick out posters who support and endorse Gillibrand calling you a racist, Coons calling you an extremist, and now Pelosi calling you a murderer who wants to starve babies.

    We are having our freedoms, our liberty, our earnings, and our dignity taken away because of people like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike who believe our own government should be turned on us to bleed us dry, punish our political and religious beliefs, and force us to our knees — and who elect, endorse, and support politicians like Gillibrand, Coons, Pelosi, and Obama.

    Conservatives are far too polite for our own good. Look at Occupy, look at the Proposition 8 mobs, look at Islamists. They get results because they disregard and ignore the rules and any standards of ethics or polite behavior.

    This cannot continue. We are at the point of what Augustine called the just war, or as it’s more commonly known, accepting a lesser evil to stop a greater one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 10:24 pm - June 21, 2013

  27. NDT… So I take it you’re not going to apologize for accusing me of wanting to kill Dan.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:27 pm - June 21, 2013

  28. Swamp… Be careful…. You might end up on Santa NDT’s naughty list! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:31 pm - June 21, 2013

  29. We are having our freedoms, our liberty, our earnings, and our dignity taken away because of people like Pat, like Sonicfrog,

    I’m taking away your freedoms….

    First, I want to kill Dan.

    Now, I am actively taking away your freedoms!

    I have magical secret powers!!!

    I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yeA7a0uS3A

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:35 pm - June 21, 2013

  30. I just think it’s hilarious that, on a blog post about “smear campaigns”, one which I hadn’t even commented yet, I’m a victim of a smear campaign. :-)

    If the cockring fits, wear it asshole.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — June 21, 2013 @ 10:37 pm - June 21, 2013

  31. BTW… I hated that cartoon… I suppose somehow that also makes me an evil Obama loving socialist too!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:38 pm - June 21, 2013

  32. Nice comeback Bastian. Classy.

    Now be quite. The adults are talking.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:39 pm - June 21, 2013

  33. NDT… So I take it you’re not going to apologize for accusing me of wanting to kill Dan.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:27 pm – June 21, 2013

    Actually, Sonic, this is what I said:

    Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

    and:

    To borrow from Golda Meir, you hate conservatives more than you value the future. And that is the mistake conservatives have been making for far too long: we honestly believed that liberals like you had a different perspective, rather than acknowledging the ugly reality that you loathe us, you hate everything for which we stand, and that you would prefer that we were dead than to vote “incorrectly”.

    Both of which are perfectly referenceable.

    And:

    These Obama supporters are bigots who see conservatives as subhuman and want us starved, imprisoned, or dead. That is the reality.

    Which is also perfectly referenceable.

    And, in theory, a “libertarian” like yourself should have no trouble judging them and the Obama Party/LGBT community to which they belong as harshly as you do the whole of Christendom based on Fred Phelps.

    But you do clearly have a problem doing it, so the point is nicely made.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 10:45 pm - June 21, 2013

  34. I have never ever given any support to Michelangelo Signorile, or anything he’s ever supported… Seeing that until you posted this link, I had no idea the guy existed….

    So no, that’s not anything even remotely representative of my position. That’s a big fat NO.

    Dan Savage? I know he exists, but have never ever endorsed that position…..

    Another big fat NO.

    So, can you show you have integrity and apologies for accusing me of wanting to kill Dan, or no?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:57 pm - June 21, 2013

  35. Swamp… Be careful…. You might end up on Santa NDT’s naughty list! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:31 pm – June 21, 2013

    Not likely.

    That is an ugly reality to face. As long as you acknowledge the reality and your choice to treat Sonic far better than he and his Obama Party believe you deserve to be treated, that is fine by me.

    But it’s not the choice I make.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 9:59 pm – June 21, 2013

    This, actually, is the root of your problem as a liberal.

    Conservatives acknowledge that people can legitimately disagree and respect each others’ thought processes without having to share the same results. It would be nice if SC.Swampfox agreed with me, but if he doesn’t, that’s his prerogative; it certainly doesn’t make him a bad person, nor does it automatically make ME a bad person.

    Liberals, on the other hand, cannot accept disagreement and insist that anyone who does is evil — or, as you projected, “naughty”. That is why you and your Obama Party leaders claim that anyone who modifies a farm bill wants to starve babies, anyone who supports voter ID is a racist, and anyone who agrees with and supports the Tea Party is an extremist. If people do not agree with you, they have to be demonized and destroyed. That is what the Obama Party does — and it is supported, endorsed, and sustained by you and your fellow liberals like Pat, rusty, concern-troll mike, etc.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 10:58 pm - June 21, 2013

  36. So, can you show you have integrity and apologies for accusing me of wanting to kill Dan, or no?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 10:57 pm – June 21, 2013

    Why?

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Republicans and conservatives are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 11:06 pm - June 21, 2013

  37. NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 11:13 pm - June 21, 2013

  38. And I forgot about this, which really makes this post funny.

    The only thing I hate, is the waiting for you to apologize for your constant spew of false characterizations and accusations against me. No, even that’s not hate… It’s disappointment that it’s never going to happen, even though it’s the type of thing an an honest person would do…

    Oh, yeah. That’s why it won’t happen. I keep mistaking you for someone with an ounce of integrity.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 9:08 pm – June 21, 2013

    So Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi can call Dan, SC.Swampfox, and all other Republicans and conservatives racists, extremists, and murderers who want to starve babies, and the only thing Sonicfrog does is scream how anyone who criticizes them and their supporters for doing so lacks honesty and integrity.

    As ILC so beautifully put it, “If he is like his fellow lefties, then “the common way to solve our problems” that he has in mind is: Lefties win. Conservatives give up, die, go away, etc.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 11:20 pm - June 21, 2013

  39. OT but still relevant when it comes to libtards and double-standards:

    Funny how the Dhimmicrats didn’t bat an eye when the late Grand Kleagle Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) used the “n-word” (oh, how I hate this bowdlerization of the word!) on prime-time TV – when everyone HEARD him say it – but libtards are twisting their panties in a wad because of something that Paula Deen MAY have said over 30 years ago.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 21, 2013 @ 11:27 pm - June 21, 2013

  40. NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 11:13 pm – June 21, 2013

    Oh really?

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Does Joe Biden lack honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains?

    Does Barack Obama lack honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism?

    Do the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan?

    You keep trying the typical tactics of an abusive personality, Sonicfrog, which all revolve around browbeating and convincing another person that they are bad and should do what you say.

    But the way out of that cycle is to have it made abundantly clear that you not only tolerate, but endorse and support those same behaviors in others.

    In short, as Breitbart so elegantly put it: “Apologize for WHAT?”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2013 @ 11:30 pm - June 21, 2013

  41. I am none of those people. you accused me of wanting to kill Dan.

    Either show that Conservatives can admit when they overstepped and apologize, or show the world that Conservatives such as yourself have no integrity.

    It’s up to you.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize.

    PS. Me calling Tea Party Racist????

    Falsified.

    Falsified.

    Falsified

    So, now you owe me two apologies.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 11:34 pm - June 21, 2013

  42. Does this look like the face of a flesh and blood human being who …

    … has called Dan [Blatt] a racist, extremist, and believes the government should harass and punish him for not voting for Obama? That thinks Dan should kill himself? Thinks he’s a killer who want babies to starve? That I believe Dan deserves hatred, and contempt? …

    Dan [ND30], I am continually impressed with your stamina and imagination when it comes to your writing. I get a headache just from editing down to something more succinct. How about we hug it out? I hear you have really strong arms.

    xoxo

    Comment by VS — June 21, 2013 @ 11:37 pm - June 21, 2013

  43. Does this look like the face of a flesh and blood human being who….

    Short answer: Yes.

    Longer answer: You vote for, endorse, and support politicians like Gillibrand, Coons, Pelosi, and Obama who look at the face of flesh and blood human beings like Dan and proceed to call them racists, bigots, extremists, and murderers, then wish they were dead and tell them to kill themselves unless they vote for Obama, so yes, I have zero doubt that you could and in fact do say such things about Dan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 12:19 am - June 22, 2013

  44. NDT. You wrote:

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Does Joe Biden lack honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains?

    Does Barack Obama lack honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism?

    Do the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan?

    I am not any of those people. I do not associate with any of those people. I do not share the political affiliation of those people.

    i mean seriously. I’f you’re going to try and construct a “guilt by association” argument against me concerning these people, you could at least try and prove that I am actually, you know, at all associated with these people.

    Your last comment is one big fat FAIL.

    Then you ask: “Apologize for WHAT?”

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize.

    PS…. Spam filter.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 12:22 am - June 22, 2013

  45. Longer answer: You vote for….

    I voted for none of the people you mention.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 12:24 am - June 22, 2013

  46. NDT, Please stop the libel. You’re using my actual name and I don’t appreciate it. Because it’s not true, and they’re people in the world who are delusional enough that if they stumbled into GP they would mistakenly believe you were speaking the truth. And, you’re simply not. Apologize, please.

    Comment by VS — June 22, 2013 @ 12:29 am - June 22, 2013

  47. Swamp…

    I know we’ve digressed on a few things here and there. But you might want to reexamine your accusation that I’m a “liberal”. For the few cherry-picked bit that NDT tries to throw out and prove that i am, I have 8 years of record on both my own blog, and comments here at GP that will show otherwise.

    I can very much say, I’m not NDT’s idea of a conservative. That we all can agree on.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 12:29 am - June 22, 2013

  48. I am not any of those people. I do not associate with any of those people. I do not share the political affiliation of those people.

    Which makes your utter inability to answer the simple questions of whether they lack honesty and integrity for their actions all the more incomprehensible.

    So I repeat myself: apologize for WHAT? Unless you decide to state that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Christine Gillibrand, Chris Coons, the Obama Party, the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and the LGBT community as a whole lack honesty and integrity for their actions, I fail to see the point of your criticism.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 12:41 am - June 22, 2013

  49. apologize for WHAT?

    This:

    Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog, like rusty, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this? Don’t you realize that the people whose Facebook pages these are posted on actually believe, support, and endorse this?

    Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty, and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

    Every one of them is calling you a racist. Every one of them is calling you an extremist. And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

    Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 12:47 am - June 22, 2013

  50. NDT, Please stop the libel. You’re using my actual name and I don’t appreciate it. Because it’s not true, and they’re people in the world who are delusional enough that if they stumbled into GP they would mistakenly believe you were speaking the truth. And, you’re simply not. Apologize, please.

    Comment by VS — June 22, 2013 @ 12:29 am – June 22, 2013

    Cry me a frigging river.

    After you and your Obama Party and your LGBT bigot community have done everything in your power to smear and destroy Dan and Bruce’s reputations, one would LIKE to think that you have more brains than to make such a blatantly-hypocritical demand for a level of privacy and respect that you and your Obama Pig Party and LGBT community have never, NEVER granted Dan or Bruce or other gay conservatives for their opinions.

    Apparently not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 12:53 am - June 22, 2013

  51. NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan. Apologize

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 12:47 am – June 22, 2013

    Once again, Sonicfrog:

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Does Joe Biden lack honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains?

    Does Barack Obama lack honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism?

    Do the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan?

    You keep trying to demand I apologize, but I don’t seem to have done anything differently than the Obama Party and LGBT community you overwhelmingly support and endorse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 1:04 am - June 22, 2013

  52. “smear and destroy”

    You mean like saying or insinuating that i have called the Tea Party a bunch of racists?

    You mean like this….

    Or this….

    Or this….

    Oops. The problem with accusing people of things, people who have a long and wide footprint on the internet ans a blogger, you damned well had better have your facts straight… You say:

    You vote for, endorse, and support politicians like Gillibrand, Coons, Pelosi, and Obama who look at the face of flesh and blood human beings like Dan and proceed to call them racists, bigots, extremists, and murderers

    But you have no factual proof that I voted for any one of them. I have factual proof, because even if I had the same political POV’s of any of them, I don’t even live in their districts, so I couldn’t have voted for them even if I….

    Oh. Never mind. I keep mistaking you for someone with an ounce of integrity. You don’t give a damned about facts. You and your childish routines tarnish Conservatives more than any liberal could ever do.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:05 am - June 22, 2013

  53. I do hope I’m not getting blocked again.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:08 am - June 22, 2013

  54. No, I approved your comments (that the spamfilter thought were spam). You’re welcome.

    NDT… So I take it you’re not going to apologize for accusing me of wanting to kill Dan.
    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated killing Dan.
    [etc.]

    sf: For someone claiming to fight the good fight, you’re doing a sloppy job. There is no point in this thread where NDT accuses you of wanting to kill Dan or of advocating that any other person kill Dan.

    Repeat, There is no point in this thread where NDT says you want to kill Dan.

    He accused you of something different, of believing that Dan ought to kill himself. I won’t get into whether that’s true (because getting into that is more your job), but if you’re going to ride a high horse about another commentor getting things wrong, then take the trouble to get things right yourself. At this point, your accusing NDT of (supposedly) slandering you by claiming that you want to kill Dan, is more like you slandering NDT.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 22, 2013 @ 1:11 am - June 22, 2013

  55. Oh. Never mind. I keep mistaking you for someone with an ounce of integrity. You don’t give a damned about facts. You and your childish routines tarnish Conservatives more than any liberal could ever do.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:05 am – June 22, 2013

    LOL.

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Does Joe Biden lack honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains?

    Does Barack Obama lack honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism?

    Do the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan?

    It’s odd: you are INSTANTLY ready to condemn conservatives, claim they lack honesty and integrity, and demand they shut up lest they “tarnish” conservativism, but have absolutely tied yourself into knots to avoid even the slightest criticism of liberals and Obama Party members who share your own hatred of conservatives.

    And hence my point. Silencing myself does nothing. You are still going to scream and namecall me and you are going to continue to support, endorse, and vote for your Obama Party and its leaders like Gillibrand, Pelosi, Obama, and Coons who call me a racist, bigot, extremist, and murderer.

    How could I “tarnish” conservativism in your eyes? You already think and endorse calling conservatives racists, bigots, extremists, and murderers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 1:29 am - June 22, 2013

  56. He accused you of something different, of wanting Dan to kill himself. I won’t get into whether that’s true (because getting into that is more your job), but if you’re going to ride a high horse about another commentor getting things wrong, then take the trouble to get things right yourself. At this point, your accusing NDT of (supposedly) slandering you by claiming that you want to kill Dan, is more like you slandering NDT.

    Ok. Fine. So it’s OK if he falsely accuses me of wanting Dan to kill himself… That makes it SOOOOOOO much better!

    Really. Did you really think about the way that sounded before you typed it?

    [Jeff adds: I surely did. In fact, I edited it slightly at the same time you composed this comment, which is why the two versions read a tad differently now; you did not alter my quote.]

    You say:

    I won’t get into whether that’s true (because getting into that is more your job)

    Why. [Jeff adds: Just told you why. It's right in the quote above.] You insert yourself into plenty of other skirmishes. Why is everyone around here so damned afraid of calling NDT on something when he clearly goes beyond the lines of proper etiquette and civil discourse? I mean, really, you called me on it, and I agreed i went over the line. [Jeff adds: What are you talking about? You mean earlier in this same comment, where you "agreed" by sarcastically rebuking me? That's how people agree in your house?]

    You don’t even see how much you play favorites. Gay Patriot Rule:

    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

    Note. I had not said a word on this post before i was dragged into it.

    Repeated violators will be banned.

    Does it get any repeatier than NDT???? Again, I had made NO COMMENT before I was insulted and dragged into this… Does he get banned, Or are some animals on the Gay Patriot farm more equal than others?????

    [Jeff adds: It’s a matter for Bruce or Dan. For my personal views on GP commentors who may snark at me, and/or at the conservatives on this blog, and then still come to me demanding fairness and consistency of rules, see this post.]

    Anyway, I’ll amend my previous demand:

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:35 am - June 22, 2013

  57. LOL.

    Really. Did you really think about the way that sounded before you typed it?

    You insert yourself into plenty of other skirmishes.

    You don’t even see how much you play favorites.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:35 am – June 22, 2013

    Attacks on the post author, repeated.

    I wonder if Sonicfrog will now quietly accept that HE, by his own logic and own interpretation of the GayPatriot rules, should be banned?

    Of course not. And that brings up the next point: whenever liberals complain about and demand that conservatives follow the rules, it is being done solely for the purpose of silencing and punishing conservatives.

    Liberals like Sonicfrog exploit the fact that conservatives respect the rules. Their goals, as we see from Sonicfrog’s constant tantrums, are to guilt conservatives into banning and punishing other conservatives while ignoring liberals.

    As ILC so beautifully put it, “If he is like his fellow lefties, then “the common way to solve our problems” that he has in mind is: Lefties win. Conservatives give up, die, go away, etc.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 1:47 am - June 22, 2013

  58. I admitted my error. Your turn.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:51 am - June 22, 2013

  59. Ooo, I missed this one.

    Either show that Conservatives can admit when they overstepped and apologize, or show the world that Conservatives such as yourself have no integrity.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2013 @ 11:34 pm – June 21, 2013

    LOL.

    Do you think us stupid enough to believe that you, Sonicfrog, the anti-conservative bigot, would ever ACKNOWLEDGE that conservatives have integrity?

    And given your flat, screaming refusal to state that your Pelosi, that your Obama, that your Gillibrand, that your Coons, that your Dan Savage, that your Signorile, and that most importantly your Barack Obama lack integrity and honesty for their calls for conservatives to die, for conservatives to kill themselves, that conservatives are racist homophobic bigots, and for their using the Federal government to punish and attack political opponents, I can’t again see what behavior you could possibly be criticizing, other than not being a worshiper of Barack Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 1:54 am - June 22, 2013

  60. Do you think us stupid enough to believe that you, Sonicfrog, the anti-conservative bigot, would ever ACKNOWLEDGE that conservatives have integrity?

    I would, if you showed you had any?

    Do you think us stupid…

    No.

    Hypocrites, and unethical… Yes.

    You claim to be incensed by the tactics adopted by Ms. Gillibrand, yet you adopt them at every chance you get. To paraphrase Dan: “NDT is trying to advance his own cause by misrepresenting his rivals “. The same applies to the peanut gallery of NDT defenders.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 9:01 am - June 22, 2013

  61. Sonic, the definition of insanity is the act of repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result.

    I’ve lost count of how many times you have demanded an apology from NDT.

    He will not apologize for what he believes is a non-apologetic issue.

    So drop it, please. And give the rest of us readers a break.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 22, 2013 @ 10:21 am - June 22, 2013

  62. Peter H…

    With all due respect…. Sorry this it is annoying… But nope. I’m not the one who’s going to back down. Not this time. There is such lofty talk about principles bandied about on Gay Patriot, but everyone always lets it slide when those principles are violated.

    Here is the comment rules at gay Patriot:

    Commenting and Trackbacks: (courtesy of OutsideTheBeltway) Commenting and trackback/pingback capability is provided to encourage thoughtful discussion of the ideas posted on this site. We welcome open debate and viewpoints that differ from those of the post authors. That said, we wish to keep the conversation civil and the following policies, subject to change without notice, apply:

    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

    No they won’t, not if it’s a “Conservative”.

    Repeated violators will be banned.

    No they won’t, not if it’s a “Conservative”.

    Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    Either rules apply to all, either they mean something to Conservatives, or they don’t.

    Over the years, more times than I can count, NDT has falsely accused me and others of various things, and we’ve always eventually let it go. I draw the line when he accuses me of wanting Dan, someone who is a friend, to kill himself. That is an inexcusable smear, issue toward me on a thread who’s very topic is about smear campaigns. So this is very much on topic.

    So, I’m sorry that this is distasteful, but the gauntlet has been thrown at my feet probably a hundred times. This is where i draw the line.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. Apologize.

    PS. Interesting tht you want me to drop this, instead of asking NDT to finally apologize. He’s clearly in the wrong, yet I’m the one who is expected to stand down.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 11:14 am - June 22, 2013

  63. Peter, well put.

    I myself don’t agree with NDT’s every comment, because I don’t find all left-leaning individuals to be as monolithically, collectively responsible for the Left’s excesses as he seems to. (I admire his underlying valid points and boldness; and also cringe a little when he rips on Pat or rusty, or leaves people going “huh?”.)

    But now sf, saying that NDT has misrepresented him and attacked his integrity, has himself misrepresented and attacked NDT’s integrity at length. (See for example the “not an ounce of integrity” comments. I happen to know that NDT has integrity by the truckload.)

    And sf calls for NDT to be banned, in the name of consistent rule enforcement. And by sf’s own admission, NDT is the conservative here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative”…while sf, as sf often tells us, is not. (Yes, it matters a bit in my own view.)

    I don’t think it’s my role to ban people – but hypothetically if it were, consistency would require me to ban sf, if/when I banned NDT.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 22, 2013 @ 11:51 am - June 22, 2013

  64. You claim to be incensed by the tactics adopted by Ms. Gillibrand, yet you adopt them at every chance you get. To paraphrase Dan: “NDT is trying to advance his own cause by misrepresenting his rivals “. The same applies to the peanut gallery of NDT defenders.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 9:01 am – June 22, 2013

    Which is clearly what works, Sonicfrog.

    After all, you won’t say that the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves.

    You won’t say the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead.

    You won’t say Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them.

    You won’t say Joe Biden lacks honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains.

    You won’t say Barack Obama lacks honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism.

    You won’t say the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan.

    Come to think of it, that’s very interesting. You compare my behavior to all these people who, like you, hate conservatives and insist that any maltreatment of conservatives is justified, but refuse to state that they are wrong in the same fashion that you do me.

    Which is why you then turn and try this:

    Either rules apply to all, either they mean something to Conservatives, or they don’t.

    This is the pathological sickness of leftists and how their depravity destroys rules.

    Every conservative here knows, Sonicfrog, that you do NOT, have NEVER, and will NEVER apply the rules to yourself or to your fellow conservative-haters.

    You attempt to silence us by using our own principles against us. That is straight out of the malicious Alinsky Rules for Radicals, and it marks you as what you are — a malicious, anti-conservative bigot whose only concern is power and the destruction of conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 12:09 pm - June 22, 2013

  65. But you have no factual proof that I voted for any one of them. I have factual proof, because even if I had the same political POV’s of any of them, I don’t even live in their districts, so I couldn’t have voted for them even if I….

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:05 am – June 22, 2013

    Of course you could have; your fellow conservative-haters do it all the time, and as we see with Gillibrand, do everything in their power, including misuse of Federal resources, to continue doing it.

    You’re a conservative-hater, Sonicfrog. No conservative anywhere is going to believe that you will actually follow the rules, because you and your fellow conservative-haters have made it clear that getting your way trumps any laws or rules.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 12:37 pm - June 22, 2013

  66. Jeff…

    He accused you of something different, of believing that Dan ought to kill himself. I won’t get into whether that’s true

    I won’t get into whether that’s true

    You KNOW it’s not true! [Jeff adds: If you want to get pushy or technical about it: Then no, technically I don't "KNOW". You know what your conscious beliefs are. I do accept your word about your conscious beliefs. What lurks in your unconscious, I can never truly know one way or the other; thus remaining agnostic.]
    There is not one iota of evidence to support any such claim. You know that I have considered Dan a friend, and can prove it here:

    Proprietor Dan Blatt, someone I consider a friend, has posted a number of my blog posts on GP in years past.

    and here

    Note: The guys who founded and built the Gay Patriot site, two individuals that I do feel some kinship to despite our differences (we started blogging at about the same time), are no longer much involved with the site.

    and here

    My friend Dan at Gay Patriot commented on the significance of Obama’s comments in relation to the Clinton budget, but everyone is missing the real significance of the “Social Darwinism” comment.

    and here.

    My blog-pal Dan at Gay Patriot has glowing praise for John Huntsman’s economic plan, published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Dan writes:

    There are a lot more on my blog that I could link to, but since there are EIGHT years worth, I figure that would be overkill. Note, some of those are posts where I disagree with Dan or Bruce. Unlike you, I have a blog of my own, and have been writing stuff for the last eighth plus years, some of which has been linked here my Dan, the guy NDT claims I want to kill himself.

    [Jeff adds: Then you should take your fight with NDT over to your blog. As Peter suggested, and as I have done in my post which perhaps you still have not read, it probably does not belong here.]

    There is no way you walk away from reading this and not know that exactly what my feeling are toward Dan Blatt. I don’t always agree with him. But, for eight plus years, I have, and still do, consider him a friend.

