GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/08/29/larry-craig-story-fitting-the-media-mantra-on-social-conservatives/trackback/

  1. GPW – of the possible causes you listed, I suspect it’s rather less to do with the liberal media being out to suppress positive Iraq news (or Hillary’s newest campaign scandal or whatever)… and more to do with the Elmer Gantry aspect (left-liberal media fascinated by anything they can persuade themselves is “Republican hypocrisy”). Which is where you ended up; just my $.02.

    …since we started blogging on this, our numbers have spiked…

    I’ve noticed a few new commentors, too. (Welcome, guys! :-) )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm - August 29, 2007

  2. So, the problem isn’t Larry Craig being sleazy, it’s Larry Craig being hypocrite, according to the Democrats?

    So, Democrats who oppose school vouchers while sending their own kids to private school are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    So, Democrats who call for tax increases while avoiding the maximum rate themselves are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    So, Democrats who oppose drilling in ANWR and support “renewable energy” except when someone wants to build a wind farm off Martha’s vineyard are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    So, Democrats who think Bush having the phone calls of foreign terrorists monitored is a gross invasion of privacy, but think the Clintons having 1,000 FBI files on political opponents is an innocent mistake, are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    So, Democrats who want working Americans to “sacrifice” their SUV’s while they fly around on private jets and live in 28,000 square foot homes are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    So, Democrats who decry the “culture of corruption” while giving themselves and their business associates earmarks are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    So, isn’t it kind of massively hypocritical for Democrats and their supporters to be leveling charges of hypocrisy at anyone?

    Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 10:02 pm - August 29, 2007

  3. A problem the left has, it that it has no standards whatsoever – anything goes. But deep down they feel that there must be something wrong with a society with no values. So they assign the job to the Republicans. And when a handful of Republicans fail in their personal life – it immediately becomes a vindication – see, even those moralists can’t live up to their ideals.

    I agree with your PJM article, the issue isn’t about Craig being a closeted gay, it is his total lack of judgment. Had he succumbed to his urges, and paid a male prostitute, it would be a sad story. But knowingly continuing with a very risky and illegal behavior speaks more of his character. This is not a man who should represent the American people.
    Of course the outcome for him would have been the same, but now of course the media has gone out of it’s way to equate bathroom trolling with homosexuality.

    So thank you MSM, is your desire to destroy another Republican you are fostering another one of those gay stereotypes. Just like most Republicans live up to their own standards, most homosexuals are not out engaging in anonymous risky sex in public bathrooms.

    Comment by Leah — August 29, 2007 @ 10:16 pm - August 29, 2007

  4. So, Democrats who want working Americans to “sacrifice” their SUV’s while they fly around on private jets and live in 28,000 square foot homes are calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

    And if one becomes president, God forbid, do you think they’ll convince the USSS to mount a .50 cal in a Toyonda Pious? I can see it now. The Secret Service would appear sillier than Aidid’s “technicals”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 29, 2007 @ 11:00 pm - August 29, 2007

  5. If Senator Craig wants the story to go away, he needs to come clean. Nothing sets the media aflame like a celebrity or politician who denies something they so obviously did. It sends the media into a full tailspin GOTCHA! mode. Look at Michael Vick. As long as he denied the charges, the media was going to go after him. Once he admitted to it… POOF! The story disappears.

    Senator Craig has a very easy way to make this disappear: come clean.

    Comment by Chase — August 29, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - August 29, 2007

  6. “Perhaps this story has generated more coverage because Craig has denied being gay while”…..

    …while trolling for homosexual sex in airport restrooms with men, while voting against gay men and lesbians every chance he could.

    “It’s a story they want to tell, exposing the supposed hypocrisy of social conservatives.”

    Supposed? LMAO.

    This isn’t a big riddle.

    Comment by jimmy — August 30, 2007 @ 12:27 am - August 30, 2007

  7. #2. Shorter version: The Democrats made him do it.