    Now that I have definitively proved that the accusations against me by NDT, that I want Dan to kill himself, are proven very CLEARLY false, are you still going to support him????? [Jeff adds: There is no comment in this thread so far, in which I have supported any of NDT's claims against you. Cut the drama.]

    You say:

    But now sf, saying that NDT has misrepresented him and attacked his integrity,

    I’m not just saying it… I proved it! [Jeff adds: Which, and if true, involves saying it. Your argument in this comment amounts to SAYING, "I'm Dan's friend! Look where I've said it in the past!" Nice try but not really a proof, again if you want to get technical.]

    I happen to know that NDT has integrity by the truckload.

    Then encourage him to show it… Just once. And now I’ll up the ante.

    NDT also accuses me of calling Dan a racist. And of calling him an extremist.

    Either he backs that claim with proof that I did those things. Or he admits he’s wrong and apologizes. Right now his claims against me are as false as your claim that he has integrity. If he apologizes, that brings both issues to a close.

    [Jeff adds: You continue to attack NDT's integrity, thus violating the GP rules which you attempt to cite as reasons to ban him. I can only conclude, once again, that *IF* anyone should be banned (and I don't think it's my role to do that), to be truly fair and consistent the ban would have to include you.]

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 12:46 pm - June 22, 2013

  67. And I thought this one was very entertaining.

    I draw the line when he accuses me of wanting Dan, someone who is a friend, to kill himself. That is an inexcusable smear, issue toward me on a thread who’s very topic is about smear campaigns. So this is very much on topic.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 11:14 am – June 22, 2013

    It’s like Facebook.

    Isn’t it funny how so many of Dan’s “friends” support the Obama Party and the LGBT community calling Dan a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, and an extremist, plus wishing he were dead and telling him to kill himself?

    What makes it really funny is that the conservative-haters like Sonicfrog have spent YEARS telling gay and lesbian conservatives that we should reject Republicans, conservatives, Christianity, etc. because they supposedly hate us and call us names.

    I have never been called a Nazi or a racist or told to kill myself by my conservative and Christian acquaintances.

    I’ve seen it happen day in and day out from my supposed “tolerant” Obama Party and LGBT wannabe masters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - June 22, 2013

  68. And one more entertaining thing: Sonicfrog has been frantically trying to dig up posts to “prove” his claims that he never supported bashing the Tea Party, never called them racists, never said they were homophobes, never claimed Akin represented all of them, etc.

    Strange that he missed one so recent.

    But again: as long as it bashes conservatives, Sonicfrog supports it and says it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 1:00 pm - June 22, 2013

  69. You won’t say Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity

    Really????

    Nancy Pelosi’s Mission Creep.

    That post is all about her lacking integrity. Oh, and it got Instalanched too!!!!

    Oops!

    And the latest two links are also not me. They are other people and don’t represent my views.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:11 pm - June 22, 2013

  70. …the definition of insanity is the act of repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result.

    What does that say about a commenter who continually spreads lies and libels them?

    I have never been called a Nazi or a racist or told to kill myself by my conservative and Christian acquaintances.

    I was watching CNN last night and a gentleman by the name of Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, has decided to shut down the organization. Anderson Cooper conducted the interview, and it was both insightful and touching. Chambers was a good man who acknowledged his same-sex attractions, refused to label himself (as he shouldn’t have to), and remains happily and faithfully married to his wife of sixteen years. He asserted that he now believes you can be Christian, gay, and in a fulfilling homosexual (or like himself, heterosexual relationship). He also realized the damage the Exodus program inflicted on its participants over the years and expressed grave remorse and regret.

    This is a positive direction and a sign that our society is evolving in a healthy direction. While I imagine there are those on the (gay) left who criticize Chambers, I both support and admire the man for not only how he conducts himself and his integrity, but his commitment and loyalty.

    Comment by VS — June 22, 2013 @ 1:11 pm - June 22, 2013

  71. And one more entertaining thing: Sonicfrog has been frantically trying to dig up posts to “prove” his claims that he never supported bashing the Tea Party, never called them racists, never said they were homophobes, never claimed Akin represented all of them, etc.

    And STILL you misrepresent me!

    Amazing! I NEVER claimed that I never criticized the Tea Party. I fully admit to criticizing the Tea Party. They have more than earned my contempt! I have not, and do not call the Tea Party racists OR homophobes. Even the people I reference in that post, I do not call them racists or homophobes!

    You should probably stop digging that hole now.

    NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:21 pm - June 22, 2013

  72. spam filter

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - June 22, 2013

  73. Amazing! I NEVER claimed that I never criticized the Tea Party. I fully admit to criticizing the Tea Party. They have more than earned my contempt!

    So you acknowledge that you have nothing but contempt and hatred for those in and who support the Tea Party, and that they deserve the contempt and hatred of all “enlightened” people such as yourself.

    Which means you have contempt and hatred for Dan and SC.Swampfox and that they deserve the contempt and hatred that you and your fellow anti-conservative bigots in the Obama Party, including your Pelosi, heap on them.

    Including your LGBT community telling them to kill themselves and wishing death on them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - June 22, 2013

  74. Yes, Alan Chambers is a better human being that the buyouts Dan Savage and Signorile, the leaders of the gay and lesbian community who openly advocate the death penalty and forced suicide for those who disagree with them politically with the full endorsement of the Obama Party.

    So your choice to side with them makes clear what you prefer and what you value.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 2:20 pm - June 22, 2013

  75. Since the Democratic Party has been highjacked by the ADA, which was founded back in the early 50´s by communist sympathizers and fellow travelers, anybody to the right of ADA endorsed politicians looks extreme.

    Comment by Roberto — June 22, 2013 @ 2:38 pm - June 22, 2013

  76. And I totally forgot about this.

    Over the years, more times than I can count, NDT has falsely accused me and others of various things, and we’ve always eventually let it go. I draw the line when he accuses me of wanting Dan, someone who is a friend, to kill himself. That is an inexcusable smear, issue toward me on a thread who’s very topic is about smear campaigns.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 11:14 am – June 22, 2013

    But of course, it’s not an “inexcusable smear” when it’s levied by the Obama Party and the LGBT community of anti-conservative bigots like Sonicfrog.

    So that’s what gives these “principles” and “integrity” tantrums that Sonicfrog throw their exceptional entertainment value. You have to wonder if they’re that clueless, or if they genuinely are that malicious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 2:40 pm - June 22, 2013

  77. Love how you fill in blanks to fit your own view. Let me fix it.

    So you acknowledge that you have nothing but contempt and hatred for those in and who support the Tea Party, and that they deserve the contempt and hatred of all “enlightened” people such as yourself.

    And then you present this false conclusion.

    Which means you have contempt and hatred for Dan

    Yep. Integrity on display.

    You do recognize that there is a difference between the Tea Party as an entity, and the whole collection of people who ascribe to the philosophy it’s supposed to represent.

    Here is something we agree on… We both have contempt for the IRS and the way it’s acted under this administration, But by your logic, we therefore have contempt and hate all the people that work for the IRS.

    If you would have read my post you linked to, or read for comprehension instead of trying and failing to cherry-pick a false meaning out of the thing, you would know beef with the Tea Party is that it doesn’t support what it says it wants to do, because at it’s core, the leadership are Social Conservatives first, a distant fiscal Conservatives second. And they aren’t even pretending anymore.

    But you don’t care, because you are showing that I am right that have no integrity.

    NDT. You continue to slander me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 2:59 pm - June 22, 2013

  78. Here is something we agree on… We both have contempt for the IRS and the way it’s acted under this administration, But by your logic, we therefore have contempt and hate all the people that work for the IRS.

    And I do.

    Not a single IRS employee has stated that what the IRS did was wrong.

    Indeed, every single IRS employee has done exactly what the Obama Party pig Lois Lerner did: blabber and scream that she did nothing wrong, then invoke the very Bill of Rights that she claims don’t apply to conservatives.

    The union and union leader that represents ALL IRS employees, plus the employees of numerous government agencies, publicly stated their contempt for the Tea Party and that the Tea Party deserved to be punished, just as you do.

    Meanwhile, all your post is is a prime example of rationalizing your anti-conservative bigotry and hate. Again, no one here seriously believes that you, one of the loudest and most vociferous bigots toward conservatives, can make any kind of intelligent or objective evaluation of what the Tea Party is. You hate them, period.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - June 22, 2013

  79. #78 — Wow, I wondered why this thread was so long, but was too busy to check. What a nightmare this is turning into.

    NDT, you can count me as one of the people who does not believe that Sonic is a bigot, or that he hates the Tea Party. Expressing concern about some of the people in that movement is hardly the same thing as hating everyone in it.

    I think it began as a very worthwhile endeavor. I think it has since been infiltrated by far-right dominionists.

    And for the record, I don’t want to see anybody kill him- or herself. Especially not anybody who comments here.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 22, 2013 @ 5:06 pm - June 22, 2013

  80. Do I hate Dan, think he’s a racist, or that I want him to kill himself???…

    Definitive proof that that is simply not true, a lie, and slander.

    NDT. You continue to slander me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 5:57 pm - June 22, 2013

  81. Expressing concern about some of the people in that movement is hardly the same thing as hating everyone in it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 22, 2013 @ 5:06 pm – June 22, 2013

    And expressing concern about some of the people in that movement is hardly the same thing as stating, quote, “Can everyone please PLEASE stop pretending now that the Tea Party is nothing but a thin shell surrounding the smoldering inner core of the Social Conservative majority that is the Republican party?”

    And since Sonicfrog uses social conservatives as a perjorative and claims that they are all racists, extremists, bigots, and homophobes, he is calling all Tea Party members and supporters racists, extremists, bigots, and homophobes.

    The reason I don’t worry about you, Lori, is that I know that, despite the fact that you dislike social conservatives, you do not agree with the LGBT community and the Obama Party that the Federal government should discriminate against them, and in fact agree that the laws apply to them and protect them as well. Your dislike does not become bigotry or hatred; nor does it trump your commitment to principled and objective review.

    That is not the case with Sonicfrog.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2013 @ 6:03 pm - June 22, 2013

  82. #81 — I don’t necessarily dislike ALL social conservatives. I think those who are benign fail to recognize that others are actually dangerous. The non-dangerous people in that movement tend to trust that everybody else is sincere. And I think they’re being duped.

    Every threat to liberty and civil society begins that way. Language is co-opted and used manipulatively. Many people innocently believe they are supporting the true, the beautiful and the good. Then one day they wake up and find they can no longer recognize the world around them.

    That’s what I believe is happening today. I believe that the fundamental unit of humanity is the individual person, and that this means each of us must think for ourselves. I am, therefore, never on one “side” one hundred percent of the time. Someday I’ll need to answer to my Maker for the decisions I made and the stands I chose to take, and none of those with whom I chose to ally myself — if I did so because I thought it was easy to just pick a side — with be standing there with me.

    That makes some people here angry, because it looks as if I can’t decide which “side” to be on. As a matter of fact, I don’t think either “side” is right — or wrong — one hundred percent of the time.

    If Sonic distrusts social conservatives, he may have experience that gives him good reason.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 22, 2013 @ 6:25 pm - June 22, 2013

  83. Lori also, and to her credit, has the good sense to take personal fights to her own blog at some point.

    I’m sure that some Tea Party groups have been infiltrated by some far-right dominionists; in the sense of “there are jerks in every walk of life”, etc. If Lori has been to Tea Party meetings that were taken over by them, I’m not about to argue with her first-hand observations.

    But it hasn’t been my experience at Tea Party rallies I’ve been to, or in reading the comments of Tea Party supporters (like heliotrope or Dan Blatt) or leaders (like Palin). Religious – maybe sometimes; homophobic – Rarely, if ever; dominionist – No; liberty-loving, fiscal-conservative and pro-capitalist – Yes.

    The blanket statement, “Can everyone please PLEASE stop pretending now that the Tea Party is nothing [sic; anything] but a thin shell surrounding the smoldering inner core of the Social Conservative majority that is the Republican party?” is pretty stupid IMHO.

    Calling it ‘bigoted’ is, in a way, being nice – because if the statement emerged from some kind of non-bigoted, ‘normal’ thought process in the speaker, it reflects that much more discredit.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 22, 2013 @ 6:29 pm - June 22, 2013

  84. NDT.. And you even get my view on social conservatives wrong (big surprise there).

    I don’t hate all social conservatives. Not by a mile. I’m in a band with two social conservatives. I live in an area dominated by social conservatives; more of my friends are SC’s than are liberals – friend who are much more familiar with my political views than you, who would go to bat for me, and i would gladly return the favor.

    Both Huntsman’s and Romney’s views and attitudes were fine with me because the social conservative agenda was not either of their top priorities. you rejected Huntsman outright because he wouldn’t discuss his religion and make stupid Social Conservative pledges, and Romney lost because the Social Conservatives stayed home, not because he wasn’t Tea Party enough. I would link to what i wrote when Humtsman was rejected, but it won’t matter.

    If you want to know what i dislike… Immensely… I dislike Social Conservatives who want to control everything , run our lives, and and support a Big Government Social Conservative agenda.

    So, for the eighteenth time in this thread, you have once again been wrong about me.

    AND, even IF you were right (which you’re not), you still accused me of wishing that Dan would kill himself, that i think he’s an extremist and a racist. Nothing you’ve written changes that false accusation.

    NDT. You continue to slander me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 8:07 pm - June 22, 2013

  85. Frankly, the comments on this thread between Sonic Frog and NDT just give me one damn huge headache. Is this what the Gay Patriot website is all about? If it is, count me out.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 22, 2013 @ 10:27 pm - June 22, 2013

  86. I’m in a band with two social conservatives. I live in an area dominated by social conservatives; more of my friends are SC’s than are liberals – friend who are much more familiar with my political views than you, who would go to bat for me

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 8:07 pm – June 22, 2013

    And yet you use “social conservatives” as a perjorative, go on about how awful it is that the Tea Party is “nothing but a thin shell surrounding the smoldering inner core of the Social Conservative majority that is the Republican party”, and state that all social conservatives “want to control everything , run our lives, and and support a Big Government Social Conservative agenda”.

    Which is funny, because your favorite candidate Huntsman and his entire family endorse Barack Obama and HIS want to control everything, run our lives, and support a Big Government Liberal agenda. Indeed, Huntsman has a perfect track record of supporting all Obama’s domestic initiatives, Obama’s spying, Obama’s IRS targeting conservatives, Obama’s tax hikes, Obama’s demand for businesses to be punished with “climate change” regulations, and more.

    But Huntsman is hostile to and berates social conservatives, including your “friends”, as idiots, theocrats, and fools with the mentality of three-year-olds — so of course you support him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 1:09 am - June 23, 2013

  87. AND, even IF you were right (which you’re not), you still accused me of wishing that Dan would kill himself, that i think he’s an extremist and a racist. Nothing you’ve written changes that false accusation.

    NDT. You continue to slander me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 22, 2013 @ 8:07 pm – June 22, 2013

    Yawn.

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Does Joe Biden lack honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains?

    Does Barack Obama lack honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism?

    Do the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan?

    And does Jon Huntsman lack integrity and honesty for his and his family’s calling all social conservatives and Tea Party members racists, homophobes, bigots, and extremists?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 1:15 am - June 23, 2013

  88. Frankly, the comments on this thread between Sonic Frog and NDT just give me one damn huge headache. Is this what the Gay Patriot website is all about? If it is, count me out.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 22, 2013 @ 10:27 pm – June 22, 2013

    Last I checked, there were a total of twenty articles just on the GayPatriot front page alone on a wide range of subjects with a wide range of comments.

    So the short answer is no. The GayPatriot website is about far more than this particular tiff, and I would heartily encourage you to investigate and comment on several of the other articles posted as well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 1:20 am - June 23, 2013

  89. Note to future self: sf’s point is that he is far from hating BDB or wishing him ill, and that (proverbially) ‘some of my best friends are’ conservatives. NDT’s point is that sf either admires / joins in with, or at least refuses here to condemn, a bunch of other people who do really lie about, hate, and show prejudice against some combination of: BDB, gay conservatives, Tea Party fiscal conservatives, and/or social conservatives.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 10:25 am - June 23, 2013

  90. Since sf talked yesterday about rules, enforcement and banning people, I’ve been thinking about those questions.

    Again, it’s not my role to ban people here and I’m not about to. But hypothetically, before I did, I’d want to summarize things in my mind. Here is my view of the fight. (Yours may vary…as may Bruce’s or Dan’s, if they were here.)

    NDT:
    1) Opened the fight, by calling sf a bigot. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
    2) Has thankfully not called for sf to be banned.
    3) Is a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

    sf:
    1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
    2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)
    3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

    Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 12:25 pm - June 23, 2013

  91. So, for the eighteenth time in this thread, you have once again been wrong about me.

    Only 18? Are you sure you haven’t miscounted your complaining?

    Just sayin’ is all.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 23, 2013 @ 12:43 pm - June 23, 2013

  92. I hate pissing matches. Nothing gets resolve, just a lot of bloviating.

    Comment by Roberto — June 23, 2013 @ 2:38 pm - June 23, 2013

  93. Since sf talked yesterday about rules, enforcement and banning people, I’ve been thinking about those questions.

    Again, it’s not my role to ban people here and I’m not about to. But hypothetically, before I did, I’d want to summarize things in my mind. Here is my view of the fight. (Yours may vary…as may Bruce’s or Dan’s, if they were here.)

    NDT:
    1) Opened the fight, by calling sf a bigot. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
    2) Has thankfully not called for sf to be banned.
    3) Is a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

    sf:
    1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
    2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)
    3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

    Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 12:25 pm – June 23, 2013

    Jeff.

    If you’re going to make a list, let me help you here. Here is the specific rule for comments at Gay Patriot:

    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    Here are the litany of accusations and falsehoods NDT made on this post. Note that I had not made a single comment on this thread prior to this, which makes it an unprovoked attack:

    Dan, honest question: when are you going to get mad about this?

    Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog

    Personal attack # 1

    like rusty, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this?

    Personal attack # 2.

    Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty, and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

    Both those politician do not even live in the state I’m in, so I couldn’t vote for them. Even if they did, they would not have my vote, no matter what party they are in. This is not a personal attack.

    However:

    Every one of them [on his list of villains, which includes me] is calling you a racist.

    He’s accusing me, with no evidence what-so-ever of calling me a racist. THAT is slander, and personal attack # 3.

    Every one of them is calling you an extremist.

    Personal attack # 4.

    And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

    More slander. Personal attack # 5.

    Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

    Personal attack # 6.

    One can no longer assume leftists are misguided.

    Am I a “leftist”???? No… And he knows it. But I’ll let this slide, even though he’s wrong, ones view on whether someone is conservative or liberal is, in the end, a matter of personal opinion.

    Next bit, still talking about his list of malevolents, which includes me:

    As statements like these from SENATORS show, they simply are evil and malicious bigots who will say and do anything to hold on to power.

    Personal attack # 7.

    When are you going to get mad about this, Dan? When are you going to stand up and say that these people [those of us on his list of malevolent] cannot call you names any more and tell you to kill yourself?

    Personal attack # 8.

    Again. note that I had not offered a single comment on this thread, so there is no way anyone can claim he is responding to something I said.

    Further. When I asked him to back up his claim that I had done ANY of the things he accuses me of, he can not and does not offer any proof what-so- ever that I done any of them. And since, for at least five years, I have been contributing some material here via Dan, comment on this blog almost from its inception, and have myself been blogging for the last 8 years… You would think if AY of the things he says is true, there would be ample enough evidence that would confirm his accusation.

    But he didn’t. Because he can’t. He can’t find a single thing to substantiate his claims, especially the most serious, that I have called Dan a racist, and extremist, that I want a Government agency of any type to harass and punish Dan, and especially that I want Dan to kill himself.

    Here are the offenses that merit a ban as laid out by Bruce and Dan:

    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

    And now, the key section of the rule:

    Repeated violators will be banned.

    This behaviors as you know is nothing new. He has been making these same types of false, slanderous, and mischaracterizing accusations against me for at least three years, if not more. Multiply this post by three years and the number of “personal attacks” infractions is… well… quite large to be kind.

    Are the rules enforced, or not?

    Here is last part of the rule.

    Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    Did I violate that part of the rule?

    Yes. There is no denying that.

    However, here is what you wrote concerning my violations of the rules:

    sf:
    1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)

    Yep. Note, the rule does not specific ally state that commenters who challenge another integrity will also get banned. But that’s legal parsing. I accept that challenging the integrity of another commenter is bannable.

    2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

    Are you kidding? [Jeff adds: No. I can't think of a greater personal attack to make on a fellow GP commentor than to say, in effect, that you think their presence on the blog should be obliterated. Except for making threats on them; that would be the only greater step.]

    Pointing out that a commenter should be banned due to multiple…. no, hundreds… of very specific and irrefutable violations (even you admit he’s guilty) is a “personal attack”?????? By that logic, those in the State Department are indeed guilty of personally attacking Hillary Clinton as the Democrats defending her claim!

    Sorry. You lose on this one.

    And

    3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

    Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…

    Why is that not required of NDT? Obviously it’s not [Jeff adds: Untrue. In the comments of mine that you quote, I acknowledge a breakdown on both sides of the equation.]

    , or else you’d be jumping on his case with the same veracity that you are with me.

    and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

    Trashing hosts… [Jeff adds: A misquote; see below.]

    I’ve NEVER said a bad word about either Dan or Bruce! NEVER! Have I sometimes been critical of one political position or another? Sure! But isn’t that what this is all about, discussing similarity and differences about things?

    I’m kind of thinking that one commenter, NDT, falsely accusing another, me, of wanting the host to kill himself, is trashing the host much much more than my defending myself and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that NDT is not only wrong in his accusations, but broke the rules of this blog multiple times.

    And I do hope you’re not saying that Conservative are more equal under the law than non-conservatives, because, my libertarian friend, that would also sooner or later put you in the cross hair, and you would also be insinuating that Gay Patriot operates in the same fashion as Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, which would, by your interpretation, also make you a candidate to be banned.

    [Jeff adds: Apparently you have still not read my post on that subject. Please go do so, before you continue further.

    Overall comments: Your one-sided recitation of the thread was unnecessary. Whatever NDT’s personal attacks on you have been, you have undoubtedly made personal attacks on him. *IF* a fair and consistent application of the rules were to lead to anybody being banned, sf (and again, that is NOT anything I favor; I’m only discussing what you keep bringing up) – to be truly fair the ban would have to include you. As for what I meant by trashing your hosts’ home and friends…First and foremost, the thread is trashed because you (like he) did not take the conflict to your blogs, where it would fit better. You’ve also trashed a conservative friend of Dan and Bruce. Again, regardless of whether that other guest has done likewise to you; I do not make observations here about your justifications or your reasons, but only of your behavior. Please note that I never accused you of trashing Bruce or Dan themselves; you have apparently misinterpreted what I wrote.]

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 3:00 pm - June 23, 2013

  94. If NDT apologized for his slander, a lot of this goes away. He went way overboard this time.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 3:01 pm - June 23, 2013

  95. From the stated rules:

    Repeated violators will be banned.

    From ILC:

    Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

    Calling for stated rules to be respected and for a repeat violator to be banned is ‘the nuclear weapon of personal attacks’? This is absurd and laughable.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 23, 2013 @ 5:46 pm - June 23, 2013

  96. I disagree, Iggy. I say it’s correct and wise.

    The determination of who to ban is not yours to make, but your hosts’. Publicly calling on them to obliterate your opponent’s future presence – that is, their person – from the blog is almost the greatest personal attack you could make, short of making outright threats against your opponent.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 5:47 pm - June 23, 2013

  97. (Operative word, ‘publicly’ – which is why I edited the comment, to add it. I also should have made it, ‘publicly on this blog’. Attack your opponent personally and call for their banning to your heart’s content, in private email, or publicly from your own blog.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 6:05 pm - June 23, 2013

  98. Calling on a repeat violator of stated rules to be banned implies that the determination isn’t anyone’s to make except those to whom the request is made, understood by the person making the request.