    Comment by jimmy — August 30, 2007 @ 12:30 am - August 30, 2007

  8. #7
    Actually, the shorter version (for the honesty impaired) is that liberals are full of absolute manure.

    BTW, How’s the real “culture of corruption” coming on those ethics restructuring?

    Thought so.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 30, 2007 @ 12:39 am - August 30, 2007

  9. Groups like the Family Research Council, Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth et al are totally hypocritical on this issue. The FRC called for “forgiveness” for Vitter, and now the Idaho Family Group is calling for Craig to resign. Norm Coleman has done the same – while being silent on Vitter.

    Many liberals seem angry because Craig was self-righteous about Bill Clinton. I have no sympathy for Bill Clinton – Clinton was a hypocrite on this issue himself – because he used DOMA to get votes – and HRC refused to stand up to him.

    Both David “diaper boy” Vitter and Craig should resign.

    Comment by Eva Young — August 30, 2007 @ 1:10 am - August 30, 2007

  10. You hit it right on the head. I really have come to the conclusion that I really think Sen. Craig, in his mind, is not gay. I think that he has a sexual compulsion problem. To be awfully blunt, I think in Sen. Craig’s mind “A hole is a hole.” If it has gone that far. I think that is why he can separate the two behaviors. All I do know is that Sen. Craig needs to quit and yesterday. Forget the Republican party. Appearantly, Sen. Craig has by his defiance yesterday. But, I really hope that he can heal with his wife and family. Unlike the cretin Jim McGreevy who made his “coming out” a mockery for gay and lesbian Americans and, like Sen. Craig, set back people’s thoughts about gay and lesbian people oh maybe about 100 years.

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — August 30, 2007 @ 1:54 am - August 30, 2007

  11. Sock it to ‘em – the MSM first, and Sen. Craig second.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — August 30, 2007 @ 3:15 am - August 30, 2007

  12. Jimmy, in #6, it’s one thing to cover this story, it’s quite another to saturate the news media with it.

    Yeah, it is a story, but I wonder if it would generate this amount of media attention if they could not play out the hypocrisy angle.

    And Mark, thanks for you comment in #10. I don’t think Craig sees himself as gay, indeed probably suffers from some kind of dissociation.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 30, 2007 @ 3:44 am - August 30, 2007

  13. I really have come to the conclusion that I really think Sen. Craig, in his mind, is not gay

    Personally, i think he’s just pulling a CYO Clintonesque semantic technicality.

    He never said hes not “bi”. he never said he hasnt had sex with men. he just said he isnt gay. LOL. maybe he’ll end up saying Im not gay! I’m “questioning”

    That would amuse me :)

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 30, 2007 @ 5:21 am - August 30, 2007

  14. I also like what Patrick Ruffini had to say at townhall,

    “The only hypocrites here are the live-and-let-live left that continues to preach an absolute separation between public performance and private morality, and yet seeks to demolish that wall when it is politically expedient for them, doing so in the most personally invasive manner possible”

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 30, 2007 @ 5:23 am - August 30, 2007

  15. There is also the highly unlikely but not entirely impossible scenario that it really was a misunderstanding at the airport and Larry “Wide Stance” Craig isn’t gay. I don’t personally believe that’s the case, but I accept the remote possibility, just as I accept the remote possibility that Michael Jackson isn’t a pedophile.

    Frankly, I hope he resigns and then gets professional help to help him heal the pain this has caused to his family. They’re the ones I’m really concerned about.

    Comment by V the K — August 30, 2007 @ 8:46 am - August 30, 2007

  16. James Lileks had a good take, though:

    “It made me think of a news report I heard the other day; they’d interviewed a Typical Idahoian, and he said “well, word at the coffee shop is, no one’s surprised.” Which makes you think folks in the smallest towns had seen a furtive gesture under the stall divider. Guess Lar’s in town. Sorry, sir, I’ll pass, and if you don’t mind my pancakes are getting’ cold. Thanks for the community center and all. “

    Comment by V the K — August 30, 2007 @ 8:56 am - August 30, 2007

  17. One subtext in the media frenzy is the balance in the Senate between Democrats and the Republicans. If they can chase Craig out, it opens another possibily for a stronger majority. They are challenged with reaching that 60 vote minimum they themselves have all but institutionalized.