    Requesting that a disruptive person who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against others of a community and has repeatedly demonstrated a complete disregard for that community in his flouting of its stated rules is not a personal attack. It is upholding a social order over the will of an individual who doesn’t value such an order and is ideally an objective adherence to an environment of mutual respect. There needn’t be anything personal at all about banning someone from a community if the community itself is valued and worth maintaining. Such decisions should be made impersonally and thoughtfully, i.e. it’s not about the violator, ultimately. An attack? Nope. Wise? Hardly.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 23, 2013 @ 6:21 pm - June 23, 2013

  99. Sonic, it looks like you lose. NDT is not going to issue an apology and ILoveCaptialism appears to take NDT’s side ……………. even though most of these spats seem to stem from posts by NDT. Let me quote ILoveCaptialism at #63

    I myself don’t agree with NDT’s every comment, because I don’t find all left-leaning individuals to be as monolithically, collectively responsible for the Left’s excesses as he seems to. (I admire his underlying valid points and boldness; and also cringe a little when he rips on Pat or rusty, or leaves people going “huh?”.)

    But now sf, saying that NDT has misrepresented him and attacked his integrity, has himself misrepresented and attacked NDT’s integrity at length. (See for example the “not an ounce of integrity” comments. I happen to know that NDT has integrity by the truckload.)

    My question to ILoveCaptalism is how do you, “know that NDT has integrity by the truckload?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 23, 2013 @ 6:26 pm - June 23, 2013

  100. By they way, I just violated my rule #1. Don’t get involved in other posters obvious dislike for one another.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 23, 2013 @ 6:35 pm - June 23, 2013

  101. Years of dealing with him, SCS, and finding him to be nothing but honest and straightforward. Years of knowing him personally (but just through the blog; don’t suspect anything). Years of seeing him apologize on occasions when he was wrong. Years of seeing him have reasons/backing for saying what he says and doing what he does (or what he chooses not to do), even though I may still think he’s wrong. Years of seeing him do what he does based on principle. Years of seeing him be right about certain blog people, where I was wrong (but I can’t go into details, sorry).

    If you disagree with NDT, and/or with me about NDT, that’s fine. Each person must make up their own mind.

    If you would even like to personally attack NDT, go right ahead. I mainly^^ ask that people not make personal attacks and then have the chutzpah to whine publicly for their target to get a ban. (^^Comment edited – Well, sometimes I do ask a bit more, namely for both NDT and his opponents to lay off each other, on the personal attacks.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 6:42 pm - June 23, 2013

  102. Also, please vote Palin 2016. /joke

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 6:51 pm - June 23, 2013

  103. Also, I will add that many might consider us all a bit insane, since we identify as being both homosexual and conservative. Many on the left and right howl that the term gay conservative is the ultimate political oxymoron.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 23, 2013 @ 6:52 pm - June 23, 2013

  104. SCS – Yes, well the Left has made personal attacks an art form.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 7:04 pm - June 23, 2013

  105. SCS, one more thing: No, I don’t “take NDT’s side”. I just scanned for comments where I might be defending NDT’s specific claims on sf. Only one comes close, #83.

    Perhaps you’re really asking why I’ve been riding sf.

    The answer is simple (and I’ve been saying it all along). NDT and sf are both guilty of not “taking it outside”, to their blogs/email. But sf has gone farther. He has publicly called for his opponent to be banned.

    That’s really it. NDT has not. If he had, I’d ride him. I view it an extra layer of incivility, beyond the ordinary.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 7:25 pm - June 23, 2013

  106. Integrity: In ethics, ,b>integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions.

    Is it honest to accuse someone of something, and when proven wrong about the accusation, tripling down with non-sequitor, guilty by association fallacies (which didn’t work because I’m not even associated with anyone in his links) and continuing to make false accusations?

    I had not even commented on this thread, and I probably wouldn’t have. Yet without any provocation what-so-ever, NDT accuse me of calling Dan a racist, an act which I have not ever done, accused me of calling Dan an extremist, which I did not and never have, and worst, that I want Dan to kill himself, which, in the end IS only a hairs-lenth off from accusing me of wanting to kill Dan.

    These are vile accusations.

    Every single one of these charges I have proven demonstrably and absolutely false.

    I ask you – Does a man with integrity, when shown that he has made numerous blatantly false accusations, not apologize?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 7:46 pm - June 23, 2013

  107. By the way, I noticed that the link to the racist, anti-Semitic website you posted in the lengthy thread some weeks ago has been removed. Glad to see you’ve come around. Kudos.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 23, 2013 @ 7:47 pm - June 23, 2013

  108. I ask you – Does a man with integrity, when shown that he has made numerous blatantly false accusations, not apologize?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 7:46 pm – June 23, 2013

    Actually, you’ve never answered that, Sonicfrog.

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Do the LGBT community, Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Savage and his public wish that Dan and SC.Swampfox were dead?

    Do Gillibrand, Coons, and Pelosi lack integrity and honesty for claiming that Dan and SC.Swampfox are racists, extremists, and murderer who want to kill poor babies — and do the LGBT community, the Obama Party, and Barack Obama himself lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting them?

    Does Joe Biden lack honesty and integrity for his claims that Dan and SC.Swampfox want to enslave African-Americans and put them in chains?

    Does Barack Obama lack honesty and integrity for his claims that people like Dan and SC.Swampfox who criticize or disagree with him are doing so out of racism?

    Do the organization Truth Wins Out, plus its leaders Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen, plus their donors, the Human Rights Campaign, the Obama Party, and all others who endorse and support them lack honesty and integrity for their claims about Dan?

    And does Jon Huntsman lack integrity and honesty for his and his family’s calling all social conservatives and Tea Party members racists, homophobes, bigots, and extremists, and claiming that Republicans like Dan and SC.Swampfox have the mental capacity of three-year-olds?

    Every conservative here knows, Sonicfrog, that you do NOT, have NEVER, and will NEVER apply the rules to yourself or to your fellow conservative-haters.

    You attempt to silence us by using our own principles against us. That is straight out of the malicious Alinsky Rules for Radicals, and it marks you as what you are — a malicious, anti-conservative bigot whose only concern is power and the destruction of conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 7:59 pm - June 23, 2013

  109. Iggy: I was always ‘around’ as you mean it, but it is stunning that you’ve managed to say something nice to me. Kudos back! ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 8:02 pm - June 23, 2013

  110. The answer is simple (and I’ve been saying it all along). NDT and sf are both guilty of not “taking it outside”, to their blogs/email. But sf has gone farther. He has publicly called for his opponent to be banned.

    That’s really it. NDT has not. If he had, I’d ride him. I view it an extra layer of incivility, beyond the ordinary.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 7:25 pm – June 23, 2013

    Yup.

    And it won’t happen, because that’s not my prerogative, nor is it in line with my belief that the proper response to speech is more speech.

    What Sonicfrog wants to do is to set himself up as arbiter of who stays and who goes, for the simple reason that it allows him to silence and punish dissent. You need not have an argument if you can, like Madame Defarge, simply go running to the council to have people denounced and executed.

    The interesting part is how Sonicfrog blatantly states that Bruce, Dan, and ILC are dishonest, hypocritical, and lack integrity for not enforcing the rules the way Sonicfrog wants them enforced and for not banning the conservatives who Sonicfrog wants banned. It seems as though Sonicfrog’s respect and friendship for Bruce, Dan, and ILC is conditional on their being in complete agreement with him.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 8:08 pm - June 23, 2013

  111. I don’t want to give the left any ammunition against us and I’d rather not be associated with a blog that contains such links (as Vince and I tried to explain — perhaps imperfectly), so I’m glad it’s gone.

    I’m not a mean guy, just blunt. Don’t take anything I post here personally; it’s not intended as such and it’s just not that important.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 23, 2013 @ 8:11 pm - June 23, 2013

  112. The answer is simple (and I’ve been saying it all along). NDT and sf are both guilty of not “taking it outside”, to their blogs/email. But sf has gone farther. He has publicly called for his opponent to be banned.

    That’s really it. NDT has not. If he had, I’d ride him. I view it an extra layer of incivility, beyond the ordinary.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 7:25 pm – June 23, 2013

    Yes… I’ve called for him to be banned. There have been multiple cases when liberals have been banned for personal attacks, many of those attacks were of much less magnitude than falsely accusing me of calling Dan a racist, extremist, and wanting Dan to kill himself.

    If you’re going to have rules, and if you want them to mean anything, they should be enforce, even if the offender is one of the team. Do you really want Gay Patriot to be known as a blog where the rules are only enforced against those who are not considered Conservatives, and friendlies get a free pass?????????

    And, show me in the rules where it says that rightfully calling someone out for multiple repeat offense of personal attacks, and that someone will not own up to his slanderous statements, and say that the rules should be applied for those multiple repeat offenses, is a bannable offense.

    One more time… Here is the rule:

    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

    Part of your argument against having NDT banned is that…well… he’s a Conservative. And a ton of rationalizations follow. You wrote:

    3) [sf] Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”To paraphrase a comment you made today when talking about the double standard between Paula Dean and Bill Maher:

    “Translation: When conservatives do it, let’s rationalize it!”

    (Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 4:01 pm – June 23, 2013)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 8:16 pm - June 23, 2013

  113. NDT wrote:

    Actually, you’ve never answered that, Sonicfrog.

    Do the LGBT community, organizations like GLAAD, SiriusXM, the Huffington Post, and the Obama Party lack integrity and honesty for endorsing and supporting Signorile and his calls for Dan and SC.Swampfox to kill themselves?

    Am I, or do I represent any of those groups or people?

    No. So AGAIN you misrepresent me.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 8:19 pm - June 23, 2013

  114. There have been multiple cases when liberals have been banned for personal attacks

    And, it wasn’t my call. Nor yours.

    I mean that both in the sense that I didn’t necessarily agree with it, and in the sense that, even if I had agreed, it still was not my call to make.

    Somebody owns this blog, and runs it as “the Internet home for the American gay conservative”. And it ain’t you. Deal with it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 8:25 pm - June 23, 2013

  115. Important word bolded.

    Yes… I’ve called for him to be banned. There have been multiple cases when liberals have been banned for personal attacks, many of those attacks were of much less magnitude than falsely accusing me of calling Dan a racist, extremist, and wanting Dan to kill himself.

    So that’s really all this is about, Sonicfrog; you want me banned, and you are going to namecall, smear, and bash ILC, Bruce, and Dan as dishonest, lacking in integrity, not caring about the blog, etc. until you get what you want.

    Which rather proves the point. You are not interested in the quality of dialogue or of the effect of namecalling; instead, you are interested only in manipulating and abusing the rules to get the people you don’t like silenced, and you can namecall and abuse ILC, Bruce, and Dan as much as you want.

    As ILC so beautifully put it, “If he is like his fellow lefties, then “the common way to solve our problems” that he has in mind is: Lefties win. Conservatives give up, die, go away, etc.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 8:25 pm - June 23, 2013

  116. Am I, or do I represent any of those groups or people?

    No. So AGAIN you misrepresent me.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 8:19 pm – June 23, 2013

    And yet you cannot simply comment on whether their behavior indicates a lack of honesty and integrity.

    Mhm.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 8:26 pm - June 23, 2013

  117. Somebody owns this blog, and runs it as “the Internet home for the American gay conservative”. And it ain’t you. Deal with it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 8:25 pm – June 23, 2013

    Which Sonicfrog will not, ILC.

    He is going to sit here and throw his temper tantrums until he gets me banned.

    What makes it funny is his current screaming fit that you, Bruce, and Dan are awful, dishonest hypocrites who lack integrity because you won’t do what he wants and obey his interpretation of what is and isn’t good behavior.

    Doesn’t it remind you of a child screaming at his parents “I hate you! You’re abusing me! You’re mean and awful and BAD PEOPLE!”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2013 @ 8:28 pm - June 23, 2013

  118. One more time… Here is the rule:

    One more time… Here is what I personally – I, for one – think of non-conservatives waltzing into the blog, conducting lengthy fights (I don’t care who threw the first punch), making incivil demands like “so-and-so should be banned!!1! eleventy!”, and then to top it off, lecturing about consistency / The Roolz:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/04/26/the-internet-home-for-the-american-gay-conservative/

    (ILC puts on noise-cancelling headphones)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 9:50 pm - June 23, 2013

  119. The Demonrat comrades are unthinking people. They vote and are manipulated through emotional appeal, so smear tactics is that Party leaders can use.

    Comment by Paul — June 23, 2013 @ 10:08 pm - June 23, 2013

  120. If you want to see a perfect example of this manipulation in action and how it works on base emotions, just walk into a room full of libs and say, “Palin,” and watch the Pavlovian response that occurs.

    Comment by Paul — June 23, 2013 @ 10:11 pm - June 23, 2013

  121. What, exactly, is it that Sonicfrog has done to visit such a torrent of iniquities on his head? Having read this entire, putrid, noxious commentary thread from beginning to end, I must say that I can’t find it.

    He is not a liberal; he is a libertarian. Go and learn what that means. My understanding of his beliefs, insofar as it concerns the Tea Party, is that he distrusts its dividedness. That it can’t figure out what it wants to be when it grows up.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, Sonic. That’s MY take on the opinions you’ve stated about the Tea Party.

    For the record, I question the same thing. Go ahead and attack me for that. Just bring it.

    As for this “your Obama party” crap, I’ll tell you whose party Obama’s is. It’s yours — every single one of you who toadied to Empire for eight years under Bush and who will go right back to doing it as soon as another despot with an “R” in front of his name is back in charge. I voted for Obama because I (however naively) hoped for all that hopey-changiness that we were promised. I repudiated Obama. When will you repudiate your fantasies of seeing a Republican, with the same power as Obama, back in the White House?

    When the next Republican is elected, however despotic he or she is, you will say nothing. Thus will the Soviet State of Amerika continue to be built as the republic built by our founders is dismantled, brick by brick.

    I’ll tell you a truth about the Tea Party few commenters here have had the gumption to admit. It’s trying to go in two different directions at the same time. It panders to social conservative dominionists, even as it claims to be libertarian. In two-facedness, it lies to us all.

    “Obama Party,” my butt. If you permit yourself to serve as a willing dupe for dominionism, you are an enemy of this country and all its stands for. Figure out which side you stand on. You cannot possibly serve two masters.

    Excuse Sonicfrog for saying so. And Sonic, excuse me if I put my words in your mouth.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 12:13 am - June 24, 2013

  122. Sorry we’re not in sync, Lori. Stated my view simply, at #105.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 12:37 am - June 24, 2013

  123. Lori… You pretty much got it right.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 12:40 am - June 24, 2013

  124. #122 — ILC, I get what you said in #105. And I respect that as a blogger here, you have to exercise restraint and do what you feel is best for the blog.

    But seriously, how can you stomach some of this stuff? You are a libertarian — I know that. Your principles are solid. When you hear mealy-mouthing for dominionism, how can it not make you at least a little ill?

    Dominionists want us dead. Period. There may be people in the Tea Party who don’t know that. But they’re trafficking with evil.

    When that local Tea Party chapter called a speaker who once stated all gays should be executed, that did it for me. I don’t buy the excuse that he was speaking, for the TP, on a different subject. That they would consider such a monster worth listening to on ANY subject discredited their movement, once and for all, for me.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 12:56 am - June 24, 2013

  125. I believe that the fundamental unit of humanity is the individual person, and that this means each of us must think for ourselves. I am, therefore, never on one “side” one hundred percent of the time. Someday I’ll need to answer to my Maker for the decisions I made and the stands I chose to take, and none of those with whom I chose to ally myself — if I did so because I thought it was easy to just pick a side — with be standing there with me.

    That makes some people here angry, because it looks as if I can’t decide which “side” to be on. As a matter of fact, I don’t think either “side” is right — or wrong — one hundred percent of the time.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 22, 2013 @ 6:25 pm – June 22, 2013

    Versus:

    “Obama Party,” my butt. If you permit yourself to serve as a willing dupe for dominionism, you are an enemy of this country and all its stands for. Figure out which side you stand on. You cannot possibly serve two masters.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 12:13 am – June 24, 2013

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2013 @ 12:57 am - June 24, 2013

  126. When you hear mealy-mouthing for dominionism, how can it not make you at least a little ill?

    I haven’t heard it. You and I have different views/experiences of the Tea Party. Again, sorry we’re not in sync. I respect you… so, I wish we were. [Update 6/28: At the time I wrote that, I had no idea of the personal attacks Lori would launch in subsequent comments. I do not endorse, approve or agree with any of her personal attacks. --Jeff]

    #83, Tea Party to me, means:

    …supporters (like heliotrope or Dan Blatt) or leaders (like Palin). Religious – maybe sometimes; homophobic – Rarely, if ever; dominionist – No; liberty-loving, fiscal-conservative and pro-capitalist – Yes.

    If you’ve seen dominionism at meetings you’ve been to, I’m not about to argue with your observations; I’ll keep an eye open for it, at the next TP rally I happen to go to, or next TP web site I happen to visit.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 1:10 am - June 24, 2013

  127. #125 — NDT, the “sides” to which I referred in one of those quotes are not the same as those in the other. And you damned well know it. You are deliberately distorting what I said.

    I do not side with either the Right or the Left politically all the time. I choose sides there on the basis of which side — on any given issue — chooses freedom or statism. Liberty or tyranny.

    Dominionists are always, for me, the opposition. They are statists. They are tyrants. You cannot be a loyal American and support dominionism. You cannot support two masters.

    Hope that makes it clear.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 2:11 am - June 24, 2013

  128. #126 — ILC, if threatening to kill all gays is not dominionism, I don’t know what is.

    How on earth can anyone get outraged about some (manufactured) charge that Sonicfrog (supposedly) wants Dan and Bruce to kill themselves — yet mealy-mouth dominionism, which OPENLY DECLARES that it intends to kill ALL gays — Dan and Bruce most certainly included?

    I agree that NDT owes Sonicfrog a huge apology.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 2:14 am - June 24, 2013

  129. Lori – I’m afraid I don’t understand the reference to the Tea Party threatening to kill all gays. Point me to what you have in mind?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 3:23 am - June 24, 2013

  130. #129 — I will state what I am trying to say more precisely. There are people in the Tea Party who are dominionists, and one of the aims of dominionism is the liquidation of undesirables like gays. When the Rev. Steven Anderson, of Eternal Word Church in Tempe, called for all gays to be given the death penalty, he did so because he is a dominionist. For them, that’s pretty standard cant.

    That does not mean that “the Tea Party” — meaning absolutely every member of the movement, down to the last man, woman and child — has threatened to kill gays. Many, if not most, would likely react with disbelief if they were told there are those in their midst with such an agenda. That does not mean that they are not in acquiescence with it. Ignorance of evil is not an excuse.

    They need to do some serious housecleaning. The good people need to rise up and put a stop to dominionist attempts to take over a movement born to challenge out-of-control big government. If they don’t do that, it will become something dedicated to the total opposite.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 4:12 am - June 24, 2013

  131. They need to do some serious housecleaning.

    May be. I haven’t been around the TP in-person, recently. I agree that, if I ever do run into homophobia or dominionism, it will be something worth objecting to, or at least walking out on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 4:31 am - June 24, 2013

  132. Jeff…

    I’m currious. You make it clear that personal disputes should be taken off line to either email correspondence or on ones own blog. You and I have had plenty of tiffs in the last two years, including one where I admitted that I went too far (integrity). Yet in all those disputes did you ever contact me through either venue. And it’s not hard to get a hold of me, as my moniker “Sonicfrog” contains the URL directly to my blog, and Dan, the one that NDT accuses me of wanting to kill himself, has my email.

    NDT., on whose blog I also used to comment, also could click on that URL or get my email at any time.

    Really…. I’m very easy to find.

    Why have neither one of you followed your own rule?

    God i hate typing on my kindle.

    Comment by sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 5:51 am - June 24, 2013

  133. 130….

    Lori. My point precisely. The rank and file of the Tea Pparty, many if not most have the best of intention, which is why Ive defended them over and over again, a point ive demonstrated on links on this very very thread, something completely ignored by NDT, and something Jeff also has not acknowledged.

    The beauty of having blogged for 8 years is that if someone misrepresents you on a topic you’ve written about, its easy to show that malfeasance. When that evidence is willfully ignore…. Nothing I can do about that.

    Comment by sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 6:04 am - June 24, 2013

  134. This is an example of the existence of something the Right wants to pretend exists solely on the Left: political correctness. Sonic, you and I have both challenged conservative political correctness.

    Republicans, and conservatives in general, made a deal with the devil when they sanctioned the unholy alliance between extreme, dominionist social conservatives and libertarian-leaning (genuine) conservatives. They wanted a “big tent.” What they’ve gotten, instead, is a huge and very unholy mess.

    We’re not supposed to point that out here. It makes some people uncomfortable. Libertarianism and statist social conservatism — which can easily morph into dominionism — are utterly incompatible with each other. There’s no way the same political party, or the same political movement, can possibly accommodate both, because they have diametrically opposing goals. They move in two totally opposite directions.

    The people who don’t want to hear this are trying to play nice with both factions. But libertarians are perfectly willing to be honest about the fact that they can’t logically coexist in the same place as statist social conservatives. It’s the soc-cons who keep trying to pretend this can be done. That’s because they advance by stealth, and want to keep their true objectives hidden.

    Government cannot be shrunken smaller and grown bigger at the same time. The Constitution cannot simultaneously be protected and tossed to the winds. Those are plain, simple, logical facts. But they cause discomfort to the people a lot of the commenters here are bending themselves into pretzels trying to please.

    Thus are you accused of saying all sorts of crazy things. The sheer stupidity of the charges against you show a certain desperation. If I were you, I’d ask Dan or Bruce to state — for the record — whether they really think you’ve ever said you want them to kill themselves. That would put an end to that particular foolishness right there.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 6:15 am - June 24, 2013

  135. As an addition to #134, I’d like to say that the Tea Party is trying to straddle that same, widening chasm. They’re like Wile E. Coyote, watching in panic as the crack between their feet turns into a canyon. Soon they’ll hold up the “Mother!” sign and plunge into it. For now, they either play dumb-and-innocent or viciously attack anyone who points out their peril.

    Many Tea Party people joined because they want to accomplish what the movement originally set out to do: tame and shrink big government and restore individual liberty. But there are a growing number of others in their midst who are stealthily working against those very goals.

    It’s a bummer to hear that. But before they hold up the “Mother!” sign and plunge, those who really do care about the future of this country just may want to listen.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 6:31 am - June 24, 2013

  136. If I were you, I’d ask Dan or Bruce to state — for the record — whether they really think you’ve ever said you want them to kill themselves. That would put an end to that particular foolishness right there.

    I contacted Dan as soon as this unholy mess started. I haven’t yet heard from him, but he’s usually pretty busy on the weekends.

    For the record, I’ve been corresponding with Dan for many years. I’m not sure if the email trail goes back as far, but I’ve been commenting here since April 2005, when Gay Patriot was in its infancy. I’m not sure if Dan was even on board yet. I have a very long history at GP, and although I’ve had differences with both men, I consider them blog-pals and friends. Which is why the accusation that i want Dan to kill himself is so far over the line.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 6:40 am - June 24, 2013

  137. Here is one of my earliest posts concerning the Tea Party, a post from July 2009. I write:

    I was afraid of this. I am seeing more and more non-fiscal issues getting pushed into the TP agenda. From a link I provided in the previous post, a quote from one of the Tea Party organizers in Madera confirms that the message of fiscal responsibility is slowly being pushed to the side by those with other agendas:

    The “Tea Parties” initially started as a tax protest movement after Democrats swept the White House and Congress. Rogers wants the “Did You Know” section on the handout to let the public know their movement like the Declaration of Independence isn’t just about taxes. “If people don’t wake up concerning our freedoms, we’re going to find ourselves completely stifled and unable to be a free people anymore.”

    I haven’t seen the “DYK” part of the handout yet, but…..

    Dammit People. Just stick to fiscal stuff. Leave the rest to others!!!!

    I have been at odds with my blog-pals over at Gay Patriot, in stating that the reason the Republicans lost their way was because after the Republicans won on the “Contract With America”, fiscal conservatism took a back seat to social conservatism. Sorry Dan, but sooner or later you’re just going to have to admit I’m right on this.

    I joined with the Tea Party movement at its formation. I linked my Facebook page to theirs. I saw very early on that it was getting hijacked. Yeah, I’ve been critical of the movement, but no where have I said that someone should go kill themselves, though I’m sure i have some choice words when Alan Keys tried to muscle his way into the movement..

    Note to that I am challenging Dan becaue he was, in my opinion, turning a blind eye to the infection of the Tea Party movement. Do you detect any hint what-so-ever that I want the guy to kill himself?

    PS. My back is hurting which is keeping me up… What the heck are you doing up so early??? :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 6:58 am - June 24, 2013

  138. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m enjoying watching the two “libertarians” demand purity tests and ritual denunciations in order for you to be “real”.

    Meanwhile, Sonic, the answer is simple. You chose to make this a stating ground for your demands that I be banned. You have spent the last three days whining to Dan, whining to ILC, whining to Bruce, whining to the World Wide Web, and demanding that I be banned or it will “prove” that Bruce, Dan, and ILC are dishonest hypocrites who lack integrity.

    In short, you and Lori have decided to play “Mean Girls” and pull the power trip of getting someone you don’t like denounced and punished by threatening OTHER people with punishment and denunciation. You are both making it clear that you have no respect for Dan, Bruce, and ILC unless they agree with you and do exactly as you say, just like you make it clear you have no respect for the Tea Party unless they agree with you and do exactly as you say.

    I do not play that game. My argument is with both of you, and I do not care whether Dan, Bruce, or ILC “side” with me or not, nor do I have any intention of demanding they do or acknowledge that I am “right”. They are adults with their own opinions and perspectives, and I choose to treat them as such.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2013 @ 8:15 am - June 24, 2013

  139. Dear Patriots,

    I’ve been requested by the moderator(s) of this blog to discontinue any further commenting from this point forward and am choosing to oblige in exchange that GP enforce their rules regarding a certain commenter were he to continue in the particular fashion he has been conducting himself in from this point forward.

    It has been a pleasure interacting with you over my years at Gay Patriot. I’ve enjoyed the back-and-fourth and your quest for the truth. I’ve learned things from you, whether or not we may have agree or disagreed, but the discussions have been very spirited and beneficial. Despite what you may think, though my intentions have not always been genuine, I often did come hear to learn. I did my best to argue for what I thought was right, and, believe it or not, you have all helped modify some of my political views. I’m leaving here just a little bit more conservative than when I entered, if that means anything.

    Thank you to Bruce and Dan (Blatt) for providing this forum for debate and allowing me to participate. I haven’t always been perfect, but I found my experiences here invaluable, regardless. As this will be my final comment and I will have no outlet to respond, I ask that Jeff, as a moderator, doesn’t insert any of his modifications within my post and just allow my final post to be, well, mine.

    If you would like to correspond with me, you can find my email address at the contact tab of my blog. A special shout out to Rusty, Sonic Frog, Ignatius, Lori Heine, Helio, VTK, The_Livewire, and ILC.

    Good luck and take care.

    Comment by VS — June 24, 2013 @ 10:16 am - June 24, 2013

  140. In short, you and Lori have decided to play “Mean Girls” and pull the power trip of getting someone you don’t like

    There have been plenty of people that “I don’t Like” that have contributed to this blog. I’ve not asked that they should be banned.

    Why.

    Because, even though we’ve violently verbally disagreed on something, none of them have have falsely accused me of wanted Dan to kill himself. That crossed the line.

    NDT. You continue to slander me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist.

    Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 10:24 am - June 24, 2013

  141. You chose to make this a stating ground for your demands that I be banned. You have spent the last three days whining to Dan, whining to ILC, whining to Bruce, whining to the World Wide Web, and demanding that I be banned or it will “prove” that Bruce, Dan, and ILC are dishonest hypocrites who lack integrity.

    Your words not mine.

    Which is the better friend: one who calls out a friend for making a mistake, or one who remains silent when the friend is showing weakness in enforcing a principle they themselves have laid down?

    Ultimately, for someone who does have principles and integrity, that’s not a hard call.

    Unlike some your friends, who over the years for some reason either cower under to you, rationalize away your outlandish behaviors, or agree with you, I have no fear of calling out my friends when I think they are making a mistake. If you set a basic rule for everyone to follow, and then let someone blatantly break that rule over and over and over and over and over again….. I don’t care if you’re friend or foe, I’m gonna call you on it.

    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

    You have slandered me and committed hundreds of personal attacks against me and others. It is indeed time for them to take a stand one way or the other.

    If the fact that I’m not letting this go gets me banned… That is ultimately their call.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 11:28 am - June 24, 2013

  142. Vince, I’m sorry you’re leaving. I will miss your contributions, as I respect and admire the counterpoint you provide here. I will also miss your humor and light touch — always welcome at a political forum. I’m privileged to have met you and come to slightly know a good person who cares just as much about the issues we discuss as any. Remember that long, difficult thread which got sidetracked due to a link posted to a racist website? I enjoyed that fight because you were there with me and we were right. Take care, friend.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2013 @ 11:54 am - June 24, 2013

  143. Which is the better friend: one who calls out a friend for making a mistake, or one who remains silent when the friend is showing weakness in enforcing a principle they themselves have laid down?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 11:28 am – June 24, 2013

    Except for this:

    There have been plenty of people that “I don’t Like” that have contributed to this blog. I’ve not asked that they should be banned.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 10:24 am – June 24, 2013

    Amazing how not banning these people didn’t constitute a “violation” of integrity, nor did it mean that Bruce and Dan and ILC weren’t living up to their “principles”, nor did you complain about it and insist that you had to save Bruce and Dan and ILC’s reputations by requiring them to do so.

    No. It’s all about getting me banned. That’s it. You want me banned, and you are going to hold your breath and kick and scream until you get it.

    Case in point:

    It is indeed time for them to take a stand one way or the other.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 11:28 am – June 24, 2013

    I have a short answer to that one, Sonic: if you won’t be my friend or respect me unless I do exactly what you demand, you never were my friend or respected me in the first place.

    Which is why I am NOT demanding that you be banned, or running screaming to Bruce and Dan and ILC and insisting that “it’s either him or me”. They are adults and they can decide as they want; furthermore, your screaming that I be banned when you previously bragged how you WEREN’T demanding people be banned for bannable offenses is a far better argument that you are acting out of personal animus, bigotry, and hate than any I could ever make.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - June 24, 2013

  144. I have a short answer to that one, Sonic: if you won’t be my friend….

    OMG… You accused me, withut any provocation, of wanting Dan to kill himself, and you actually have the nuts to write “Sonic: if you won’t be my friend.”!

    Thanks for that laugh. The week is young, and I doubt I’ll find anything that will give me such a chuckle!!! :-)

    PS. You don’t remember well, do you. We WERE friends. Go back to the early days of your blog. We had decent exchanges. But when I diverged from the Conservative path…

    Well, lets just say it wasn’t my actions or continuous personal attacks that brought us to this point. And by saying thta I want Dan to kill himself, you’ve gone too far.

    NDT. You continue to slander me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist.

    Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 12:27 pm - June 24, 2013

  145. Hey, you’re the one bitching because you don’t think the rules should apply to you. Either the rules matter to “True Conservatives”, or they don’t. To you, they obviously don’t. You probably should have a government job. you’d do great.

    This will be my last post on this thread….. Unless NDT unleashes yet another unwarranted personal attack that merits a response.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 12:31 pm - June 24, 2013

  146. I don’t expect you to be my friend, Sonic, for a very simple reason; you clearly can’t be friends with people who don’t do as you say.

    That’s not an issue that I have. It’s not as important to me that everyone agrees with what I say as it is to you.

    If Dan or Bruce or ILC tells you to knock it off, you’re going to go back to your blog and bomb them with invective, as you already have, question their integrity and honesty, as you already have, and demand that they ban the people you dislike, as you already have. That’s because you will never agree with or accept their decisions as valid because they don’t line up with your own, and you are of the mind that this provides justification for you to harangue them into agreeing with you.

    Do you SERIOUSLY think Bruce, Dan, and ILC are afraid of me? I am an Internet nonentity. Life goes on whether I’m here or not. GayPatriot is what it is because of them, not because of me. They put together the content, they reserve the bandwidth, and because of that, they have damn well earned the right to run the place as they see fit.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2013 @ 12:41 pm - June 24, 2013

  147. Sonicfrog @ #137:

    I joined with the Tea Party movement at its formation. I linked my Facebook page to theirs. I saw very early on that it was getting hijacked. Yeah, I’ve been critical of the movement, but no where have I said that someone should go kill themselves, though I’m sure i have some choice words when Alan Keys tried to muscle his way into the movement..

    Sonicfrog:

    You must know that the TEA Party “movement” was a spontaneous groundswell that lacked national organization and leadership. It spread across the nation like “an idea whose time has come.” [“All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” - Victor Hugo.]

    Ergo, “when you joined the TEA Party at its formation” you went into it with your own pre-conceived notions of what it was and what it should be.

    I am totally confused by your rant-inducing choice of words when you “saw very early on that it was getting hijacked.

    “Hijacked” from what? Your preconceived notions? Why, pray tell, would your preconceived notions not be an equal “hijacking” in the minds of others engaged in “the TEA Party movement at its formation”?

    Charles Péguy wrote: “Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” Mussolini credited Péguy with being the wellspring for Fascism. But Mussolini couldn’t define Fascism, so his credit to Péguy is meaningless. I mention this because any “movement at its formation” is tending to the political and is therefore subject to splintering as competing interests crop up. Mussolini saw Fascism in the words of Péguy, but the words are essentially neutral and benign.

    Charles Péguy also noted that “he who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.”

    Now apply that to the TEA Party and you arrive at the common impulse underlying its formation and rapid spread.

    Back to Péguy: “Surrender is essentially an operation by means of which we set out explaining instead of acting.”

    Sonic, you have pronounced the TEA Party as “hijacked” and called out Alan Keyes and his attempt to “muscle his way into the movement..”

    Huh? Show me the evidence that the TEA Party is any more “organized” and nationally led than it was at its formation. Are there “unaffiliated” regional “chapters” of the unorganized movement that have some social conservative objectives? Of course.

    Ideological purity always ends up in what Péguy meant when he wrote: “Tyranny is always better organised than freedom”. Péguy was not promoting tyranny, but people who promote ideological purity are.

    “Libertarians” consistently scrap like junkyard dogs over ideological purity while screaming bloody murder if they are chided about the tyranny of libertarianism. How the heck do you “enforce” libertarianism on people like social conservative who try to “hijack” the amorphous concept and mold it to their political agenda?

    This is really, really basic stuff, Sonicfrog. You present yourself as being a bit above the common discourse and by that stance you open yourself to the hot seat of being a tad bit superior.

    I accept and welcome and seek out superior reasoning. I steal it. I love it. I use it. I master it. I don’t scratch around for dumb stuff and or whining or snit-fits.

    Perhaps you can think out your bitch with the TEA Party movement and express it in a cogent, productive manner. If you had to assassinate one or two people to get the movement back on the course you desire, who would they be? Or, if you were Eric Holder and you could manipulate the rules and the enforcement, who would you target? In other words, how would you apply the tyranny of your ideological purity?

    Is the TEA Party movement a “vile stew of undigested notions or a serious and eclectic attempt to rethink politics”? [Robert Zaretsy's words quoted from the Virginia Quarterly Review: Winter 1996, pp. 149-155. They were not about the TEA Party, however.]

    This should be taken as an intellectual challenge, not an abuse of your person. I am not normally in that game unless fools consistently engage me in foolish, narcissistic pseudo-debate. As you may have determined, my ability to suffer fools gladly is terribly truncated.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 1:33 pm - June 24, 2013

  148. VS, big Hugz, will follow you at your blog

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/d2b53520e10f0e460d3b67f206809e4b_zps1f7cead5.jpg

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2013 @ 2:23 pm - June 24, 2013

  149. Oh, Helio…where does one begin? Which of your charming deflections does one address first?

    With the scare quotes around “libertarians” I won’t bother. If you don’t consider me a “real” libertarian, I can certainly live with the loss. I no longer care what you consider me.

    Is it an insistence on ideological purity to point out that two opposing goals cannot both be achieved by the same movement? That’s an old dodge, Helio, and it’s unworthy of you. You’re a smart guy…you pepper your sardonic little musings with quotes from famous intellectuals you know most commenters will never have heard of. Which you evidently hope ends all discussion.

    I’ll say it again. The two main factions in the Tea Party movement seek mutually-irreconcilable goals. Quote whomever you want. Call me a banana slug. Be colorful. Entertain us with your wit.

    And “the tyranny of libertarianism?” That was a nice touch. Throw in the word tyranny, and insto-presto, prove your point. Only liberty and smaller government are not amorphous concepts. They are basic, but — like pornography — we know ‘em when we see ‘em. We also know violations of them when we see those.

    The constant, feverish references to things like assassination and demands for people’s suicides are also instructive, from both you and NDT. You must think about such “solutions” a great deal, because, like the dog to his vomit, you continually return to them.

    When has Sonic ever suggested Dan or Bruce kill themselves? Why never, of course. NDT seems to think that if he keeps accusing him of that, the charge will stick by dint of sheer repetition. When has Sonic ever suggested that anyone in the Tea Party movement be assassinated? Again, the answer is never. But keep flinging that monkey poop, and see if it will stick.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 2:31 pm - June 24, 2013

  150. #137 — I was up at three-something Arizona time. I’m working on two novels and several essays, and I’ve just taken on an associate editorship at a literary magazine.

    I also wanted to track the Super Moon. It was beautiful, and I didn’t want to miss it. It got me wondering. Might it, perhaps, be responsible for the utter lunacy of this commentary thread?

    It’s a thought.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 2:38 pm - June 24, 2013

  151. An additional comment on #147. Why must the Tea Party be a well-organized, centralized entity for the problems Sonic and I point out to be realities?

    It is precisely because it is NOT well-organized or centralized that these things have happened. Nor would centralization be the right way to stop them.

    Pointing out that problems exist is not the same thing as blaming commenters here for those problems. As individuals, all each of us can do is point them out or understand them. The vehemence and viciousness of those who persist in denying or minimizing those problems — and attacking those who point them out — shows just how sheeple-like so many of the commenters have become.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 2:43 pm - June 24, 2013

  152. Also — to VS — You’ll be missed here. I always enjoyed the way you stood up for yourself, even when I didn’t agree with you. You are courageous enough to keep showing up on commentary threads where you know you’ll be attacked, and holding your ground. We need more of that in the blogosphere.

    You are always welcome at my blog. Both when we agree and when we don’t.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 2:45 pm - June 24, 2013

  153. Dear Patriots,

    I’ve been requested by the moderator(s) of this blog to discontinue any further commenting from this point forward

    FTR, that’s something I have no knowledge of, at this time. (I’m not saying it isn’t so; my role is second-string, so I may well not be in the know.)

    and am choosing to oblige in exchange that GP enforce their rules regarding a certain commenter…

    “In exchange…”

    I’m all for people trading values. That means, trading good things. “I’ll give you the benefit of my good work, if you give me the benefit of your good money” is but one example.

    This isn’t trading values; it’s trading negatives or “dis-values”. “I’ll stop violating your natural right to be free of me, if you help isolate that person I fight with.” I can’t feel respect for it, sorry.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - June 24, 2013

  154. Heliotrope wrote:

    I am totally confused by your rant-inducing choice of words when you “saw very early on that it was getting hijacked.”

    “Hijacked” from what?

    As I have stated, I thought the Tea Party was going to be an organization that stuck strictly to fiscal matters. It became clear to me that factions that have held other priorities as more important than fiscal matters were suddenly calling themselves Tea Party leaders / candidates, thus destroying the actual effectiveness that the Tea Party could have achieved. People who should have had very high standing in the movement, such as John Huntsman and TP Godfather Ron Paul were not welcomed, even though both had among the strongest record of fiscally conservative.

    Instead, you got candidates like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Christine O’Donnell, who were not fiscal conservatives.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some very good people within the ranks of the Tea Party, and some organizations, such as the one here in the Central Valley, have done a pretty good job of keeping the other issues out and sticking to fiscal priorities. But on the larger national level, in my opinion, they got hijacked by the very far right wing of the Republican Party, a faction that had, up until the creation of the Tea Party, which suddenly looked like the path to winning elections, didn’t give much heed to being fiscally responsible.

    This should be taken as an intellectual challenge, not an abuse of your person. I am not normally in that game unless fools consistently engage me in foolish, narcissistic pseudo-debate.

    I don’t recall you and I ever getting into one of those kinds of battles. We may very well have, but it was a one-off. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, we all say things that we regret. Even though we’ve disagreed on quite a few things, you may have been terse, but you’ve been civil. That’s been your pattern.

    Helio, I thank you, and all the other commenters here who have not descended to the level of saying things like I want Dan to kill himself.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - June 24, 2013

  155. Lori,

    In all good faith, I addressed nothing to you or about you in my comments at #147.

    Sure, I know you are an ardent libertarian and I have no quarrel with that. I believe we have addressed one another on this topic and I can’t not recall ever having expressed any rancor over our possible differing views.

    My “” around libertarian are not “scare” quotes or meant to be: I don’t even know what “scare” quotes are or why “” have achieved some sort of modern pejorative meaning which is aimed at someone as an accusation.

    In my comments @ #147, I quoted Robert Zaretsy’s words concerning Fascism and applied them to the TEA Party. They are equally applicable to libertarianism: Is libertarianism a “vile stew of undigested notions or a serious and eclectic attempt to rethink politics”?

    Why is it that one regularly encounters screeching and wailing about who and what is “true” (scare quotes again? Not my intent) libertarianism.

    Libertarianism, Fascism, Communisim, Capitalism, Marxism, Socalism, nihilism and on and on and on are all crimped and crammed and rent with ideological fissures, digressions, misdirection, etc. Enter the true believers and keepers of the flame and know-it-all purists.

    Each of us must choose our political paths and decide for ourselves which path we think is the best for us to follow. Representative Democracy is a messy, but durable system for managing compromise as an alternative to tyranny. The power of representative Democracy in the United States has kept a power vacuum from forming and thereby allowing tyranny to enter and take over.

    If libertarianism has the structure and principles to achieve the same remarkable record, it fulfills the “serious and eclectic attempt to rethink politics” requirement.

    Lori, I do not care to trade blows with you. This what you have delivered to me entirely from out of the blue:

    …. Oh, Helio…where does one begin?

    ….. I no longer care what you consider me.

    ….. That’s an old dodge, Helio, and it’s unworthy of you.

    ….. you pepper your sardonic little musings with quotes from famous intellectuals you know most commenters will never have heard of. Which you evidently hope ends all discussion.

    ….. Call me a banana slug. Be colorful. Entertain us with your wit.

    ….. The constant, feverish references to things like assassination and demands for people’s suicides are also instructive

    …. You must think about such “solutions” a great deal, because, like the dog to his vomit, you continually return to them.

    ….. But keep flinging that monkey poop, and see if it will stick.

    I am totally perplexed. I addressed Sonicfrog and I wounded Lori Heine in process and garnered the worst personal drubbing I have received on GayPatriot since some guy showed up and wished me to die and got banned as a result of it.

    I will not be patronizing or play games about context, employing quotes from others or using words according to their proper meanings. Obviously, I stand convicted of some pretty nasty stuff, here. I do not feel it necessary to defend myself in any, but one instance.

    I asked Sonicfrog:

    If you had to assassinate one or two people to get the movement back on the course you desire, who would they be? Or, if you were Eric Holder and you could manipulate the rules and the enforcement, who would you target? In other words, how would you apply the tyranny of your ideological purity?

    Let everyone who is capable of sentience understand that what I asked is the Socratic rhetorical question. (No, I am not comparing myself to Socrates. I poop and he pooped. That much makes us alike. Beyond that, I admire and cherish his logic and method.)

    For clarification, Merriam-Webster defines “Rhetorical Question”: a question not intended to elicit an answer but asked for rhetorical effect often with an assumption that only one answer is possible.

    Naturally, you can not assassinate anyone and get the TEA Party back on course as it is not held under any such force or tyranny. Also, as to Eric Holder and targeting “someone or somebodies” you would go with a shotgun as the IRS did because there is no someone or somebodies who glue the TEA Party units together.

    Now, the fact that the exact same conditions apply to the libertarians is far from coincidental. Nor is it coincidental that any reference to libertarians or libertarianism is so jealously and viscously and angrily monitored for correctness and purity and righteousness in a tyrannical nature by self appointed keepers of the faith on GayPatriot.

    I might add that I am of the notion that every reader on this thread is perfectly capable of looking at the quotes I chose to cite from Charles Péguy and readily understand them. What difference does it make whether Charles Péguy was an intellectual or a pickpocket?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 3:57 pm - June 24, 2013

  156. Helio, I did not intend to give you a flogging. I find myself, in this thread, trying to defend the honor of someone I consider a friend: Sonicfrog. I hate it when people I like go at each other.

    When I first encountered this thread, I thought, “Oh, no! Not again!” I wanted to stay off of it. But Sonic is getting pretty seriously attacked here. His integrity as a human being is being assailed.

    What sort of a person would tell anybody to kill himself? Sonic is not that sort, nor would he ever say such a thing to anyone. It’s as idiotic to accuse him of that as it would be to claim he told Dan or Bruce he wanted them boiled in oil and fed to cannibals.

    You come here, Helio, because you have a more open mind, and a fairer nature, than most social conservatives. You deserve respect for that. But VS, Sonic and some of the others who are regularly attacked here come to this blog for the same reason. They differ in viewpoint from you, but it takes guts for any of us who express often-unpopular opinions to keep coming back and doing it again and again.

    Nobody deserves to be told that they wish somebody would die. The few loonies who have come here saying things like that are separate cases, and should be dealt with separately.

    For the record, I don’t want anybody to die. When Seane-Anna disappears for long stretches of time, I actually worry about her. (By the way, does anybody know where she is?) I’m weird that way. Perhaps, in some ways, being weird is a good thing.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - June 24, 2013

  157. This isn’t trading values; it’s trading negatives or “dis-values”. “I’ll stop violating your natural right to be free of me, if you help isolate that person I fight with.” I can’t feel respect for it, sorry.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

    What it translates to directly is this: “I’ll say I’m sorry IFF (if and ONLY if)** that other person says that they’re wrong.”

    A tactic employed by bratty 5 years olds, that’s what it is.

    ** Definition provided for a certain participant who labors under the delusion that he has an actual understanding of writing and executing code (software) and the logic contained therein.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - June 24, 2013

  158. Sonicfrog,

    Your response is precisely how ladies and gentlemen of merit exchange differences in points of view. I thank you for it.

    You are well aware that Bachmann, Santorum and Palin (my addition) can not be separated from their religious views. Now, you have to assess whether their religious views would overwhelm their core TEA Party views. As a TEA Party small government, fiscal conservative, who wants our economic system as close to capitalism as possible, I have to make that assessment in looking at the candidates. Representative democracy is always the mess of compromise. Christine O’Donnell struck me as which of the Three Stooges was the best choice in Delaware. I understand all the handicappers and their prognostications, but they usually end up being the table with the smartest losers in the room.

    Nationally, it is my observation that Freedomworks.org has meshed the most with the TEAParty. You can go to their site and look over the “community issues” section to see what may offend you as being in the possible “hi-jacked” category.

    I am not satisfied with the support you give your claims that the TEA Party is off in wrong directions in some major way in some important region of the country.

    As you know, when the Democrats and the Republicans write their all but meaningless platforms at convention time, some stuff gets in there just to shut some people up. That is all part of the transition which takes place when “mystery” begins to morph into “politics.” I suppose the TEA Party does at least lip service in some places to people who demand a statement on abortion. But I don’t think the group as whole in that corner of world switch from their fundamental reason for being and shift to overdrive on the abortion issue.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 4:28 pm - June 24, 2013

  159. You come here, Helio, because you have a more open mind, and a fairer nature, than most social conservatives. You deserve respect for that. But VS, Sonic and some of the others who are regularly attacked here come to this blog for the same reason. They differ in viewpoint from you, but it takes guts for any of us who express often-unpopular opinions to keep coming back and doing it again and again.

    That generality is a bit of an indictment. With which I disagree.

    “They” (in quotes because: who, really?) aren’t generally attacked just because their viewpoints are “different” (in quotes because: different from what? even the conservatives here disagree among themselves).

    Speaking for myself, when I’ve felt the need to ‘confront’ in a serious way either of the two names you mentioned, it’s been over behavior much more than viewpoint.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 4:35 pm - June 24, 2013

  160. #159 — ILC, evidently a few of us are taking things said about others personally. I did that with Helio, and you’re doing it with me.

    You are not attacking Sonic, or anyone else. But there are others here who are. The most egregious example, of course, being the accusation that he wants people to kill themselves.