    I have heard Barney Frank speak out in favor of gay marriage and other issues involving gay citizens, but he seems to remarkably quiet when it is not to the party advantage. This is predictable, but the hypocrisy should not go unnoticed. He is the “go-to” guy for the MSM, but they seem to have lost his name in this circumstance.

    If the Republicans need to do a far better job of policing themselves.

    No, I do not blame the Craig mess on the Democrats or the MSM. He got himself into it all by his lonesome. But the Democrats and the MSM are fully engaged in tossing him anchors as his boat goes down. If it were one of their own, they would clam up.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 30, 2007 @ 8:59 am - August 30, 2007

  18. #16 – Maybe I haven’t paying close attention (and I haven’t) but I don’t see dems doing much of anything in this.
    A few interviews here and there, but really not much.
    If anything the repubs have been quickly “throwing anchors” on Craig

    – But they have basically left Vitter alone – (maybe because the state is not securely red? Or is it because it was with a woman?)

    Its the republican denouncements and their call for inquiries, that just adds fuel adding fuel to this media fire.

    Sex+hypocrisy+denouncements+investigation = Big time Ratings!

    Comment by gil — August 30, 2007 @ 9:38 am - August 30, 2007

  19. What I fail to understand is how this is the fault of any Democrats or the left as some posters have stated. Craig is a Republican, and a right-wing Republican at that. Newspapers publish and other media is produced in order to make a profit and Republicans love profit, so what’s the problem?

    Comment by fnln — August 30, 2007 @ 10:11 am - August 30, 2007

  20. The media’s been ever eager to explore the private lives of politicians, particularly if they’re Republicans…proves my point that Bill Clinton was always Republican Lite!

    Comment by EminemsRevenge — August 30, 2007 @ 10:30 am - August 30, 2007

  21. If the issue is hypocrisy, does that mean that Larry Craig’s bathroom cruising would have been all right if he were openly gay? Does that mean Mark Foley’s text messages would have been all right if he were openly gay?

    Judging by the examples of Gerry Studds, Jim McGreevey and Barney Frank, behavior that is otherwise repugnant and sleazy is all right so long as the person doing it can say, “It’s who I am and it’s part of my lifestyle.”

    Isn’t there something really, REALLY wrong with that?

    Comment by V the K — August 30, 2007 @ 10:41 am - August 30, 2007

  22. V: yes.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 30, 2007 @ 12:14 pm - August 30, 2007

  23. [...] WIDE STANCE Craig” posts –  Gay Patriot has an interesting piece on the Craig mess too: Larry Craig Story–Fitting the Media Mantra on Social Conservatives – Found via the blog: Hip Hop Republicans So I’ve been traveling since 4am on Tuesday. So as I [...]

    Pingback by politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » It Didn’t Start With Craig — August 30, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - August 30, 2007

  24. To a large extent, I agree with Leah. Republicans are a convenient social scratching post. But pertaining specifically to Republicans, I would like to think it’s possible to be in favor of consequences for poor judgment while not inviting the kind of gleeful finger-pointing we’re witnessing.

    The issue is both poor judgment and hypocrisy. We all seem to agree re. the issue of judgment. As to hypocrisy, M-W defines hypocrisy as follows:

    a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

    I have read in the last few days that questions of Craig’s sexuality have long been asked and inappropriate behavior has long been at the very least rumored. As I understand, he’s always professed a strong conservative Methodism (not sure which brand — Free Methodist, perhaps?) and was known for his strong Christian views, was a member of the Singing Senators who regularly sang gospel hymns, etc. This also is a pattern of behavior, just as has been his sexual record.

    I don’t know any of his votes or positions on gay issues, but I would think that his statements of self-defense coupled with his behavior and other life choices make him utterly hypocritical. The issue isn’t his sexual orientation. The issues are how he has chosen to live and deal with it, meaning both judgment and hypocrisy, hypocrisy being a result of his poor and inconsistent judgment.

    I feel sorry for him. I wish he could simply be himself and live with his values and orientation intact and without compromise. I believe more would respect him than his sordid behavior indicates he believes — because he would respect himself.

    Despite what some of you may think, I believe what members of this blog share is a special charge, not some cross to bear. We are challenged to be true to ourselves, to live honestly, able to separate the sexual identities that set us apart from much of society from the values that we believe are in society’s best interest. That this blog exists is a credit to all of you and despite my frequent disagreements with what is written here, each of you has my respect. This is what I choose to take from this story.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 30, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - August 30, 2007

  25. This question begs to be asked: Why all the calls from the Repubs for Larry Craig to resign; and yet not a single call for David Vitter to do the same? He broke the law; he disgraced himself and is certainly not an ideal example for the young people of America.

    Further…the Vitter storywas not covered in the MSM anywhere near the volume of the Craig situation. Why if the media is so “liberal” and focused on exposing GOP hypocrisy?

    Comment by NYCBOY2 — August 30, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - August 30, 2007

  26. HardHobbit, a friendly warning – Making a claim to “respect” myself and certain others is exceedingly thin ice for you, as much of your past and recent behavior has betrayed the opposite. Which then makes holding forth about the nature of hypocrisy, also thin ice.

    As this is kindly meant – believe it or not as you like – I will wrap up fast, as in right now, rather than giving a lengthy brief of specifics which would be more of an attack.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 30, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - August 30, 2007

  27. This question begs to be asked: Why all the calls from the Repubs for Larry Craig to resign; and yet not a single call for David Vitter to do the same? He broke the law; he disgraced himself and is certainly not an ideal example for the young people of America.

    Better question: if Vitter should resign, why shouldn’t Barney Frank?

    What I don’t understand is why Democrats are screaming that Vitter should resign for visiting a prostitute, but, for running a ring of prostitutes out of his apartment and using his Congressional power to protect and facilitate it, Barney Frank shouldn’t?

    I would have no problem with seeing Vitter resign. But on the scale of crimes, Larry Craig’s open solicitation of public sex and his attempt to get out of it by using his Congressional status ranks highest, Frank’s deliberately running a prostitution ring out of his apartment and using his Congressional status to protect it ranks next, and Vitter’s visiting a prostitute ranks lower than both of those.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - August 30, 2007

  28. Meanwhile, yet another Democrat is in a bribe-taking scandal. Although, you wouldn’t know it from the article. The MSM (a.k.a. Democrat PR Machine) conspicuously fails to mention the congressman’s party affiliation.

    Comment by V the K — August 30, 2007 @ 3:45 pm - August 30, 2007

  29. “What I don’t understand is why Democrats are screaming that Vitter should resign for visiting a prostitute, but, for running a ring of prostitutes out of his apartment and using his Congressional power to protect and facilitate it, Barney Frank shouldn’t?”

    Please get your history straight…er…correct. Barney frank did not knowingly run a prostitution ring out of his home. It was investigated way back when and he was cleared.

    On the other hand prostitution, whether you are buying or selling, is a crime in most states and in DC. Vitter admittedly broke the law; a law that I’m sure he would vocally endorse based on his strident support of “Traditional Family Values”.

    Why should the GOP treat one ‘lawbreaker” any differently from another. It does not make sense logically…except through the prism of homophobia…and poltcal expediency.