    You aren’t responsible for the fact that someone else has said that. I’m sure you’re tearing out clumps of hair over this whole mess. None of the bloggers here is responsible for what’s going on, and there’s only a limited amount you can do to stop it.

    What can you really do? I’m not sure I know. Maybe nothing more than what you’ve been doing.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 4:49 pm - June 24, 2013

  161. Yeah, it does suck.

    I know the chain of ideas by which NDT arrived at making sf responsible for all the bad things that lefties have said or done to Dan Blatt and conservatives generally. But one can’t agree that the name-calling is justified unless one accepts that entire chain. If any link fails, the name-calling is unjustified. If any link is in serious dispute, the name-calling is premature. Also known as “going out on a limb”.

    NDT is a grownup, he knows when he’s going out on a limb and he chooses to. But then all the same things I just said, apply to the chain of ideas by which sf arrived at his personal attacks on NDT (has zero integrity, should be banned, blah blah blah). So we have two people sitting on shaky limbs, shooting machine guns. That’s how I see it.

    Except of course, one of them then took it to another level (in my view) of trying to “get his way” or have disagreement silenced, and I showed up to try and step on that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 5:08 pm - June 24, 2013

  162. At this point, I believe the current crisis has to be resolved apart from perceptions of personal worth and on the nature and merits of the accusations themselves. Whether another participant considers Person A ‘well-meaning’ and ‘a good man’ or Person B is a personal friend is immaterial, i.e. shouldn’t be part of an impartial, objective solution. (Personally, I don’t think those who publicly, erroneously, and repeatedly accuse others of desiring someone to commit suicide to be well-meaning and good, but that’s also immaterial — but it’s for the record.)

    Does a line enclosing this blog’s propriety exist and if so, has it been crossed? For the sake of this blog and its community of readers/writers, I hope both questions can be answered in the affirmative.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2013 @ 5:13 pm - June 24, 2013

  163. I think a line was crossed, and I’ve said what I think it is. You disagree with me, about what it is. Without getting into which of us is right on that, I’m noting for the record that in my own intent & behavior, I’ve answered your questions “yes”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 24, 2013 @ 5:17 pm - June 24, 2013

  164. Is there more than one person commenting here under the name Ignatius because one of the most vile and totally personal shots taken at me was by a commenter on this site using that name.

    From that point forward, I realized that I should avoid engaging such a soul in the same manner with which I employ when I circle around rabid animals.

    I mention this, because of the old conundrum concerning inmates, the asylum and who fulfills the roles of administration.

    “Noise proves nothing, Often a hen who has laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid.” – Mark Twain

    Or. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    We all err and we can all forgive. Those who are forgiven and go right back to doing the same thing over again are worthy of assessment. Are they capable of civility or are they amoral and playing the odds? Or, tragically, do they have an interfering neurosis?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 5:57 pm - June 24, 2013

  165. There used to be another guy (I assume) who, several months ago, posted under the name Ignatius and asked me why I chose his screen name. Based upon past comment history, it was determined I was the original Ignatius, as I’ve participated here for a few years, though not consistently.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 24, 2013 @ 6:20 pm - June 24, 2013

  166. Thanks. Hopefully “that” Ignatius is the one who was so very, very cowardly in his assault on my character.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 6:23 pm - June 24, 2013

  167. Until I read another thread on this site, I was the typical naif about looking at commenter’s sites.

    Being extremely old fashioned and very gullible when it comes to taking people at face value (until evidence directs otherwise) I operate under the assumption that commenters are posting truthfully and ethically.

    However, I have just returned from “discovering” the words of a frequent commenter here who has written the following on her blog:

    The Tea Party started out with fine intentions. I enthusiastically supported their efforts early on. But the movement has, since then, degenerated into a nest of pseudo-Christian dominionist lunacy.

    When one pins his intellectual credibility on a construction such as a nest of pseudo-Christian dominionist lunacy, he has entered into the deep reaches of the miasma emanating from the penumbra of the monster-in-the-attic zone.

    Wouldn’t it be a wonderful drinking game to flesh out the meaning of “a nest of pseudo-Christian dominionist lunacy“?

    My point in bringing this up is because I firmly believe that anyone who is a peace writing “a nest of pseudo-Christian dominionist lunacy” should have the courtesy and integrity to honestly represent his deep philosophical schisms here when commenting. To hide such vitriolic hate is disingenuous at best or the practice of deception as a strategy.

    It should not be necessary to ferret out fifth columnists by tracking down their wacky, asocial mutterings as they emanate from their comfort zone.

    Deceit is not a positive character trait.

    By all means, let us have the evidence of the degeneration of the TEA Party into “a nest of pseudo-Christian dominionist lunacy.”

    This is heavy duty tin-foil hat stuff.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 6:44 pm - June 24, 2013

  168. To hide such vitriolic hate is disingenuous at best or the practice of deception as a strategy.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

    You mean to say that you’ve never come across some of the wholly anti-Christian cheap shots this person takes with those who disagree with her?
    Like the regular and shitty name calling she engages in when she’s dealing with those nasty rotten anti-Christian bigots who believe in preserving traditional marriage?

    She’s ‘measured’ as long as everything she says is ‘green lighted’.
    When she gets the ‘yellow’ or ‘red’ signal…..not so much.

    Of course, all you have to do is “wind ‘er up and let ‘er go”, and she won’t disappoint.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 6:55 pm - June 24, 2013

  169. #167 — So, Helio, there is something dishonest, or impossible to understand — something requiring the assassination of my character — because I think people who will cheerfully listen to a speaker who advocates murder are guilty of “lunacy?”

    If you regard that as sane behavior, then you are the one who has wandered into a Salvador Dali landscape.

    The members of the Chandler, Arizona Tea Party chapter must have known who Pastor Steven Anderson was. His utterances, proclaiming that all gay people must be executed, were a matter of very public record. Yet they invited him to speak as an authority on the topic of thuggish Mexican border guards.

    A different subject? Yes. But as he posted numerous pictures of himself after having supposedly been beaten up by these guards — AND NOT ONE OTHER PERSON ever came forward to corroborate his story, or to say that such a thing also happened to him or her — that was considered gospel?

    I think he beat himself up. Anybody who advocates the mass destruction of innocent human beings would certainly seem, to me, to be capable of it. But I suppose that’s neither here nor there.

    My words were colorful. I could, perhaps, have found a different way of saying that there are some absolute, barking-at-the-Super-Moon loonies in the Tea Party movement if they will turn to people like the “Reverend” Anderson as experts on ANY subject. To slur my character because of that was despicable.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 6:55 pm - June 24, 2013

  170. I am not satisfied with the support you give your claims that the TEA Party is off in wrong directions in some major way in some important region of the country.

    Heliotrope… Fair enough. If you don’t think my case is strong enough, then we’ll just disagree on this point.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 24, 2013 @ 6:56 pm - June 24, 2013

  171. #168 — How, exactly, is it “anti-Christian” to suggest that people who use the Bible to abuse others learn to read it themselves? That “Thou Shalt Not Steal” certainly ought to mean something to them?

    I am opposed to rigging the tax code to allow married heterosexuals to steal money from single people, gay and straight. That odious practice has absolutely zero to do with defending traditional marriage, and it certainly isn’t very Christian.

    Your boilerplate cant was ridiculous from the start, JMan. Nobody but you, and a few other very stupid people, are going to buy into it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 6:58 pm - June 24, 2013

  172. I am opposed to rigging the tax code to allow married heterosexuals to steal money from single people, gay and straight.

    Yeah, I’ve posted this same sentiment before, and one of those times specifically responding to YOU. So, what’s the problem?

    Your boilerplate cant was ridiculous from the start, JMan. Nobody but you, and a few other very stupid people, are going to buy into it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 6:58 pm

    And what ‘cant’ is that, Ste. Lori?

    [Edited]

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 7:15 pm - June 24, 2013

  173. Sonicfrog,

    We do disagree. No problem. I just hope you will hone your disagreement with the TEA Party to a finer point. Not because I want to have at it, but because you are very much capable of better than a general swipe.

    Until the TEA Party coalesces into something more unified and specific with which I am forced to back away, I will continue to support its notions of smaller government and fiscal reform.

    Is there another contender out there which has the popular support that is backing the TEA Party? Certainly not the Republicans.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 8:01 pm - June 24, 2013

  174. #172 — What boilerplate cant, J?

    Well, the whole “leftist” thing, for starters. If you don’t know the difference between a leftist and a libertarian, you’re much dumber than I think you are.

    Leftists are like libertarians in that they disagree with you. There’s a whole, big world of people out there who disagree with you. An apple and an orange may both be fruits, but that doesn’t make an apple an orange.

    Then there’s the whole “anti-Christian” shtick. Many pearls were clutched, and many smelling-salts called for, because I once asserted some people here have a problem understanding that not all Christians oppose the equal treatment of gays in the Church. Then here you come, again, to prove that some people do mindlessly equate “Christian” with an opposition to full gay acceptance in the Church.

    I am, for the record, anti-hypocritical scriptural cherry-picking. To lifting six random snippets of the Bible out-of-context to support treating gays in the Church like second-class citizens, while conveniently ignoring other things the Bible has to say — for example, about not stealing from others (in the case of marriage, via the tax code) and being judged, ultimately, by the same standard one has used to judge others.

    I by no means think ALL Christians engage in these despicable practices. Therefore it is idiotic to fling your “anti-Christian” poop at me. Unless, of course, you think ALL Christians engage in those practices.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 8:05 pm - June 24, 2013

  175. Well, the whole “leftist” thing, for starters. If you don’t know the difference between a leftist and a libertarian, you’re much dumber than I think you are.

    And what ‘leftist thing’ are you referring to?

    I know the differences, and if I didn’t, I wouldn’t need you to spell them out.

    You’ve gone on tirades when anyone (me, for instance) would put marriage in single quotes when discussing the ‘gay marriage’ issue, yet one of the last times it was the subject of any post here, you said yourself that YOU weren’t sure that the word marriage should be used to describe the union of two gay people:

    The Episcopal Church does not call its blessing of same-sex unions marriage. I am fine with that, because I, too, am skeptical that they are exactly the same thing.

    Oh, so your doubts are OK but if someone else who you identify as a ‘right wing so-con’ puts the quotes to it, then its (y)ou guys sound like eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.

    Ok, now I’m clear. I’ve got it!
    I’m the dumbest m**therf***er ever to alight upon this blog and its comment sections.

    YOU are the virtuous one, and wholly and never-endingly consistent in your philosophy and the implementation of same.

    Err, except for that carefully considered vote for Barry Soetoro back in 2008.
    But, aside from that, cleaner than a hound’s tooth.

    Uh huh.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 9:40 pm - June 24, 2013

  176. Therefore it is idiotic to fling your “anti-Christian” poop at me.

    It’s beyond tiresome how you will call ALL disagreement and criticism of you as “flinging poo”, or the like.

    When in the name of sweet Jesus are you going to grow up?

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 9:44 pm - June 24, 2013

  177. I hadn’t given much attention to the Church of What’s Happening Now revisionism of the “True” word as divined by the gifted revisionist theology shoppers who seek comfort and shelter for their specific agenda priorities.

    Cool! I have long asserted that there needs to be a Gay church with suitable-to-gays revisionism and all the smells and bells and garments and laying on or off of hands and whatever tickles the specific needs and heartbeats of the congregants. Most importantly, the Gay church could get on with gay marriage and any other secular revisionism that comforts the gay soul.

    “This is Barney Frank, and upon this rock, the Holy Wonderful Church of Gay Unity is founded.” Barney will now take up the collection.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 10:10 pm - June 24, 2013

  178. JMan, that latest rant of yours is so incoherent I’m not even sure what to make of it. You might want to stay off hallucinogenics while you’re commenting on blogs.

    And Helio, your blithe and bigoted dismissal of a church whose teachings disagree with yours as The Church of What’s Happening Now, or a “gay” church, only shows your ignorance. Evangelicalism is so totally a product of modernity that no one who attends such a church has any grounds to criticize anyone else’s.

    Their “specific agenda priorities?” Being welcomed in and treated justly are specific agenda priorities only to selfish jerks who look for excuses to violate Christ’s Golden Rule.

    This blog’s commentary threads are becoming absolutely sickening. A real education, but hardly in the way you seem to think.

    Readers, take note. What I asserted in an earlier thread is true. The “accepting” conservatives here really do expect you to stay the hell out of church. Only then can you be accepted by them.

    Not a bargain to me, by any means. But at least now the nastiness has shown itself. You can’t say I didn’t warn you.

    As a large number of gay conservatives do happen to be Christians or Jews, I wonder how many of them like knowing that this is a condition for their “acceptance.” But it is. Just ask Heliotrope. Like all evangelicals, he has the bat-phone directly to the Mind of God.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 10:21 pm - June 24, 2013

  179. When, pray tell, did I become an Evangelical? Or does my stance of not trashing them make me one of them? By God! if you don’t agree with Evangelicals you must tell it like it is: Like all evangelicals, he has the bat-phone directly to the Mind of God. There, by God, is how brotherly love works. Piss on the Evangelicals. Worms.

    Also, when did I ever suggest in the smallest tangental way that I know the Mind of God, let alone communicate with Him.

    In order to smear me, it is necessary for those who fear my comments to create a myth and then attack attack the monster lie they have created. Levi was the champion at that form of pure bigotry.

    When people church shop to find their “comfort zone” they are actually trying to escape the established system of values and truths passed down through the centuries. The Church of Whats Happening Now is their valhalla where they can go and sin according to their needs and not be upbraided for it. It sits on the slippery slope and serves a specific function to a specifically needful group of fellow travelers.

    No soul on this site has a clue about my religion in terms of practice, name or depth.

    So, if crowds of people are being advised to turn on me due to the failings in the characteristics of my religious belief system, they are being advised by a blind reader picking up harmonic dissidence on his dental implants.

    Ogden Nash addressed this phenomenon thusly:

    Behold the hippopotamus!
    We laugh at how he looks to us,
    And yet in moments dank and grim,
    I wonder how we look to him.

    Peace, peace, thou hippopotamus!
    We really look all right to us,
    As you no doubt delight the eye
    Of other hippopotami.

    Dear me. Now I have gone and insulted gay Christians and Jews. (Should I include devout gay Muslims?) What is going to calm these roiling seas?

    Dear old Plato laid it all out in Republic: When the mind’s eye rests on objects illuminated by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence.

    So, reform away in the world of hope and change fueled by the intransigence of your opinions and shifting beliefs and nostrums for truer truth and realer reality. Pardon me for sighing a sigh and chucking a chuckle.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 11:18 pm - June 24, 2013

  180. Wow, J, you really are one pathetic little bundle of gender panic. Nearly every comment comes down to a titanic battle of the sexes. Any woman who refuses to let you make a doormat out of her is simultaneously (A) un-womanly, yet (B) trying to be a man.

    Get help. Seriously. You need a psychiatrist.

    I think you’re pathetic, and that you have gender insecurities for what must be a very good reason. You are probably a pitiful excuse for a man. Being gay has nothing to do with that. You’re simply an inadequate man.

    Anybody who spends as much time as you do puffing and strutting must have a very compelling reason for doing so. Get help. Really.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 11:19 pm - June 24, 2013

  181. Heliotrope, you know as little about my faith-life as I do about yours. If you choose to believe I base my religion on the fad and whimsy of the moment, then go for it. It’s what you want to think, and — dedicated seeker after truth that you are, that’s evidently all that matters to you.

    Not everyone who believes God didn’t simply clam up 2,000 years ago thinks all truth can be defined strictly by what’s happening at the moment. If you think my thinking can be dismissed that way, you’re not very smart.

    If you have such utter contempt for gay and lesbian human beings that you truly believe we’re all bound for an express trip to Hell, it’s a mystery why you bother to post comments here. But your cavalier treatment of our spiritual lives, in the last few comments, makes it pretty clear that’s how you dismiss us.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 11:25 pm - June 24, 2013

  182. Now you can go back to your blog and launch a post about how ‘potty-mouthed’ I am, and how persecuted and set upon you are by all the mean ‘right wing dominionists’ (whatever the hell that means) who are looking to ‘silence’ you.
    Maybe you’ll get lucky and drive up your traffic by a half dozen hits.

    You poor thing.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 11:36 pm - June 24, 2013

  183. you’re not very smart.

    Says the ‘sage’ who’s nearly cornered the market in ‘not so smart’.

    Your lack of self-awareness would be comical, if it weren’t so pathetic.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 11:39 pm - June 24, 2013

  184. Get help. Really.

    You first, oh precious Saint of Emotional Stability.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 24, 2013 @ 11:42 pm - June 24, 2013

  185. J “Man,” it never ceases to amaze me how comical you really are. Your typically-dullard description of my physical charms will bring a smile to anyone who’s actually seen me.

    You are the most childish commenter I’ve ever encountered here. Bar none. And that’s quite a distinction. If you were born in 1961, what an utter disgrace. A human being is a terrible thing to waste.

    Rant on, little person. I will continue to enjoy the effluvia.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 11:49 pm - June 24, 2013

  186. Incidentally, what a groveling, crap-eating little pathetico you really are. Good little toady. Good little stooge.

    Somebody like Heliotrope comes along and defecates all over the spiritual life of every gay and lesbian person who comments on this blog, and you…well, you grovel. You toady. Good little tool.

    Now go back to your corner until Heliotrope gets ready to kick you again. Or maybe — maybe — he’ll say something nice about you! Then maybe you’ll get a biscuit!

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 11:53 pm - June 24, 2013

  187. Somebody like Heliotrope comes along and defecates all over the spiritual life of every gay and lesbian person who comments on this blog, and you…well, you grovel. You toady. Good little tool.

    Now go back to your corner until Heliotrope gets ready to kick you again. Or maybe — maybe — he’ll say something nice about you! Then maybe you’ll get a biscuit!

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 24, 2013 @ 11:53 pm – June 24, 2013

    No worries.

    I would far rather have Heliotrope’s respect than I would yours.

    Because all you’re showing me right now is exactly what will happen if I ever disagree with you on a matter that you think is of import.

    Heliotrope has always treated me with respect. You haven’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2013 @ 11:58 pm - June 24, 2013

  188. You are the most childish commenter I’ve ever encountered here. Bar none. And that’s quite a distinction.

    And yet, you continue to bite at every bit of chum that I pitch into the water.

    What does that say about YOU, Ms. Heine of Ideological Perfection?

    You certainly were singing a very different tune not too long ago, but that was when you assumed that I’d just agree with you or politely resign the ‘debate’.

    You even had this to say about me….

    Guess you changed your mind.
    I’m terribly hurt.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 25, 2013 @ 12:02 am - June 25, 2013

  189. Somebody like Heliotrope comes along and defecates all over the spiritual life of every gay and lesbian person who comments on this blog, and you…well, you grovel. You toady. Good little tool.

    Now go back to your corner until Heliotrope gets ready to kick you again. Or maybe — maybe — he’ll say something nice about you! Then maybe you’ll get a biscuit!

    Comment by Lori Heine Trying Like Hell But Falling Waaaay Behind — June 24, 2013 @ 11:53 pm

    Was this meant for me, toodles?

    The only ‘pet’ that heliotrope ever had hereabouts was that pre-pubescent (and very recently departed) leftist parrot known as ‘VS’. The compassionate gesture was deemed a failure after it became clear to all but you, and a few notable others, that the ‘movie critic’ refused to be housebroken.
    The same ‘VS’, incidentally, that you’ve proudly chosen as one of your allies.

    I think you have a diseased optic nerve in that ‘critical eye’ of yours.

    Like you did when you voted for Obama in ’08.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 25, 2013 @ 12:40 am - June 25, 2013

  190. Like you did when you voted for Obama in ’08.

    Yet another resounding example of LLL: Lori’s ‘Libertarian’ Logic

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 25, 2013 @ 12:44 am - June 25, 2013

  191. Thanks for posting all that over here, JGirl! I’m getting loads of traffic to my blog.

    You know, you obviously have no experience at this. There’s this nifty little feature at WordPress called “Stats,” which tells the blogger how many visitors she’s getting.

    Just sit here and fingerpaint, and play with your dollies, and have a blast making a damn fool of yourself.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 25, 2013 @ 1:54 am - June 25, 2013

  192. I’m pretty much through with Gay Patriot, as long as this sort of thing is tolerated.

    Wowsa! You’re back sooner than I thought you would be.
    Like I said earlier, you’re full of it, and you’d be back PDQ.
    You sure don’t disappoint, Butch!

    Attaboy!

    There’s this nifty little feature at WordPress called “Stats,” which tells the blogger how many visitors she’s getting.

    Wow!
    8 comments on your latest post: 3 by Sonicfrog, 3 by you, 1 by the retarded parrot and alleged movie reviewer, and one by Pat, who I do like and respect.
    By your usual standards, that counts as a stampede.

    Just sit here and fingerpaint, and play with your dollies,…

    Climb on your horse, Paula Revere, and warn the rest of the colonists that “The dominionists are coming! The dominionists are coming!”

    And remember: ONE if by land, TWO if by sea, and THREE if by Lori’s fevered imagination.

    How much psychological and emotional energy does it take for you, as a leftist, to pretend that you’re a libertarian?
    Is it anything like a gay person who fronts as being straight?
    No wonder you’re so disheveled.

    Don’t worry, though….it gets better!

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 25, 2013 @ 2:33 am - June 25, 2013

  193. At #155 I observed:

    Lori, I do not care to trade blows with you. This what you have delivered to me entirely from out of the blue:

    …. Oh, Helio…where does one begin?

    ….. I no longer care what you consider me.

    ….. That’s an old dodge, Helio, and it’s unworthy of you.

    ….. you pepper your sardonic little musings with quotes from famous intellectuals you know most commenters will never have heard of. Which you evidently hope ends all discussion.

    ….. Call me a banana slug. Be colorful. Entertain us with your wit.

    ….. The constant, feverish references to things like assassination and demands for people’s suicides are also instructive

    …. You must think about such “solutions” a great deal, because, like the dog to his vomit, you continually return to them.

    ….. But keep flinging that monkey poop, and see if it will stick.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    And the list grows. This is from #183:

    …. Not everyone who believes God didn’t simply clam up 2,000 years ago thinks all truth can be defined strictly by what’s happening at the moment.

    …. If you think my thinking can be dismissed that way, you’re not very smart.

    …. If you have such utter contempt for gay and lesbian human beings that you truly believe we’re all bound for an express trip to Hell, it’s a mystery why you bother to post comments here.

    ….. But your cavalier treatment of our spiritual lives, in the last few comments, makes it pretty clear that’s how you dismiss us.

    and #189:

    …. Somebody like Heliotrope comes along and defecates all over the spiritual life of every gay and lesbian person who comments on this blog, and you…well, you grovel.

    There is more such blind flailing.

    For the record, I have been fired by one well known church organization. The church hierarchy had a major congregational revolt on its hands as parishioners, vestry and clergy of several historic churches left the fold and reestablished themselves under the hierarchy of the traditional wing of the church.

    I was hired by the lawsuit crowd to help guide their ethic arguments in seizing the buildings and the lands from the dissenters. Short version, they had no ethical grounds to stand on. It was correct of them to fire me, because I would not play the game of finding the outcome they hired me to find. Strangely, their lawyers lost every suit in court as well. Coincidentally, the issue that caused the fissure was over giving lip service to the stated principles while actually doing the exact opposite.

    I have been straight forward on this site about my opposition to gay marriage and I have stated my reasoning several times over the period I have been commenting here. My association with the GayPatriots has been an honest and open one. I believe that very few people are confused about my opinions. I do not belittle anyone for disagreeing with me. But, I do not suffer fools gladly, especially when someone builds a case against me based on his catalogue of imaginary “…. ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night” which he finds emanating from the penumbra of what he his state of mind has mined from my statements.