    Comment by NYCBOY2 — August 30, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - August 30, 2007

  30. NDT, I agree with you completely about the seriousness of the charges against, Craig, Frank and Vitter. I hold my Rabbi to a high moral standard, if he/she has an affair – they are out. I don’t hold politicians to the same standard. So yes, Vitter is slimey, and he even broke a law in paying for sex. (It wasn’t in Nevada was it?)
    But what Craig did is much worse. When paying for a prostitute, both sides are making a transaction. When trolling in public bathrooms, sure you send out signals, but an innocent person, say a 16 year old boy- can be caught up in something he knows nothing about.

    It is not about the extramarital sex, that does not make a person unfit to govern. It is the abuse of a public place, and then of course the conceit that being a senator gives him extra privileges.

    I think Dan is on to something, Craig probably doesn’t consider himself gay. He has these horrible episodes from time to time. So why does that make him a hypocrite? Maybe he does whole heartedly believe in the strictest forms of ‘family values’. Just because he himself has failed, doesn’t mean that he needs to give up on those beliefs for society on the whole.

    Comment by Leah — August 30, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - August 30, 2007

  31. Barney frank did not knowingly run a prostitution ring out of his home. It was investigated way back when and he was cleared.

    Mhm.

    Which is also why no criminal charges were ever filed; the criminal investigation, unlike the whitewash of the Democrat-controlled House, would have looked at ALL the evidence, rather than Frank’s attempt to plead that he had no idea why Gobie was getting all these phone calls, running up all these parking tickets, etc.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - August 30, 2007

  32. After listening to the audio tapes of the officer and Sen. Craig, I am starting to get the feeling the guy was set up. For starters, a portion of the discussion started BEFORE he was read his Miranda rights; second, the charge of solicitation or public lewdness was never addressed.

    Plus – isn’t it fishy that the MSM sat on this story for 3 weeks and broke it right about the time that Shrillary’s shady contribution story hit the airwaves?

    Nothing about the Dhimmicrats and their willing allies surprises me any more.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 31, 2007 @ 10:35 am - August 31, 2007

  33. Peter, do you mean he wasn’t really cruising? Or just that the timing of the story’s release is fishy?

    The latter may well be true. The MSM are in the tank for the Dhimmis. From Craig’s standpoint, the story was supposed to be under wraps. How did it suddenly “break”? Who researched it – or leaked it – and why? But none of that changes the fact that Craig plead guilty to something animalistic and wholly wrong for a public official, and ought to resign ASAP.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 11:27 am - August 31, 2007

  34. (P.S. Not that Craig’s actions would have been less wrong for a private citizen. Please forgive the poor phrasing. I meant only that public officials should know better.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 11:34 am - August 31, 2007

  35. I think we’re all in agreement that Craig is a sleaze. It’s just convenient that the incident happened in June and no one reported anything for two months until the same week it comes out that Hillary has been taking illicit campaign contributions.

    I also noted none of the house lefties has commented on my #21, why lefties don’t care about sleazy behavior as long as one isn’t “hypocritical” about it.

    Comment by V the K — August 31, 2007 @ 12:03 pm - August 31, 2007

  36. #33 – “Peter, do you mean he wasn’t really cruising? Or just that the timing of the story’s release is fishy?”

    Both. It is his word against the officer’s and if you listed to the two men on the audio tape, it is obvious that the officer is (a) trying to entrap Craig into admitting he was trying to cruise and (b) there was no mention of any type of exposure, solicitation or public lewdness, unlike the time George Michael got busted in Beverly Hills doing much, MUCH worse than Sen. Craig.

    Also – yes, I question the timing of the release of the story. Given the history of the MSM and how often they spring stories on GOP officials and candidates without proper vetting and/or research (“Memogate,” anyone?), for the Boise newspaper to sit on this for so long gives me the impression that there is something rotten in the state of Idaho. (And no, I don’t mean its elected officials.)

    Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” Didn’t we learn anything from the Duke lacrosse players? Even Slick Willie maintained his innocence despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 31, 2007 @ 1:11 pm - August 31, 2007

  37. James, it’s about hypocrisy, in that Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Bob Allen all campaign on not just family values, but on crushing their imagined “pink scourge” that is running over America.