    My object is plain speaking. I can not avoid, however keep any of the following from being seen by others as hiding in my words: boggles, bloody-bones, spirits, demons, ignis fatui, brownies, bugbears, black dogs, specters, shellycoats, scarecrows, witches, wizards, barguests, Robin-Goodfellows, hags, night-bats, scrags, breaknecks, fantasms, hobgoblins, hobhoulards, boggy-boes, dobbies, hob-thrusts, fetches, kelpies, warlocks, mock-beggars, mum-pokers, Jemmy-burties, urchins, satyrs, pans, fauns, sirens, tritons, centaurs, calcars, nymphs, imps, incubuses, spoorns, men-in-the-oak, hell-wains, fire-drakes, kit-a-can-sticks, Tom-tumblers, melch-dicks, larrs, kitty-witches, hobby-lanthorns, Dick-a-Tuesdays, Elf-fires, Gyl-burnt-tales, knockers, elves, rawheads, Meg-with-the-wads, old-shocks, ouphs, pad-foots, pixies, pictrees, giants, dwarfs, Tom-pokers, tutgots, snapdragons, sprets, spunks, conjurers, thurses, spurns, tantarrabobs, swaithes, tints, tod-lowries, Jack-in-the-Wads, mormos, changelings, redcaps, yeth-hounds, colt-pixies, Tom-thumbs, black-bugs, boggarts, scar-bugs, shag-foals, hodge-pochers, hob-thrushes, bugs, bull-beggars, bygorns, bolls, caddies, bomen, brags, wraiths, waffs, flay-boggarts, fiends, gallytrots, imps, gytrashes, patches, hob-and-lanthorns, gringes, boguests, bonelesses, Peg-powlers, pucks, fays, kidnappers, gallybeggars, hudskins, nickers, madcaps, trolls, robinets, friars’ lanthorns, silkies, cauld-lads, death-hearses, goblins, hob-headlesses, bugaboos, kows, or cowes, nickies, nacks, waiths, miffies, buckies, ghouls, sylphs, guests, swarths, freiths, freits, gy-carlins, pigmies, chittifaces, nixies, Jinny-burnt-tails, dudmen, hell-hounds, dopple-gangers, boggleboes, bogies, redmen, portunes, grants, hobbits, hobgoblins, brown-men, cowies, dunnies, wirrikows, alholdes, mannikins, follets, korreds, lubberkins, cluricauns, kobolds, leprechauns, kors, mares, korreds, puckles korigans, sylvans, succubuses, blackmen, shadows, banshees, lian-hanshees, clabbernappers, Gabriel-hounds, mawkins, doubles, corpse lights or candles, scrats, mahounds, trows, gnomes, sprites, fates, fiends, sibyls, nicknevins, whitewomen, fairies, thrummy-caps, cutties, and nisses, and apparitions of every shape, make, form, fashion, kind and description. (I thank Michael Aislabie Denham for the delicious list he compiled from the English countryside in second half of the nineteenth century.)

    Comment by heliotrope — June 25, 2013 @ 9:33 am - June 25, 2013

  194. I’m the 200th commenter!

    Do I win a prize????? :-)

    ———————-

    PS. An apology from NDT would be nice!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 11:07 am - June 25, 2013

  195. Sonicfrog,

    I set you up for that. Please send me $100.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 25, 2013 @ 11:32 am - June 25, 2013

  196. :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 1:32 pm - June 25, 2013

  197. Your monopoly $100 dollar bill is on its way!… Hey, you never specified what kind of currency it should be! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 1:35 pm - June 25, 2013

  198. Helio — Nice long list of things that go bump in the night. What it says about you that you’d actually sit there and collect all the crap to put into that list, rather than wonder whether you were totally just to Christian people, and congregations, outside your own, personal experience, I won’t bother to ask.

    Not here. This blog is utterly ruined.

    I will not bother to answer anything else this J person has said. He will strut and preen, interpreting how he, in his sick mind, must. I don’t care, because if I had the good opinion of someone like that, there really would be something wrong with me.

    I have indeed contacted Dan Blatt about the situation, to warn him that if he cares about his blog, he needs to at least consider what should be done to salvage it.

    This will be interpreted, by the resident psycho of the moment, as some sort of victory. He may suck some, small comfort from it — until he passes a mirror again, remembers what he is and needs to stumble off in search of something else.

    Nor do I care, any longer, any more for what NDT thinks of me than he does of what I think of him. This whole thing started because he relentlessly attacked Sonicfrog, and I stood up against the character assassination. Decency means nothing to NDT, which is why he not only participates in such debacles but sits by while others indulge in them and does nothing. Heliotrope does that, too, showing that for all his sardonic wit and puffed-up piety, he has no character.

    People leave this blog because it’s become such a wreck. When I encounter them — as I frequently do — I will advise them to return and help rebuild it by driving out the things that go bump not only in the night, but all day long.

    After a hiatus to do other things, I will probably return, as nobody drives me anywhere. I will even chime in any time I have something to say. It will be interesting to see if Dan and Bruce can salvage anything from this, and because I like them I hope they do. But there is no point in getting into flame-wars here. On other blogs, they do happen, but they’re fairly easy to steer out of because blogs that actually discuss meaningful issues encourage adult participation and discourage people who turn every post into a battleground.

    Have at it, kiddies.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 25, 2013 @ 1:58 pm - June 25, 2013

  199. The funny part is how the vultures are circling on Lori’s blog, talking about how they’re going to manipulate Dan Blatt into doing what they want.

    The irony is thick; Dan is an extraordinarily decent and fair human being who does his best to accomodate others, so Lori Heine and Sonicfrog are going to berate him and blast him and tell him that he’s a bad person and that GayPatriot is a bad blog unless he does what they say.

    Notice how none of them targets Bruce. They go for the person who they think is weak and will give them what they want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2013 @ 3:54 pm - June 25, 2013

  200. AAAAAND you’re wrong yet again.

    (A) I’m in conversation with Dan because I know Dan better than Bruce. And now that we know you think Dan is weak…..

    (B) Vince and (I think) Lori have also emailed Bruce.

    NDT. You continue to slander me, (and this time Dan). I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 6:46 pm - June 25, 2013

  201. Correction, Sonicfrog.

    I stated exactly what I think Dan is:

    The irony is thick; Dan is an extraordinarily decent and fair human being who does his best to accomodate others, so Lori Heine and Sonicfrog are going to berate him and blast him and tell him that he’s a bad person and that GayPatriot is a bad blog unless he does what they say.

    Notice how none of them targets Bruce. They go for the person who they think is weak and will give them what they want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2013 @ 3:54 pm – June 25, 2013

    You are attempting to bully and brutalize Dan into banning me. Fortunately, both you and Lori are self-centered enough that you don’t realize how idiotic your claims to care about Dan look when you’re simultaneously attacking and calling him dishonest and hypocritical for not banning the people you want banned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2013 @ 7:31 pm - June 25, 2013

  202. [...] Patriot’s comments are always an education. Though not always in the ways [...]

    Pingback by Chaotica, Bride of Chaotica and the Conservatives | Born on 9-11 — June 25, 2013 @ 8:25 pm - June 25, 2013

  203. You are attempting to bully and brutalize Dan

    Hey… I think we’re making progress. Does this mean I no longer want Dan to kill himself, as he couldn’t ban you if he did!

    Or do I want Dan to ban you, THEN kill himself??????

    Comment by Sonicfrog — June 25, 2013 @ 10:45 pm - June 25, 2013

  204. Sonicfrog,

    What exactly will have been accomplished if NDT is banned? I ask this from the perspective of one who is opposed to the “heckler’s veto” on the grounds that anyone who does not wish to hear a speaker should have his minders just wheel him out of the vicinity.

    On a blog, the reader is completely free to skip any comments he wishes.

    Censorship is such a lousy method for curtailing speech. If a troll or nincompoop keeps taking pot shots or pisses under the tent and runs, I understand blocking him as a form of spam.

    NDT brings far more to the comments than his schtick when he deals with self righteousness and pomposity.

    I do not know the man and I have never been on the receiving end of smack downs. I suspect that is because we are generally simpatico in our viewpoints. But, good heavens, many of us have lived in the bulls eye of criticism and attack.

    On another point, out of curiosity, do you agree in principle with the charges that have recently been leveled about how I conduct my discourse and how I address religion and gay issues? I ask this, because I am genuinely disappointed when commenters go flying off on hyperbolic hysteria and make personal attacks rather than to address the issue that set them off.

    To tie this together, it is my observation that NDT catches some bit of hypocrisy and then goes into the demonizing that the Progressives have made an art form.

    I will repeat an old joke to sum up my feelings. Red Dog came into the school yard and started humping a stray. The principal tried to chase Red Dog away with a broom. Little Johnny announced that he could stop Red Dog. Frustrated, the principal let him try. Johnny to the broom and rammed the handle up Red Dog’s butt and Red Dog ran away whimpering. The principal asked Johnny how he came to know what to do. Johnny said: “You just have to know Red Dog. He can give it, but he can’t take it.”

    All things being equal, why seek to ban somebody?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 25, 2013 @ 11:40 pm - June 25, 2013

  205. Sonic seems to be seeking an apology, not banishment. That is my interpretation.

    I don’t believe folk should be banned.

    But that’s just my point of view.

    Comment by rusty — June 25, 2013 @ 11:48 pm - June 25, 2013

  206. Oh and Please don’t try to tell us that your hands weren’t on your hips when you delivered this snark

    I hadn’t given much attention to the Church of What’s Happening Now revisionism of the “True” word as divined by the gifted revisionist theology shoppers who seek comfort and shelter for their specific agenda priorities.

    Cool! I have long asserted that there needs to be a Gay church with suitable-to-gays revisionism and all the smells and bells and garments and laying on or off of hands and whatever tickles the specific needs and heartbeats of the congregants. Most importantly, the Gay church could get on with gay marriage and any other secular revisionism that comforts the gay soul.

    “This is Barney Frank, and upon this rock, the Holy Wonderful Church of Gay Unity is founded.” Barney will now take up the collection.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2013 @ 10:10 pm – June 24, 2013

    Comment by rusty — June 26, 2013 @ 12:00 am - June 26, 2013

  207. NDT brings far more to the comments than his schtick when he deals with self righteousness and pomposity.

    Heliotrope, here’s my little story that I am reminded of. Mrs. Lincoln being asked how the play was aside from her husband being assassinated.

    NDT may bring value to those on this board that agree with his views, and perhaps those who believe slander of persons with opposing views are okay. But that may not be the case for Dan and Bruce, who I’m guessing, does not want to see this blog as the conservative version of JoeMyGod, DailyKos, etc.

    As for NDT dealing with self-righteousness and pomposity, many, perhaps most now, see this as a pot meet kettle situation.

    But, good heavens, many of us have lived in the bulls eye of criticism and attack.

    True, but like you mention below, many of us also get disappointed. And when it becomes pervasive, it can get more than disappointing.

    On another point, out of curiosity, do you agree in principle with the charges that have recently been leveled about how I conduct my discourse and how I address religion and gay issues? I ask this, because I am genuinely disappointed when commenters go flying off on hyperbolic hysteria and make personal attacks rather than to address the issue that set them off.

    Okay, maybe I am missing something here. Why are you not disappointed when NDT makes personal attacks, like the one he launched (unprovoked) against six of the posters here?

    To tie this together, it is my observation that NDT catches some bit of hypocrisy and then goes into the demonizing that the Progressives have made an art form.

    There are ways to do this without launching personal attacks. Or if you feel there isn’t, then this perhaps may not be the forum to do this type of demonizing. There are other fora for that.

    All things being equal, why seek to ban somebody?

    I personally oppose banning someone, except as a last resort. With the commenter in question, there are some actions that can be taken to stop the pervasive violation of the rules. However, if the behavior still continues, then banning may be the only option left.

    Even NDT himself said (paraphrasing), to grow a garden, you have to pull out the weeds. Not a perfect analogy, because I believe other steps can be taken. But after that and only after that, it is completely understandable if the weed gets pulled.

    I don’t know if it is Sonic’s wish to see NDT banned. Like me, though, he seeks an apology for the slander. But I realize that will most likely not happen. So far, calls for an apology have only resulted in more slander.

    On the other hand (and I disagree with ILC here). I don’t know if calling for someone to be banned is a personal attack. All I can tell you is if NDT called for me being banned, that would have been one of the nicest things he has said about me in a long time, and doesn’t come close to the slander that I’ve been subject to, including this very thread.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2013 @ 8:15 am - June 26, 2013

  208. Rusty,

    My musings about an agenda driven church that could achieve IRS approval and become the go-to church for gay marriage is very sincere. It is, of course, also a “swipe” at agenda driven churches in general. But they certainly exist.

    People church shop. They leave the ones where they feel the emphaSIS in on the wrong syLLable. So, do the pastors tell the people what they want to hear or ignore certain topics or what? This is at the heart of church politics. And the idea that people do not seek out their idea of a “correct” church is hogwash.

    All I am saying is that gay marriage is a big agenda issue for some at this particular time. Marriage is one of the traditional rites of the church. Why not a gay church? Really. Of course, once it is launched, rest assured that the same church politics will fly up over whether the organist is showboating or how the flower arrangements look like weeds.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2013 @ 9:10 am - June 26, 2013

  209. Totally fine heliotrope. Diss away on the churches you don’t approve of
    But remember the fine gay folk who hold to their religious beliefs. And it should be acknowledged that many upstanding churches welcome their GLBT brethren with open arms.

    As far as gay marriage, folk are looking for a license. Not a church.
    My understanding is a couple, any couple has to seek permission to hold a ceremony plus get a religious person to agree to perform such a ceremony

    Your swipe at the agenda driven church seemed more like a swipe at devout GLBT folk. But I can see your intent behind the hands on hip snark

    Comment by rusty — June 26, 2013 @ 10:02 am - June 26, 2013

  210. Pat,

    I agree with NDT’s premise that liberals will stand silently by as their political leaders demonize, lie, trash and bully and then scream bloody murder when it comes back to bite them.

    In fact, I search in vain for a liberal who does not have his head up his anal port and will debate the issues without all the shifting, ignoring the facts, name calling and going weepy about his “feelings.”

    Just because, for example, a person “feels” that good medical care should be available to all who need it does not mean that “good” means the same thing to everyone and that there is a workable system for delivering it. My “feelings” are not infused with ice water. But I know that wishing for Utopia and the practicality of defining Utopia are entirely different things.

    I will argue these things to a point. Liberals keep moving the point and the “debate” or conversation takes an incredible journey over hills and through valleys and ends up like every bull session ever engaged. That is because liberals shift as soon as they begin to feel that their feelings based concerns are threatened. [See: Cas/Passing Gas who can not stick to a point if it means possibly ceding a point.]

    NDT cuts to the chase and throws the whole septic tank of crap that liberals ignore and pretend they didn’t know about in their leaders and techniques.

    Can you say that Eric Holder is running the DOJ in exactly the way you would want an agenda driven conservative running it? If not, common decency and a love of the Constitution would require you to ask for this man to step down. We conservatives look at the crap storm John Ashcroft received from liberals and wonder just exactly where liberals store their rage center. This is not say that Ashcroft was some paragon of virtue, but what was his demonstrated agenda-driven malfeasance?

    You have asked me in an off-handed way to endorse NDT’s methods. Why? It is all about “feelings” and I am worn out tired of “feelings” and “hate speech” and censorship by “political correctness” and The View type of yenta excoriation.

    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is not about feelings. (“Oh, now see what you have done, you have made the whore cry.”) It is about integrity, moral standards, rectitude and humility.

    I don’t often “unload” about liberals, but in all sincerity, I would love to find one who is capable of honest back and forth without all the Alinsky and shifting and lies by omission and name calling.

    What liberals did by design to Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, etc. is called “borking.” Borking is the systematic defamation and vilification of your political adversary. You make him your “enemy” and you apply Alinsky rule #13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Oh, yeah, and “borking” is named after Robert Bork who was the model and namesake of the dirty practice.

    NDT has explained from time to time that he is engaged in a one-man effort to give liberals as good as they give by nailing them with Alinsky rule #13.

    Oh, sure, you may not “approve” of John Kerry’s hyperbolic and unsubstantiated serial assaults concerning how our troops behaved as barbarians in Viet Nam and then again in Iraq. But he ran for President and Obama chose him to be the face of the diplomatic mission throughout the world of the United States of America. We conservatives wonder how liberals can be comfortable with such blatant hypocrisy.

    It used to be possible to be an Ed Koch or Joe Lieberman or J. Patrick Moynihan or Theodore White type of liberal. They were what Teddy White charmingly called “second-look liberals.” That meant that they would see if their ideas were working and make adjustments and even end the program, if necessary. You can not find one of these guys today. They have been run off by the Progressives who are militant socialists out to fundamentally transform America.

    So, Pat, are you a militant socialist out to fundamentally transform America. If not, do you sit quietly as the militant socialists out to fundamentally transform America do their dirty work? Are you passive?

    Perhaps, if you are passive, you do not have the internal workings to withstand aggressiveness when it is turned on you. Such as NDT or by the Progressives who will demand more and more of your allegiance and less and less of your piety.

    Obama has created a atmosphere in which the IRS can come after me for my political beliefs and trade unions can order me around and socialists can approve or censor my speech and my doctor will be controlled by a bureaucracy and my privacy is cornered in my undisclosed thoughts and the state increasingly directs my life.

    We conservatives are bit pissed.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2013 @ 10:06 am - June 26, 2013

  211. Rusty,

    LGBT friendly churches are fine with me. Any port in a storm. But only a dimmest bulbs can not see that it is the fusion of liturgy and current politics.

    A seriously hypersensitive commenter read a world of hate into my remarks. Threshold paranoia is apt to cause that. Perhaps you know the common trait of seeing “red” in something and going at it full bore without having really thoroughly read and digested what was written. It is a common and often embarrassing mistake. We have all done it.

    There are a few very prickly sorts who comment here. Mostly, I do not engage them because I don’t care to chance riling them up. If I do engage them, I am very circumspect about how I do so. Occasionally, I do reach the point where I have had it with their expositions of intolerance and shortcomings and I let it fly. I did so recently and I have no regrets. If you can not “question” someone without getting a universe of flak in return, what is the value of their taking up space to rant?

    I posted and amended the list of imbecilic charges thrown at me. Sometimes when you look at your own indiscretions, you are chastened. But when you come flying back with more of the same, you are unhinged.

    I do not favor banning the unhinged. Consider that. There are people who want others banned for “hurting their feelings.” That is playground stuff where you get to remake the church the way you want it and you get to remake GayPatriot the way you want it and you get to demand respect.

    Really? Life is actually like that? The tyranny of correctness prevails?

    I am not going to argue theology with anyone here or elsewhere. I don’t hold ill feelings toward anyone’s spiritual wellsprings if it helps them be Positive, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

    I don’t hand out the tickets to Heaven or Hell. You collect that passage on your own.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2013 @ 10:26 am - June 26, 2013

  212. Heliotrope, so it appears that you approve NDT’s tactics. Perhaps we disagree as to whether his tactics are slander and/or justified, and whether it is justifed to outAlinsky Alinsky in doing so. Dan stated in his thread about personal attacks that posters do not all the reasons or motivations behind the views that are expressed here.

    Politically, I am left-leaning moderate. But I can tell you that I am probably as pissed as you regarding politics today. I’ve had it from politicians on both sides. I see dirt and slime on both sides. We can debate who’s worse, and if you want, I’ll concede that Democrats/liberals are worse than Republicans/conservatives. I don’t care. It smells all around.

    When it comes to election day, I usually end up choosing the one that I feel (rightly or wrongly) who is going to be the least worst for this country. Does that mean that I approve or endorse everything that any said politician does? I don’t think so. Not even close.

    I don’t start virtually every thread here by slandering those who disagree with me. If that makes me passive, so be it. But you are incorrect if you believe I cannot withstand aggressiveness turned on me. Not by a long shot. If there were no such rules, I can blast away any slanderer upside down.

    So you don’t like what’s been happening these past five years. I get that. I’m not crazy about them either. And further, I definitely was not crazy with the previous eight years either. The only difference I see is while the Democrats appear to be more open about the hostility, the Republicans were more underhanded with theirs.

    But let’s say I’m wrong, and Republicans/conservatives are always the nice ones, and the Democrats are always the demons. What can be done with that? Sure, you can follow the Alinsky rules if you like, go for it. But Dan and Bruce have indicated that’s not what they want here. Maybe they’ll change the rules, or simply decide to forget about enforcing them. Then, by all means, go at it. Frankly, I prefer to not deal with that type of tactics that Alinsky, Savage, NDT, etc., engage in, so I can always leave at that point, and I probably will. But even so, what will these immoral tactics accomplish on this blog?

    And what about your leaders? What are they doing about it? This is what I see. The stuff that you and NDT are railing against Democrats, is hardly ever addressed by the leaders. And then when the election is over, everybody is all hugs and kisses, before the political games start up again. It seems that this is exactly what the politicians expect, and perhaps even want, of each other.

    Locally, we once had an election where both parties had signs that stated that corruption cost taxpayer’s money. And then these same leaders who conjure these signs, go out and have lunch together regularly. I can imagine how much they laugh at us when we go at it with each other.

    If you want, you can argue that my political leanings and thinking is wrong. That I vote for the wrong people for the wrong reason. That I should be someone’s puppet and speak out for and against something when ordered. That I should see things exactly that way you think I should. Fine. But I promise you until my dying breath that I never have and never will believe that Dan should kill himself. And anyone who says that is guilty of slander.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2013 @ 11:07 am - June 26, 2013

  213. Pat,

    I am neutral on NDT’s tactics. He is his own man and if the group gang-bangs him, he will take it like a man. He has chosen his “style” and I understand his motivation. He knows precisely what he is doing and chooses to make his way as he does. He is also well informed on the issues and stalwart in his belief system.

    Leaning liberal is fine by me. Everybody finds his place. I am often ridiculously liberal on the local level and have gotten into really silly stuff like getting sculpture placed on city property to jazz up the area. I help man and fund a free clinic. I go full tilt crazy working the food bank and soup kitchens. I have helped set up housing care for harmless alcoholic men. And much more. Those things need government cooperation and, I suppose, some tangential government expense. But I never allow for government funding, because then the lazy busy-bodies show up with their rules and regulations and demands and genius ideas and fuss and feathers.

    Republicans suck. But, until the TEA Party cleans out the professional politician power lovers in the Republican party, they are the only party on the national level that puts up a possible choice.

    I wouldn’t give Rubio a second glance after his orgasmic approach to amnesty and its shrouded provisions and gushing crony capitalism crappola. But, if it is Rubio against Hillary, I will hold my nose and vote for McCain Romney Rubio.

    What I said about liberals and Progressives stands. I didn’t bother about moderates who have permanent dishwater hands from forever testing the waters.

    We have very bad political times and the governmental infrastructure damage done by the undermining of the Constitution by liberals may not be reversible. Our courts and bureaucracy are stacked with agenda driven people who are content to undermine our foundations in their drive toward socialist statism. Our population has become addicted to government entitlement redistribution of wealth. We have a full blown mess.

    Many people unthinkingly expect the United States to keep getting better for everyone without giving any particular thought to how we became who we are. They are stuck on a sort of cruise control in which they absently mind the road and chat on their cell phones while glancing at the GPS and suck on a latte. If they hit a bump or lose the cell or dribble the latte they get all irritated and demand the government fix it. Why not? Bloomberg will monitor your diet for free.

    One can take a comfortable seat and wait to see what awaits or one can get get engaged and join the counter revolution. Perhaps you are more inclined toward socialist statism and you don’t see the issues as I do. Perhaps I am a ruffled old rooster just crowing to hear myself crow. If so, I sure have a lot of very frustrated company.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 26, 2013 @ 12:05 pm - June 26, 2013

  214. I don’t want to give the left any ammunition against us and I’d rather not be associated with a blog that contains such links

    And I, Iggy, don’t want to cower in fear of what lies the Left might invent next; nor refuse to deal with true information in a rational way, just because of where I heard it or what extra words they’d thrown in stupidly.

    We shouldn’t re-fight the other thread here; suffice to say that I don’t agree that you were fighting the good fight. The point for going forward is that I’m going to make my own choices (as I did there), and I don’t know how long I’m going to keep up with this blogging thing, but while I am, you must make your own, grownup choice about whether to be around me, and it is entirely your choice. It seems, by your re-appearance in posts that I author (NOT counting this one of course, which Dan authored) that you can’t quit me. Fine, but never expect me to change for you; I haven’t done so yet and, to the extent it may appear to you that I have, it’s only because you had misunderstood my real intent and/or personality to start with.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2013 @ 12:53 pm - June 26, 2013

  215. I am neutral on NDT’s tactics. He is his own man and if the group gang-bangs him, he will take it like a man. He has chosen his “style” and I understand his motivation. He knows precisely what he is doing and chooses to make his way as he does. He is also well informed on the issues and stalwart in his belief system.