    Those men who purport to protect America from gay men and the sex we have, are out trolling for a bit of the strange themselves. That is the hypocrisy of their actions.

    In typical right wing fashion, it’s a case of, (at least with Craig and Allen, not necessarily Foley,) feeling that these actions are no good for America, but peachy for them.

    What’s sad is that the 50% of Republicans who see nothing wrong with the GLBTQ community see people like Craig and Allen, rather than people like the Log Cabiners.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - August 31, 2007

  38. And for those of you who want to read the whole thing, the transcript of the questioning after the arrest is right here.

    Judge for yourselves.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 31, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - August 31, 2007

  39. But Craig himself plead guilty, Peter. I’ve gone with his guilt on that basis.

    As for whether something is fishy in Idaho – Well, we’ve had a commentor here tell us the whole state is in an uproar because of Craig’s betrayal (perceived or otherwise, let’s not get into that) on immigration. I.e., could be that Republicans are mad at him, in Idaho.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - August 31, 2007

  40. Peter, I made a quick trip to the U.S. and while we know the MSM is biased but everything that I heard it was entrapment pure and simple and the Senator fell right into it. Last March I was in that airport and didn´t notice any kind of activity but then I´m not a ¨tea room¨queen.
    I think the state parties instead of moving up their primaries ought to move them back further than originally scheduled in hopes that maybe
    they can come up with candidates that can win their districts or states.
    Senator Craig is toast and the Dem´s are salivating. Now Senator Warner will not seek another term. Denny Hastert is going. The bale outs could hurt any chance of recovering a majority or even staying close. I don´t feel good about the next election cycle.

    Comment by Roberto — August 31, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - August 31, 2007

  41. What’s sad is that the 50% of Republicans who see nothing wrong with the GLBTQ community see people like Craig and Allen, rather than people like the Log Cabiners.

    That is because the gay leftist bloggers publicize the former and denigrate the latter.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2007 @ 3:09 pm - August 31, 2007

  42. it’s about hypocrisy

    In other words, yes, sleazy behavior is okay as long as you claim it’s intrinsic to your life-style. Thank you, George Michael.

    Comment by V the K — August 31, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - August 31, 2007

  43. “That is because the gay leftist bloggers publicize the former and denigrate the latter.”

    No, Dallas, it’s because the GOP in general and the gay GOP in particular choose to hide away, rather make their voices heard. In which case, only the sensationalistic stories Bruce talks about are the only examples of the GLBTQ community those people see.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 4:05 pm - August 31, 2007

  44. “In other words, yes, sleazy behavior is okay as long as you claim it’s intrinsic to your life-style. Thank you, George Michael.”

    James, I appreciate a good tangent as much as the next guy, but where in the hell did you get that from my comment? Where did I say anything about claiming any activity is intrinsic to any “lifestyle”?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 4:08 pm - August 31, 2007

  45. Craig is ultimately responsible. Every Republican is aware of the climate in Washington (and elsewhere), a climate to which they themselves have contributed. MSM research and leaking aside, timing aside, police tactics aside, Democrat campaign shenanigans aside, if I had a dollar for every time a Republican has been investigated with no results… Whether this is to be expected or whether this is wholly unfair is beside the point. It’s the way it is. We may be disgusted with Craig for his sexual problems and inability to deal with them, but handing his political enemies the noose alone is enough to condemn his public life to the dustbin. Good riddance.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 31, 2007 @ 4:22 pm - August 31, 2007

  46. No, Dallas, it’s because the GOP in general and the gay GOP in particular choose to hide away, rather make their voices heard.

    Tell us, Paul; in regards to the irony of making that statement on this blog, are you choosing to overlook it, or just plain missing it?

    And next, would you like me to dredge up examples from prominent gay Democrat blogs like Americablog or Pam’s House Blend denigrating and namecalling gay Republicans, as well as the fact that these bloggers are paid by Democrat politicians to harass and hound gay Republicans?

    And as a further note, would you like me to dredge up statements from those blogs that make it clear that the only “real gays” are Democrats?

    If you want to improve the public image of gays among the GOP, shut up your stupid partisans who keep screaming that, in order to be gay, you have to support abortion, oppose religion, oppose police arresting people for public sex, etc. Furthermore, call out those same people like Spaulding and Aravosis who namecall and denigrate gay GOP members and make it clear that they’re nothing but loudmouth demagogues who are using their sexual orientation as an excuse for sheer partisanship.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2007 @ 4:49 pm - August 31, 2007

  47. “Tell us, Paul; in regards to the irony of making that statement on this blog, are you choosing to overlook it, or just plain missing it?”

    Since you, ILC, VTK and all the rest–if you will–are posting anonymously, since Bruce ran deep and ran silent when he was outed by Roger and since, as I stated, only about half of the rank and file of Republican base supports GLBTQ’s, I’m fairly certain my point is valid and not the least bit ironic.

    “And next, would you like me to dredge up examples from prominent gay Democrat blogs like Americablog or Pam’s House Blend denigrating and namecalling gay Republicans, as well as the fact that these bloggers are paid by Democrat politicians to harass and hound gay Republicans?”

    Yes. And then I shall do the same with the numerous right wing blogs who perpetrate these exact same attacks against liberals and Dems. Let’s not forget, the right’s favorite canard is that Hillary–excuse me–Hitlery is a lesbian and Barney Frank is a pedophile.

    “And as a further note, would you like me to dredge up statements from those blogs that make it clear that the only “real gays” are Democrats?”

    Yes, because I haven’t seen them. I have however seen numerous illusions on this blog by homocons that they are superior to their liberal brothers and sisters based on nothing more than their own sense of self-satisfaction.

    “If you want to improve the public image of gays among the GOP,”

    And if you want to improve the image of conservative gays among the GOP, then stop molesting men in public toilets.

    “shut up your stupid partisans who keep screaming that, in order to be gay, you have to support abortion, oppose religion, oppose police arresting people for public sex, etc.”

    I see many liberal LGBTQ’s who support those ideas, less so the idea of public sex, but I’ve never seen a mansfesto deamndig those beliefs of all gays

    That said, perhaps you should have a word with your partisans who believe that no woman has the right to control her body, the belief that America was created to support the Christian right, rather than all it’s citizens and who believe a strong defense is not more police on the street, but more guns in the home.

    “Furthermore, call out those same people like Spaulding and Aravosis who namecall and denigrate gay GOP members and make it clear that they’re nothing but loudmouth demagogues who are using their sexual orientation as an excuse for sheer partisanship.”

    I will do that, as long as you call out your brothers and sisters to come out. Let’s face it, you’re a party where Tyler Whitney will go to a Trans forum and hold up a sign telling people to go back in the closet and then go to the DC pride parade. How’s that for irony?

    As far as using one’s sexuality for partisanship, let’s not forget that people like Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich and Giuliani think they are proper defenders of marriage because they are straight. They have to reply on their sexual orientation because clearly their actions do not present them as defenders of marriage.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 5:11 pm - August 31, 2007

  48. Since you, ILC, VTK and all the rest–if you will–are posting anonymously, since Bruce ran deep and ran silent when he was outed by Roger and since, as I stated, only about half of the rank and file of Republican base supports GLBTQ’s, I’m fairly certain my point is valid and not the least bit ironic.

    Oh, I’m hardly anonymous; I simply choose not to make my name public here.

    And, since you mention it, a good part of the reason why is what happened to Bruce; for having the temerity to disagree with Democrats, his boss and coworkers were harassed, his friends were harassed, and even the person who had helped him with designing the blog — a Democrat operative, no less — was called up and harassed.