    Heliotrope, fair enough. For one reason or another, you yourself have chosen to not engage in this type of behavior. I am not convinced, as you are, that NDT is informed on the issues, is stalwart on his belief system, or even knows precisely what he is doing, anymore than Savage and others do. In other words, these other individuals also believe they are justified to engage in Alinsky-like behavior. Like I said, in other fora, this type of behavior may be appropriate, but it’s not supposed to be here, at least as I understand things here.

    Perhaps the TEA party is the answer. But like the major political parties, they have their own thorny issues to work out. They may have to clean out some of themselves as well as the Republican Party in order to be a legitimate political party. We’ll see. This itself should probably get its own thread, and don’t want to get more into it here.

    As for moderates, I’m not sure I entirely agree with your assessment there. In a lot of cases, moderates can be stalwart in their beliefs like liberals and conservatives, but simply don’t toe either party line on all, or even most, of the issues. In fact, you yourself said that you are liberal on some issues. For example, one can be a supporter of Israel, support immigration reform, be pro-choice (or pro-life), be supportive of a safety net (but requiring some kind of “respect” as opposed to a sense of automatic entitlement from those who receive govt. assistance), and be against Obamacare. This is an example of someone who may be considered a moderate, but not exactly getting wrinkly from stale dishwater. As in some of the examples above, I don’t think all issues are black and white, and it doesn’t seem like you think they are either.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2013 @ 2:16 pm - June 26, 2013

  216. As in some of the examples above, I don’t think all issues are black and white,…

    Perhaps, but if a person wishes to be resolute and make a clear decision on any issue based on the best evidence available, then where they stand is, in fact, black or white.
    Making certain choices and following through with them automatically eliminates all other choices from which they are mutually excluded.
    One example: wherever I decide to be tomorrow morning at 9AM (wherever that may be) automatically excludes my being at any other location, as I can’t be in two places simultaneously.

    I am not convinced, as you are, that NDT is informed on the issues, is stalwart on his belief system, or even knows precisely what he is doing, anymore than Savage and others do.

    He most certainly is informed, is stalwart in his belief system, and knows precisely what he’s doing, whether or not you care to acknowledge it.

    Having said that, I have no idea why he chooses you to be one of his targets. I understand all the others that he unleashes his heavy artillery against, but for the time I’ve been reading this blog and commenting on topics (3-4 years?), I haven’t read anything from you that gives me a clue as to why he groups you with the Cas, Levi, Serenity, Richard R, JennofArk, liitlelettermike, Auntie Dogma (etc.) crowd.

    From the posts you’ve written that I’ve read, I believe that you’re even handed and reasonable (though I don’t always agree with where your reasoning leads you).

    I think you’re OK, Pat. :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 26, 2013 @ 2:46 pm - June 26, 2013

  217. #223 — Pat, you are attacked here by NDT because he thinks this is junior high school. You’ve attempted to sit at his table in the cafeteria. Thus will he behave.

    You always offer thoughtful comments. As does Sonicfrog. VS, who exhibits the patience of Job in dealing with the personal attacks here, does as well. And I love the links Rusty provides.

    As for Helio, he sometimes has reason for giving himself credit, but not on the issue of his contemptuously dismissive attitude toward other people’s faith. There are other gay people of faith who read this blog besides me. I don’t care what he thinks, and wasn’t particularly surprised to hear the contempt. I know that contempt reflects back on him, and should not be absorbed by those of whom he speaks. But there are other people who may not see it that way.

    Either this blog respects ALL gay conservatives (this being “the Internet Home of the Gay Conservative”) — including the many who are people of faith — or it does not. I have repeatedly expressed this opinion to Dan Blatt, and I think he understands that. That has nothing to do with banning anybody; it has to do with the tone set, and maintained, by the bloggers.

    Perhaps it would tamp down the contempt coming from people like Heliotrope if they actually set that tone in their posts.

    NDT can scream hysterically about all the dastardly plots to ban him all he wants. NDT is not important enough (in anybody’s mind but his own) for me to want him banned, even if I did want that. Because he’s been friends with the bloggers since the blog’s inception, I would not consider banning him here my call to make.

    I have begun to consider Sonic a friend. I will not sit by, here, while NDT trashes him. That was — if you can stand to go back and read this entire thread — where I entered the conflict.

    Other people. Besides oneself. That is not a concept grasped by those who swarm people, like Sonic, who speak for others besides themselves in the comments they make.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2013 @ 3:08 pm - June 26, 2013

  218. Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2013 @ 3:08 pm – June 26, 2013

    I think that the general consensus is that NDT is the person who starts these irrational fights. What confounds myself is why won’t the owners of Gay Patriot admit the obvious?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 26, 2013 @ 3:20 pm - June 26, 2013

  219. LOL, anytime there are 200+ comments, one can almost be certain that NDT has picked a fight with someone. In comment #6 he called out by name several people with whom he wanted to spar with and one person in particular took the bait. This is his game which should not surprise anyone.

    One of the primary reasons I loved this blog and financially supported it was because it provided a place I could point to as evidence that there are gay conservatives in this country. Not so much anymore.

    Comment by David in New Orleans — June 26, 2013 @ 3:52 pm - June 26, 2013

  220. Some examples of contempt:

    Posted on June 26, 2013 by heine911

    For this, we are called “ideological purists.” Simply being honest, and frank, is now “ideological purity” to these people. Which means that honest discussion, with them, is no longer possible.

    The whole “libertarian” thing, for most conservatives, is nothing but a ruse. It is a lie. They are trying to hijack the word “libertarian” to use for their own, devious purposes. They want liberty only for themselves – at everyone else’s expense.

    There’s the “libertarians are purists” ruse, as mentioned above. As these people have no ideological consistency – hell, they have no principles…..

    Short of the Nazi-style power-grab they’re now attempting somehow actually succeeding – and wrecking what’s left of this country – they have no chance of ever regaining power.

    Except for a very brief, shining period when some of them actually were libertarians, they ceased to have any decency long before Joe McCarthy ever drew his last windy breath.

    Which is, again, all they care about. They clearly don’t care about America at all.

    Oh, and there’s this:

    When you don’t care about the truth, you…well, you just don’t care. That seems to be the general attitude of conservatives these days.

    And this one:

    Decency means nothing to NDT, which is why he not only participates in such debacles but sits by while others indulge in them and does nothing. Heliotrope does that, too, showing that for all his sardonic wit and puffed-up piety, he has no character.

    Here, ladies and gentleman, we have a show of hypocrisy so rich and so deep that if it were a vein of precious metal it couldn’t be tapped dry for decades.

    We’ll conclude this interlude with some of the author’s finest howlers and knee-slappers:

    They employ a tired and not-terribly-clever variety of evasion tactics in their increasingly-desperate attempts to obscure these things.

    ‘Five will get you ten’ that the authoress of this gem, should she deign to respond, will do so, NOT by addressing the examples of her own contempt (and hypocrisy) contained herein, but by unleashing same upon the poster of this comment.

    And this (about heliotrope, yet again):

    This is somebody who has time to look up about a thousand and one different names for ghosties, ghoulies and things that go bump in the night, because he followed me to this blog and took umbrage(umbrage-taking being among his favorite things to do) at something I said here.

    A crack about about ‘umbrage-taking’ from someone who has raised said activity to a high art.

    Too, too, funny……in a pathetic way, that is.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 26, 2013 @ 3:54 pm - June 26, 2013

  221. Perhaps, but if a person wishes to be resolute and make a clear decision on any issue based on the best evidence available, then where they stand is, in fact, black or white.

    JMan, fair enough. First of all, let me clear. Some issues are black and white. But one can be firmly resolute about a middle ground issue, as opposed to wishy-washy.

    He most certainly is informed, is stalwart in his belief system, and knows precisely what he’s doing, whether or not you care to acknowledge it.

    JMan, you may be right. But I’m not convinced that he is not someone elses’ puppet. In any case, frankly this is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    Having said that, I have no idea why he chooses you to be one of his targets. I understand all the others that he unleashes his heavy artillery against

    I’m not sure either. It seemed to occur when we disagreements about some specific issues that seemed to hit a nerve, but this is only speculation. I don’t know. And I’m afraid I don’t understand the heavy artillery on some of the others either.

    I think you’re OK, Pat.

    Thanks. I like having discussions, even when I’m wrong. :-)

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2013 @ 4:04 pm - June 26, 2013

  222. Pat, you are attacked here by NDT because he thinks this is junior high school. You’ve attempted to sit at his table in the cafeteria. Thus will he behave.

    You always offer thoughtful comments.

    Thanks, Lori. And I always appreciate your insights. I don’t know if my comments are always thoughtful, although I try to be. And I try to be respectful of the fact that this is a conservative blog.

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2013 @ 4:07 pm - June 26, 2013

  223. Thanks. I like having discussions, even when I’m wrong. :-)

    Comment by Pat — June 26, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

    Agreed!

    I don’t like being wrong, but I have been, and will be again (not too much, I hope!)
    And while I didn’t always like it at the time, I’m thankful for the folks who’ve cared enough to point it out to me when I have been wrong.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 26, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - June 26, 2013

  224. We shouldn’t re-fight the other thread here; suffice to say that I don’t agree that you were fighting the good fight.

    I believe that any rational, objective person who takes the time to read through that thread would recognize who was responsible for its length and why it took the turn it did. You don’t argue in good faith and the thread in question is an excellent example.

    …nor refuse to deal with true information in a rational way, just because of where I heard it or what extra words they’d thrown in stupidly.

    You didn’t know (and likely still don’t) whether the racist, anti-Semitic website you linked contained the valid information it claimed and you claimed. You know as well as I do what a typical leftist does with any whiff of racism they find on the right. This may come as a complete surprise to you (it wouldn’t surprise me if you weren’t surprised) that Vince and I were encouraging you to delete the link for your own benefit and for this blog’s benefit. I don’t think you’re a racist nor did I ever accuse of of it because of the link, but I do think that it illustrates that you were sloppy and your defense of it was due to insecurity and dishonesty.

    … It seems, by your re-appearance in posts that I author (NOT counting this one of course, which Dan authored) that you can’t quit me. Fine, but never expect me to change for you; I haven’t done so yet and, to the extent it may appear to you that I have, it’s only because you had misunderstood my real intent…

    I predicted you would do as I suggested, but several weeks later when you thought the matter was forgotten. The only reason I went back to check was to see whether my prediction was correct and it was. Honestly, I’m glad you deleted it. You can take that at the face value it has or you can try to ascribe ulterior motives, I don’t really care.

    It seems, by your re-appearance in posts that I author (NOT counting this one of course, which Dan authored) that you can’t quit me. Fine, but never expect me to change for you…

    You’re not nearly as important as you think you are nor as important as you seem to think I’d like you to be. I’m not your biggest fan, ILC. I’m here for the entertainment value this blog provides. It’s a unique intersection of homosexuality and right-wing politics and it allows me to post my thoughts. My being here is not about you and my comments in response to your blog articles aren’t about you, either. When Dan writes something interesting, I comment. When Kurt writes something interesting, I respond. I respond to what is written, not to personalities.

    My intentions aren’t to bug you but if I do, you might ask yourself whether that’s a problem with me or it’s something that’s within yourself. You have the option to ignore me and so far, you’ve decided not to. That’s perfectly fine (and I don’t think it’s necessary) but your implying that I’m hanging out here just to bother you doesn’t have much weight when you’ve taken every opportunity to respond. We’ve never liked each other but I’m not here to be your friend. Politically, we likely agree more than we disagree and perhaps we should just leave it at that and carry on.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 26, 2013 @ 4:26 pm - June 26, 2013

  225. David @ 227 has a great summary. Short, concise and crystal clear.

    Comment by rusty — June 26, 2013 @ 4:45 pm - June 26, 2013

  226. J “Man” thinks, evidently, that anyone who criticizes another in ANY manner whatsoever is guilty of “contempt.” Like Glinda on the Wizard of Oz, I must smile and wave, and speak in a suitably-feminine trembly voice, and be all sugar and spice — or I am contemptuous, and it proves I am a hypocrite.

    Heliotrope was contemptuous of a vast swath of gay conservatives who are people of faith. I don’t much care what he thinks of me anymore. And I stand by what I said.

    I also stand by the fact that the dominionist movement is operating on the American Right. I have said repeatedly that most people are either unaware of dominionism’s existence, or underestime the threat it poses. That’s how such movements gain traction. I point to the Nazis because it is how THEY gained traction.

    I’m sure it sucks to hear that. I have no intention to stop saying it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 26, 2013 @ 4:59 pm - June 26, 2013

  227. You don’t argue in good faith

    We’ll have to disagree about that, Iggy. I know that I always do, and that in many of our encounters, you have failed to.

    You didn’t know (and likely still don’t) whether the [link] …contained the valid information

    On the contrary, it was a list of names and I had checked out a few of the names.

    I predicted you would do as I suggested,

    And I predicted that you would (if the matter were discussed with you) try to take credit.

    You’re not nearly as important as you think you are

    On the contrary: I don’t think I’m important, Iggy. I even told you so, when you had painted a picture of other blogs taking notes on me. It was ridiculous, and the ridiculousness caused me to notice that perhaps I was important to *you*, or in your mind. But hey, if it really isn’t so, then let’s move on.

    You have the option to ignore me

    And I often take it. Sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I think, as right now, “Well, let’s see if he’s changed” or “It would be disrespectful not to at least skim that text he pounded out in response to me.” Other times I think “Who cares – he’s always mad about something, it will be nothing new – skip.” So it varies.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 26, 2013 @ 5:30 pm - June 26, 2013

  228. And I predicted that you would (if the matter were discussed with you) try to take credit.

    I’m not taking credit so much as crediting you for finally seeing reason to remove the link, which you did. If the link were only to a list of names (which you claimed, albeit with a later edit that it was a racist website once we alerted you to it), an excuse you’re still peddling in this very thread…

    … it was a list of names and I had checked out a few of the names.

    …then there would have been no need to remove the link. The issue isn’t the list itself nor whether you ‘checked out a few of the names’ but where the list is located. Please pay attention: That was always the issue: you linked a racist, anti-Semitic website filled with hate in order to win some kind of rhetorical victory and we thought that was a bad idea — bad for you and bad for this blog.

    Now look at us. We’re re-hashing the content of the prior thread. I gave you kudos for deleting an offensive link and you responded positively. I once again explained why I thought it was good to do so (and in the hopes that we might turn over a new leaf), expressing that I’m glad you see it our way (Vince and myself) and here we are, at it again.

    Other times I think “Who cares – he’s always mad about something, it will be nothing new – skip.”

    No, this site doesn’t make me mad at all. I’m not mad now, nor was I during that old, lengthy thread re. the offending link. I actually found that thread entertaining, because I was certain and confident in what I wrote but also because I like discussing some of the things we addressed then.

    Don’t let it burn you up. It’s just not that important. The link is gone and I’m over it. Please — try to do the same.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 26, 2013 @ 6:30 pm - June 26, 2013

  229. Having said that, I have no idea why he chooses you to be one of his targets. I understand all the others that he unleashes his heavy artillery against, but for the time I’ve been reading this blog and commenting on topics (3-4 years?), I haven’t read anything from you that gives me a clue as to why he groups you with the Cas, Levi, Serenity, Richard R, JennofArk, liitlelettermike, Auntie Dogma (etc.) crowd.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 26, 2013 @ 2:46 pm – June 26, 2013

    The others are typical run-of-the-mill Obama Party shock troops, Jman — not very bright, not very polished, and acting out of blind devotion to leftist ideology. They’re easy to spot, and hardly subtle.

    Pat is just as leftist and bigoted as the rest of them; he’s simply better at hiding it in florid phrases and pretend bipartisanship, much like Barack Obama.

    To whit:

    So you don’t like what’s been happening these past five years. I get that. I’m not crazy about them either.

    For which he then blames Republicans and Heliotrope by association.

    And further, I definitely was not crazy with the previous eight years either. The only difference I see is while the Democrats appear to be more open about the hostility, the Republicans were more underhanded with theirs.

    Then he tells you how stupid you are to blame the Obama Party and how awful it would be for you to fight back:

    But let’s say I’m wrong, and Republicans/conservatives are always the nice ones, and the Democrats are always the demons. What can be done with that? Sure, you can follow the Alinsky rules if you like, go for it. But Dan and Bruce have indicated that’s not what they want here. Maybe they’ll change the rules, or simply decide to forget about enforcing them. Then, by all means, go at it. Frankly, I prefer to not deal with that type of tactics that Alinsky, Savage, NDT, etc., engage in, so I can always leave at that point, and I probably will. But even so, what will these immoral tactics accomplish on this blog?

    And then he blames you again for the problems.

    And what about your leaders? What are they doing about it? This is what I see. The stuff that you and NDT are railing against Democrats, is hardly ever addressed by the leaders.

    And finally, his field of strawmen to illustrate how mean and bad and awful you are for actually even considering the thought of holding him accountable.

    If you want, you can argue that my political leanings and thinking is wrong. That I vote for the wrong people for the wrong reason. That I should be someone’s puppet and speak out for and against something when ordered. That I should see things exactly that way you think I should. Fine.

    In short, Pat’s response to his dog sh*tting on your carpet is to blame your toddler for making him do it and demand that you punish the toddler.

    My response: “It’s your damn dog, and YOU are responsible for him sh*tting on the carpet”.

    Conservatives are by nature willing to see and accept other peoples’ perspectives, and tend to be accomodating by nature. Obama “progressives” like Pat see that as a weakness, and use it in a twofold manner: one, to hamstring conservatives, and two, to maneuver us into endless and pointless piety dances punishing our toddler while their dogs are given free rein to sh*t on our carpet.

    The key to dealing with people like Pat is to see clearly how their pious proclamations always translate into sanctions and punishment for conservatives, but never for liberals. Once you see that, you can recognize the degree of contempt in which Pat and his fellow liberals hold you –namely, demanding that you piety-dance about “dominionists” or you’re a Nazi, but pompously complaining about how you want them to “be someone’s puppet and speak out for and against something when ordered” when asked to reciprocate for the behavior of their fellow liberals.

    Hence my opening statement. Since they demand piety dances of us, I demand it of them. And the entertaining thing is how, over two hundred comments later, not a single one of them condemned their fellow liberals for calling for Dan to kill himself as they have repeatedly demanded for any statement a Republican or conservative has made that they dislike.

    The reason the Tea Party is so readily demonized is because far too many people in it are playing by nicey-nice rules under the assumption that liberals are misguided, but still playing by the rules. The simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama and his supporters like Pat have declared that anything is justifiable in the name of power, and are not about to stop their dogs from sh*tting on the carpet, especially since their objective is to destroy your house.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 12:29 am - June 27, 2013

  230. One of the primary reasons I loved this blog and financially supported it was because it provided a place I could point to as evidence that there are gay conservatives in this country. Not so much anymore.

    Comment by David in New Orleans — June 26, 2013 @ 3:52 pm – June 26, 2013

    I find that rather interesting, because the main criticism that I get is that I’m TOO conservative in thought, TOO deferential to social conservatives, TOO willing to listen and see their perspective, and not willing enough to condemn the “dominionists” who are coming from the Gamma Quadrant to kill us all.

    Or is it, David, that the people you are pointing here are your liberal friends who are upset because those conservatives just refuse to die or kill themselves the way that said liberals want?

    The former is good feedback about which I care; the latter is prissy spoiled-princess behavior about which I don’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 12:47 am - June 27, 2013

  231. After actually going out and living life, I come back to find 240 comments on this thread. This thread! About a Democrat politician few people who read this blog even recognize, much less actually care about.

    And J, thanks so much for your continued promotion of my blog. Though I wouldn’t keep chattering, if I were you, about my insanity. If you’re going to keep going back — again and again and again and again — and obsessing over how horrible I am — you’re going to make people think I’ve gotten under your skin.

    It must be horrible, having a horrible person under your skin.

    That basement air is getting to you. Maybe you ought to go upstairs to Mommy and ask her to kiss it and make it better.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 27, 2013 @ 1:30 am - June 27, 2013

  232. The others are typical run-of-the-mill Obama Party shock troops, Jman — not very bright, not very polished, and acting out of blind devotion to leftist ideology. They’re easy to spot, and hardly subtle.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 12:29 am

    NDT:

    Thanks for the explanation, and, as always, the ‘stacks’ of evidence you bring with you to prove your point(s).

    In all of this, there are two things which stand out in my mind:

    1. This being “The Internet Home of the American Gay Conservative”, I would think that, at the very least, left of center posters would, of their own accord, condemn the almost non-stop vulgarities spewed by the miscreants who inhabit ‘their side’, even if that condemnation is insincere and done as a ‘bone throwing’ gesture.
    It hardly ever happens, and on the rare occasion when it does, it more often than not has to be shamed or bludgeoned out of them. So it’s only a fraction of 1 percent of the time where it reads ‘sincere’ to me.
    Of course (and you know this as well as anyone here), the weeping and wailing around here is about something that someone not on ‘their side’ has said, or, more commonly, something that they are either alleged to have said, or have had their words taken out of all context, edited, and/or twisted well past their plain meaning so it appears that they have made some foul remark (‘dog whistles’, as one example) that they never made at all.
    This comes as part and parcel of the demands for ‘piety dances’, as you’ve so neatly termed it.
    I’ve never been one to take the bait with this crap tactic, as its always been my belief that the old saw “actions speak louder than words” is absolutely true. Words are, often enough, very important, but in most instances not nearly as important as behavior.

    But what is even more troubling to me is….

    2. The shameless whining, bitching, moaning and pouting that comes with these tirades.

    When I was a kid, it was (in my family, neighborhood, school, etc.) absolutely forbidden for boys to whine and cry. It was tolerated somewhat more with girls, but only a little bit more.
    The punishment, or ‘disincentive’ (for our enlightened leftist readers), was, at minimum, a forceful and unambiguous verbal rebuke for the boys that they were behaving like ‘sissies’ (when’s the last time you heard that one used?), and for the girls, some unpleasant mocking (Waaaahhhhh!).
    If it continued, and/or the adult(s) present for the shitty display wished to bypass the ‘verbal step’, then both boys and girls could almost always count on a swift ‘ass tanning’, and the boys, if they were older and being more recalcitrant, a male backhand to the mouth.
    Suffice to say that, while these remedies were not 100% effective, they came pretty damn close, and whining, while not unheard of, was very uncommon (as it damn well should be). It’s not only the mark of a child, but the mark of a pricky and poorly behaved child.

    Look where we are now:

    There’s been more whining by so many posters on this blog regarding comments made to them that they they don’t like or consider ‘slanderous’ or ‘violent’. Talk about effing overheated rhetoric.
    No self respecting GIRL where I grew up would carry on and caterwaul in the ways that have been done here (with increasing frequency).

    And another faux pas from those days: running to the grown-ups the moment you had a ‘beef’ with another kid in the neighborhood. It was a more shameful behavior than standing by yourself and pulling a long face, completed with a pouty lower lip.
    We were taught to ‘fight our own battles’ and not run for the nearest adult at the faintest sign of any conflict.
    And it was the RIGHT way to do it.

    Well, as I see it, these urgent tugs at the pant legs and shirt sleeves of this blogs administrators is the exact same thing.
    Its one big “Daddy!, Daddy!, did you see what so-and-so did/said to me? Waaahhhhh!!
    And I don’t much buy into the assertions that it’s because of anyone’s passion for this blog. That’s utter horsesh*t!
    One notable person insisting on that fiction is one of the most prominent ‘poo flingers’ this place has ever seen. She’s another in history’s long gray line of cowards who thinks that she, and she alone, has the right to expel a fusillade of invective at anytime she damn well pleases (and all this while pissing and moaning about the ‘downhill’ trend of the very blog she comically pretends to care so much about), but in a flash she’ll be back at her joint (Green_Acres.blogspot.com) playing the harried and heckled martyr if she gets a good dose or two of the sh*t (from me, recently) that she throws around here. She can’t keep up, and she knows it, thus explaining the parade pf ‘pity parties’ she throws for herself when I rhetorically (and logically and intellectually) kick her teeth down her throat.

    Hey, tough monkey!:
    Follow the ‘Chicago-ism’ of the man child (and, I suspect, closet queen) who you voted for in ’08: never bring a knife to a gun fight (or as I like to say it, if you’re not up for the fights that YOU start, then keep your sorry ass on the bench).
    An effing phony, or there is no such thing.

    As for the rest, I can say many things, but this one has been itching at my fingertips for a while:
    If the chinless chipmunks who make up far too great a portion of the citizens of this country were what we had to man our armed forces back in 1941, we’d have been saluting German and Japanese flags within 6 months of December 7.

    I admire you, NDT, as I do heliotrope, My Sharia Moor (does Stevie Wonder get royalties? :D), etc., etc., because the one thing I’ve NEVER seen you or any of them do is piss, pout, whine, or otherwise ‘play the victim’.
    THAT’S the mark of a REAL GROWN UP, and there’s a boatload of overgrown sissies running around here who need to be told to ‘put up or shut up’.

    If you can get to the end of your days and be able to say that the worst thing that ever happened to you was that you had your feeling hurt at some points, then you will have lived a remarkably charmed life.

    Now kindly stop your effing whining.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:08 am - June 27, 2013

  233. NDT, it’s always interesting to see you behave exactly as you ascribe Democrats/liberals. The bottom line though is you slandered six people on this thread, and you refuse to apologize for such slander. And you refuse to apologize to Dan for crapping yet another one of his threads. Such class. As for your other pious holier than thou pronouncements, they are not even close to being based in reality, despite your “evidence” and grossly misinterpreted spin. Thanks, and have a blessed day.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 6:15 am - June 27, 2013

  234. NDT, it’s always interesting to see you behave exactly as you ascribe Democrats/liberals. The bottom line though is you slandered six people on this thread, and you refuse to apologize for such slander.

    Which is funny, Pat, because you vote for, endorse, and support Democrats and liberals.

    I fail to see how you can be upset over “slander” when you and your fellow liberals so gleefully slander Christians.

    That is, I would fail to see it if I didn’t know you were a malicious bigot.

    And before you start up with your usual whining rant of how you can’t be held responsible , may I remind you that you are on record in this thread as praising Lori’s screaming demand that all Tea Partiers repudiate and punish “dominionism” or be called Nazis who want to kill gays as rational and intelligent.

    Which also then leads to the question of why you endorse and support HER crapping all over the thread, especially with her claims that Heliotrope is an anti-gay bigot, that An is mentally retarded, etc.

    Which will then, given your usual pattern, result in your usual stammering fallback of “defense against the mean things someone else said”, at which point I will simply bring up that you have repeatedly screamed that responsible and intelligent adults shouldn’t respond to such things and that responding to such things is contrary to Dan and Bruce’s wishes for the blog.

    Your behavior used to be somewhat confounding, Pat, until I realized you were like Obama: a passive-aggressive manipulative and malicious bigot who will say anything and do anything to get the results he wants. The way to outmaneuver these people is to do exactly what I have just done — assemble a composite of what they’ve done, stated, and espoused, and show how nothing matches.

    The reason you’re so upset is that your liberal power structure depends rather heavily on exploiting the virtues of others to advance your own selfish ends, similar to how your Hamas allies put missile launchers in hospitals. Up until now, conservatives have been spotting you a considerable amount of deference, under the belief that we all have to give a little to get along and that there were moral lines that you would not cross.

    The IRS scandal, among others, has shown us that there are no lines you will not cross — and even better, as seen with Obama Party leaders like Jim McDermott, that you blame US for YOUR abuses.

    You have proven, Pat, that you and your fellow Obama liberals have no morality, no values, no consistency, and no intention of restraining yourself.

    So we have a choice: be destroyed, or punch back twice as hard. As the Islamists have shown us, you are bullies and can be easily beaten into submission — if someone is willing to throw the punches to do it.

    I am.

    And you refuse to apologize to Dan for crapping yet another one of his threads. Such class. As for your other pious holier than thou pronouncements, they are not even close to being based in reality, despite your “evidence” and grossly misinterpreted spin. Thanks, and have a blessed day.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 6:15 am – June 27, 2013

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 8:46 am - June 27, 2013

  235. Pat,

    This McCarthyite list of the six slandered people is very curious to me.

    In this winding thread there are several references to some put upon “group” which is threatened by, principally, NDT and perhaps/probably Jman 1961, the GayPatriot Poet Laureate (by my acclamation) and others.

    Now it appears that this Gang of Six may have decided to unite and overthrow those who have roughed them up by going the typical route of declaring a person or persons official dirty birdies and having them excommunicated for the crime of pissing off the Gang of Six.

    I am, as you very well know, heterosexual. Ergo, my being a guest on GayPatriot should require me to be very conscientious about not picking my str8 nose in gay public.

    My point is, that by all logic, I should be banned for being out of place with many wrong opinions toward the gay agenda and sticking my proboscis in where it damn well does not belong.

    Agree?

    Let me put it this way. At #239 the much hated NDT tables his schtick and does a lucid, solid, masterful job of laying out his case by dissecting your case and others. Any “harshness” he may have employed is due to how hitting too close to home is sometimes very painful.

    At #241, we have a returning “victim” dressed as the joker and projectile vomiting on everyone in the theater. I feel her pain, but not in the way Bill Clinton whored that phrase around in a touchy-feely way in order to grasp a little more power.

    Your comment @ #247 is a masterpiece of liberal processing.

    You have determined that “slander” has occurred. It is a fact.

    You have determined that the punishment of an apology has been meted out and proclaimed.

    You have determined that the slanderer must submit to the punishment to the satisfaction of …. who? ….. you? …… the Gang of Six? …… Tinkerbell?

    What the Hell is going on? Andy Hardy movies had saner plots than this one. Eddie Haskell was the insincere sycophant whose sneaky character was the counterpoint to the Cleaver Family standards. He was not the star and protagonist.

    But a succession of Eddie Haskells have popped up here to arrange the furniture, air out the room, organize the comments, set the theme, punish and dismiss and get the meeting organized according to their standards.

    I would appreciate a lucid, structured, analysis of “the problem” or a little less scandalmongering and melodrama. That said, I am a guest on this this site and a str8 one at that. Who am I to claim a right to rearrange the furniture?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2013 @ 9:18 am - June 27, 2013

  236. Heliotrope, it is very simple. Forget about what you perceived as liberal processing. We can debate all day about all sorts of process that went on in this thread. I have no interest in having a conversation with NDT until he begins to act like a civil adult. Then I would be happy to address any and all of his points. And I’m certainly not going to be his puppet. NDT clearly slandered six of us. I didn’t rearrange any furniture in pointing out what is clear as day. And frankly, it appears I’m not smart enough to figure out the point of the rest of your post. Sorry. NDT stated that I wished Dan would kill himself. I absolutely did know such thing. If you can find a quote where I did, be my guest.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 9:45 am - June 27, 2013

  237. Everyone on is on to NDT’s schtick and and just should avoid commenting on anything that he posts. Just don’t take the bait.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 27, 2013 @ 9:53 am - June 27, 2013

  238. And so we can all be clear on this, just when did you start working as Dan’s agent?

    Jman, fair enough. The crapping of this thread is Dan’s problem, not mine. I’ll take care of my own problems from here on. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 9:55 am - June 27, 2013

  239. Everyone on is on to NDT’s schtick and and just should avoid commenting on anything that he posts. Just don’t take the bait.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 27, 2013 @ 9:53 am

    1. WHO are the people, specifically, who you refer to as EVERYONE?
    2. Please explain, EXACTLY, what this shtick consists of.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 10:02 am - June 27, 2013

  240. 1. WHO are the people, specifically, who you refer to as EVERYONE?
    2. Please explain, EXACTLY, what this shtick consists of. – Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 10:02 am – June 27, 2013

    I suppose I should have narrowed that down to those who aren’t his sycophants.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 27, 2013 @ 10:10 am - June 27, 2013

  241. Jman, fair enough. The crapping of this thread is Dan’s problem, not mine. I’ll take care of my own problems from here on. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 9:55 am

    And thank you, too, Pat.

    You forgot the part about ‘calling out’ Mme. Heine for HER antics.

    Or did you skim past that one?

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 10:11 am - June 27, 2013

  242. I suppose I should have narrowed that down to those who aren’t his sycophants.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 27, 2013 @ 10:10 am

    Which begs the question: who, EXACTLY, are his ‘sycophants’, and what, EXACTLY, makes them so?

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 10:14 am - June 27, 2013

  243. Jman, I’m confused now. I agreed with you that I should not try to be this blog’s monitor. So I wasn’t planning on calling you, Lori, or anyone else out, unless you are trying to start something with me. Is that what you want?

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 10:19 am - June 27, 2013

  244. Which begs the question: who, EXACTLY, are his ‘sycophants’, and what, EXACTLY, makes them so? – Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 10:14 am – June 27, 2013

    You. I guess you need to look up the word up in a dictionary.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — June 27, 2013 @ 10:20 am - June 27, 2013

  245. unless you are trying to start something with me. Is that what you want?

    You’ve have ended anything that might have started by acknowledging, perhaps unintentionally, that it isn’t just NDT (who you don’t like), but it’s Heine, as well (who you do like).**

    That’s a major concession hereabouts.

    ** – Or me, but then I really am honest, and put my own name up for consideration.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 10:30 am - June 27, 2013

  246. JMan, you called me out for trying to be the blog’s monitor. Fair enough. I made a conscious effort to stay out of other’s battles. I would gladly stay out of it with NDT. In fact, on several occasions, I stated to NDT since we can’t seem to have a civil conversation (I see him as the problem, and I accepted that he sees me as the problem) that we will not comment on each other’s post. He simply need to leave me out of his posts. He did not agree to do this. So I unilaterally decided that I would not reply to his posts, except when I had to defend myself against slander specifically against me. And I would gladly have stayed out of it here, if it wasn’t for his repeated slander of me starting at Post 6.

    I don’t normally comment on the others because, in general, I have not been personally attacked by others, and none of the others have NDT’s longstanding record of what I consider self-righteous sliming of others. If Lori, or anyone else meets the criteria that NDT surpassed, I will call those persons out as well.

    I’ll understand if you don’t agree with my criteria, and if you don’t view things as I see it. But I really don’t want to start a fight with you, or anyone else, and that includes NDT.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 10:58 am - June 27, 2013

  247. But I really don’t want to start a fight with you, or anyone else, and that includes NDT.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 10:58 am

    Nor am I looking to have a fight with you, Pat.

    Asking tough questions isn’t synonymous with “picking a fight”.

    Well, for me, at least.

    If Lori, or anyone else meets the criteria that NDT surpassed, I will call those persons out as well.

    I’ll understand if you don’t agree with my criteria, and if you don’t view things as I see it.

    She already has met the criteria, and vaulted past it with plenty of room to spare, in this and several other threads.

    True, I don’t agree with your criteria, and I don’t view this issue as you do.
    And that’s not a problem for me. Not at all.

    At the very least, we can wrap this up now, and say that this has been an example of ‘civil’ disagreement.

    I’ll take it that we can agree on that.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 11:08 am - June 27, 2013

  248. JMan, yes, I’ll agree this has been an example of a civil disagreement.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 11:14 am - June 27, 2013

  249. NDT clearly slandered six of us.

    “Off with his head!”

    “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    “Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    “Once she remembered trying to box her own ears for having cheated herself in a game of croquet she was playing against herself, for this curious child was very fond of pretending to be two people.”

    “I don’t see how he can ever finish, if he doesn’t begin.”

    ……. and much, much more ….. oops!

    “You used to be much more…”muchier.” You’ve lost your muchness.”

    anyway…..

    “Off with his head!

    Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2013 @ 12:26 pm - June 27, 2013

  250. I have no interest in having a conversation with NDT until he begins to act like a civil adult.

    Comment by Pat — June 27, 2013 @ 9:45 am – June 27, 2013

    Which is funny, because if I screamed that someone else was a murderer, you’d elect me President, and if I screamed someone else was an extremist and terrorist, you’d elect me House Minority Leader.

    So it’s clearly not what I say or do, Pat; it’s whether it’s directed at a target of which you approve. You don’t like Mitt Romney, so it was OK for Obama to call him a murderer; you don’t like Tea Partiers or Christians, so it’s OK for Nancy Pelosi to call them terrorists and extremists.

    That then leads us to this:

    I don’t normally comment on the others because, in general, I have not been personally attacked by others, and none of the others have NDT’s longstanding record of what I consider self-righteous sliming of others.

    Of course.

    Well, of course. The others agree with you, so nothing they say can be incivil; you don’t agree with me, so everything I say is incivil.

    Once people realize, Pat, that you simply make up the rules as you go in the fashion that most benefits you while binding others and have no objective standard for behavior that would ever apply similarly to you and your fellow liberals, your whining about “incivility” becomes obvious as both a) something you don’t really mean and b) something that you use in an attempt to manipulate others — especially when you demand denunciations of my behavior while branding similar requests of you as forcing you to be a “puppet”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 12:36 pm - June 27, 2013

  251. Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2013 @ 12:26 pm

    Without using a search engine to run the quotes through, is this……….Alice in Wonderland?

    How about some Jabberwocky?:

    Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe…..

    Back in 7th grade, one of my teachers started a late in the day game of ‘Telephone’ by whispering this into my ear.
    I still laugh remembering how all of my classmates said that my eyes nearly popped out of my head as she was reciting this line for me to pass on to my friend on my left.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 12:39 pm - June 27, 2013

  252. Well, I waded through a great deal of this thread and its pretty typical of “discussions” Northdallas 30 is involved in. As SCSwampfox said “Everyone is on to NDT’s schtick” and providing some hilarity was Jman1961 who nonsensically asked “Who are the people you refer to as everyone?” and “What is this schtick you refer to?”. Everyone is everyone Jman, including you. Everyone who has read a thread NDT comments on is familiar with the biggest liar the internet has ever seen, who’s schtick has included for me alone falsely claiming I demand to have sex in public, support gays with AIDS intenitonally infecting others, and that I have kicked, punched, shot and stabbed many christians. The other part of his tiresome schtick is bringing up isolated incidents of bad behavior by gays and liberals and blaming all gays and liberals for that wrondoing by claiming they “fully support and endorse” such behavior. Yes, everyone (look it up in the dictionary Jman) is familiar with NDT’s dishonest schtick which he sums up with the philosophy “We have a choice, be destroyed or punch back twice as hard.” and “punching back twice as hard” means ignoring the validity of the criticisms made against you and discarding the truth because its far more important to attack with as much force as possible than it is to be honest.

    But for me the biggest loser on this thread was “I love capitalism” who made the bizarre comment that its no worse to slander someone than it is to call for them to be banned per the commenting rules for telling outrageous lies to attack people. “I love capitalism” demonstrated his lack of integrity by absurdly asserting that “NDT has integrity by the truckloads”. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE including “Ilovecapitalism”, “Jman1961″, and NDT himself is well aware that NDT hasn’t a shred of integrity, he was thrilled to sacrifice it all in the name of “punching back twice as hard” in the face of valid criticism (and now of course he’ll quote some liberal or gay saying something terrible and dishonestly assert that’s what I mean by valid criticism”.

    NDT unchecked posions every blog he participates in. He needn’t be banned from here, what would be best is to treat him like the rotten child he is and demand that he stop telling outrageous lies about people and falsely asserting that the people who disagree with him “fully support and endorse” people who’ve done terrible things just because the people he disagrees with and those terrible people both happen to be gays or voted for Obama, or are both women and so on. If he won’t consistently behave in at least a halfway honest and civil manner then he should be banned, as he has been on many many other blogs (including conservative blogs) before this one. Don’t let NDT poison your blog and drive away all the honest people leaving nothing but the riff-raff almost as devoid of ethics and detached from reality as he is.

    Comment by Priya Lynn — June 27, 2013 @ 2:03 pm - June 27, 2013

  253. And as a nice capoff to the day, to no one’s surprise, Obama supporters overwhelmingly consider Tea Partiers to be a greater terrorist threat than al-Qaeda.

    This is how the sick and delusional Barack Obama and his Barack Obama Party justify their IRS, their FBI, their EPA, and all these other agencies targeting, harassing, and punishing conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Partiers.

    This is why Pat’s beloved Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama himself are constantly screaming that the Tea Party and Republicans are evil, vicious, horrible extremists and terrorists. This is why the Obama Party bureaucracy and government workers target Tea Partiers, conservatives, and Republicans for violence, abuse, and harassment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 2:05 pm - June 27, 2013

  254. LOL.

    And once again Priya Lynn shows up with the usual screaming rant of all liberals that I be banned because she is always right and how anyone who ever criticizes her is wrong.

    She must be under the impression that anyone believes she thinks or reasons objectively when it comes to gay conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 27, 2013 @ 2:15 pm - June 27, 2013

  255. “punching back twice as hard”

    We’re simply taking to heart the advice that your hero, our closeted gay leftist Prez, has offered to others in the past.

    And we thought you might appreciate the gesture, Priya History of Emotional Breakdowns.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:31 pm - June 27, 2013

  256. …is familiar with the biggest liar the internet has ever seen,…

    Comment by Priya Lynn Roseanne Barr knockoff after smoking a ton of meth — June 27, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

    It’s anybody’s race…with Lori FrankenstHeine on the rail, followed by Cas….Serenity…Levi….liitlelettermike…Auntie Dogma…and coming up on the inside…..Priya (on board number 00, Head Trauma)…
    And DOWN the stretch they come!!!…….Priya Restraint is coming on strong! They’re coming down to the wire! It’s gonna be close!!

    Giddy-up, Priya. you can make it!

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:41 pm - June 27, 2013

  257. You’ve just heard the call of the running of the ‘Biggest Liar the Internet Has Ever Seen’ Handicap (and in Priya’s case, a MAJOR handicap: devoid of sanity).

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - June 27, 2013

  258. This remarkable ’180′ comes from the last paragraph of the stultifying schizophrenic blather posted by Priya Bad Acts just a short time ago

    He needn’t be banned from here

    And then, in the very next sentence:

    If he won’t consistently behave in at least a halfway honest and civil manner then he should be banned

    Oh, dear.
    What should we make of this?

    I think Priya Record of Involuntary Institutionalization (aka: Sybil) needs to have her dosage increased dramatically and be kept as calm as possible in a small room with padded walls and striped sunlight.

    The poor thing.

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 27, 2013 @ 3:13 pm - June 27, 2013

  259. For the record, I have been fired by one well known church organization. The church hierarchy had a major congregational revolt on its hands as parishioners, vestry and clergy of several historic churches left the fold and reestablished themselves under the hierarchy of the traditional wing of the church.

    I was hired by the lawsuit crowd to help guide their ethic arguments in seizing the buildings and the lands from the dissenters. Short version, they had no ethical grounds to stand on. It was correct of them to fire me, because I would not play the game of finding the outcome they hired me to find.

    heliotrope – Kudos, that’s character!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2013 @ 10:20 am - June 28, 2013

  260. “I love capitalism” who made the bizarre comment that its no worse to slander someone than it is to call for them to be banned

    No PL, that’s not what I said.

    What I said is that, in terms of attacking someone personally, calling for their future contributions (their person) to be eliminated from the blog is pretty incivil, about as incivil as it gets short of threatening them. That’s my philosophy, and everyone here should understand that I’ll be sticking to it in any future threads that I may author (which this thread is not; so I have not presumed to delete any comments here), regardless of whether people agree with me on it.

    Reading comprehension, PL- It matters. And, by the way, your comment contains several violations in terms of attacking other commentors personally, of the narrower kind that perhaps even you would recognize as violations.

    And that’s something which kind of amazes me in all this (not just meaning you, now): that certain of NDT’s critics fault his incivility and his rule violations…while also repeatedly flaunting their own incivility and committing their own rule violations. It would be a lot easier to sympathize with certain people’s complaints, if their hands were a little cleaner.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2013 @ 1:57 pm - June 28, 2013

  261. Here’s what ILC wrote above:

    Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

    ILC is saying that calling for someone’s comments to no longer appear at this blog is the very worst kind of personal attack. Since a nuclear weapon is the worst, most destructive kind of weapon, then banning someone’s comments is, among personal attacks on another person, the very worst kind.

    He then rather inconsistently writes that the making of threats (physical, for example, such as when NDT advocates punching people in the face, in the context of addressing someone who disagrees with him) would be ‘more of an attack’, i.e. worse than ‘nuclear’.

    If someone were witnessing a rape in-progress and called 911 in order that the perpetrator be arrested/charged/sentenced/jailed (removed from society for a time), is the caller guilty of a ‘personal attack’ (‘nuclear’, I assume) worse than the reported rape?

    **Reading comprehension moment: The above is called an analogy.**

    Also, if an analysis of who has violated rules worse than whom is necessary, there are years’ worth of posts in which I’m willing to bet I can find many examples of ILC’s own record of abuse. The issue isn’t whether anyone’s hands are perfectly clean (i.e. set up a standard that very few can absolutely meet, thus exonerating NDT) but whether 1) a pattern of consistently abusive behavior exists; 2) whether the nature of the attacks is personal in nature; 3) whether the abuse is harming the community.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 28, 2013 @ 2:58 pm - June 28, 2013

  262. ILC is saying that calling for someone’s comments to no longer appear at this blog is the very worst kind of personal attack.

    No actually; in the very sentence you quote, I state that making threats would be a greater attack.

    Reading comprehension, Iggy – It matters.

    I can find many examples of ILC’s own record of abuse

    As I could, for yours. Having said that: The occasions when I have name-called in comments exist, but are fewer than many others. The occasions when I called for people to be banned, have to be even fewer (I’m not going to say there were absolutely none, but I can’t remember one at this time). And the occasions when I have made threats (in the sense meant above) are none.

    And now, Iggy: If I am truly *not* important to *you*, then you won’t spend the next hour searching the archives to prove me wrong; the more so because at no point in this thread have I held myself up as a paragon. (The sentences immediately above, are meant to be descriptive only.)

    As to whether I exercise my option to ignore your comments, as often as I should: clearly I didn’t skip this one, but I may the next one; there was one earlier, that I did simply skip. (Still don’t know or care what it said.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 28, 2013 @ 3:17 pm - June 28, 2013

  263. No actually; in the very sentence you quote, I state that making threats would be a greater attack.

    Actually, I quote (roughly) three of your ‘sentences’:

    #1:

    Called for NDT to be banned.

    This is an incomplete sentence followed by a period stating that someone or some others had called for NDT to be banned.

    #2:

    The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks.

    Another incomplete sentence followed by a period. This ‘sentence’ likens calling someone to be banned the ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks, likening it both to an actual nuclear weapon (the most destructive kind of attack) and what is known as the ‘nuclear option’, used in the vernacular to imply the final option or the option of last resort.

    #3:

    Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.

    This is an actual sentence. After discussing ‘nuclear attack’ above, I then pointed out your inconsistency because you then stated that making threats would be worse:

    (From my post above:)

    He then rather inconsistently writes that the making of threats … would be ‘more of an attack’, i.e. worse than ‘nuclear’.

    So no, ILC, I didn’t miss anything you wrote. I pointed out the inconsistency in stating that calling for the ban of a participant is the ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks (meaning the very worst), but that physical threats are (according to you) even worse. Worse than the worst, in other words.

    Reading comprehension, ILC. It matters.

    …at no point in this thread have I held myself up as a paragon.

    Yes, there are some statements even you would concede are too ridiculous. But I believe what you’re attempting is to throw up some nearly impossible standard so that NDT can be considered just like someone who makes the occasional snide remark. I recognize it for what it is, that’s all. As I wrote above, a ban should consider whether:

    1) a pattern of consistently abusive behavior exists; 2) whether the nature of the attacks is personal in nature; 3) whether the abuse is harming the community.

    Meh. Whatever.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 28, 2013 @ 5:18 pm - June 28, 2013

  264. This just in:

    The Internet Supreme Court has just handed down their verdict in the case of Ignatius vs. ILC.
    In an extremely rare 9-0 ruling, the justices have stated unambiguously, in a terse, one paragraph decision, the justices ruled that it is painfully obvious to all but the least sentient among us that Ignatius does, in fact, have a raging hard-on for ILC and looks for the thinnest of excuses upon which to conduct his endless harangues aimed at the most recent addition to the GayPatriot administrative team.

    We now return you to our regular programming, already in progress…

    Since some of my comments in this thread (and the sentiments contained therein) got the “Soviet Air Brush” treatment yesterday, I’d like to repeat one of them:

    Didn’t your parents teach you not to whine like a little girl, and don’t you have enough self respect to stop doing it?

    STOP your effing whining!

    Comment by Jman1961 — June 28, 2013 @ 7:27 pm - June 28, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.