    Realistically, Paul, it’s not other Republicans we fear; it’s Democrats like you and Rogers who, as demonstrated, harass us, harass our friends, harass our coworkers, and whatnot, all because we don’t obey the Democrat Party like they want us to do.

    Yes. And then I shall do the same with the numerous right wing blogs who perpetrate these exact same attacks against liberals and Dems.

    Which you claim are awful and evil, I presume.

    What you’ve missed is that this blog, among others, has called out people like Ann Coulter for making such hateful remarks. Why don’t you demonstrate that you can do the same against your fellow Democrats?

    I see many liberal LGBTQ’s who support those ideas, less so the idea of public sex, but I’ve never seen a mansfesto deamndig those beliefs of all gays

    You obviously don’t read many Matt Foreman speeches.

    That said, perhaps you should have a word with your partisans who believe that no woman has the right to control her body, the belief that America was created to support the Christian right, rather than all it’s citizens and who believe a strong defense is not more police on the street, but more guns in the home.

    Or, put differently, who believe that women should take responsibility for controlling their bodies prior to having unprotected sex, who don’t believe the First Amendment requires suppression of Christianity while schools are allowed to require students to learn Islamic prayers, and who fail to see how private gun ownership prevents putting more police on the street.

    I will do that, as long as you call out your brothers and sisters to come out.

    Nuh uh.

    Coming out is an intensely-personal decision and should remain solely the province of the individual. I am an independent and self-reliant person; therefore, I do not have to co-opt another person’s sexual orientation to prove my worth.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - August 31, 2007

  49. Paul, for the record:

    1) I’m not connected with the GOP and don’t care what happens to it. (I.e., watch your assumptions.)
    2) Your attempt to raise a distinction of anonymous vs. non-anonymous means nothing. Your claim to be “Paul Raposo” means nothing; that is, I have no evidence to verify it one way or the other – and no desire for any. Meanwhile, in today’s world filled with identity theft, I choose not to expose my identity; deal with it.

    Now, what I came to say – staying on the topic of Larry Craig -

    Is he, or is he not, legally guilty as of this moment? Because of his plea?

    I heard something to the effect that he was going to change his plea. Has he actually done so? It matters because my comments are based on his legal state of guilt. When he goes back – or, if he has gone back – to a legal presumption of innocence, let me know and I’ll adjust.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - August 31, 2007

  50. Also for the record: I do “call out[?] [my] brothers and sisters to come out”, while respecting that it’s their decision; in fact… I did so on this blog… just yesterday!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - August 31, 2007

  51. Oh, I’m hardly anonymous; I simply choose not to make my name public here.

    Here, on your blog and on every other blog and forum you post on. However, I suppose that reasoning is similar to Larry Craig pointing out even though he was arrested for molesting a man in a public toilet, it’s ok because at least he is not gay.

    for having the temerity to disagree with Democrats,

    Oh, I’m sure his harassment of LGBTQ’s might have aided Rogers decision to expose Bruce.

    his boss and coworkers were harassed, his friends were harassed, and even the person who had helped him with designing the blog — a Democrat operative, no less — was called up and harassed.

    If phone calls are such harassment, then why didn’t Republicans support “no call” lists?

    Realistically, Paul, it’s not other Republicans we fear;

    Pod people tend to flock together.

    it’s Democrats like you

    See, there you go again jumping to conclusions. What makes you think for one moment I’m a Democrat? Your need for victim status and to feel that your enemies are circling is so intense that you imagine enemies where none are present and accept dangerous people as allies because they believe the same things as you. Hell, you might as well fall in line with the Islamics since conservatives seem to hold the same ideals about women, gays and non-religious people.

    and Rogers who, as demonstrated, harass us, harass our friends, harass our coworkers, and whatnot, all because we don’t obey the Democrat Party like they want us to do.

    I certainly hope you are not inferring that I have harassed anyone. By putting me int he same group as Roger, you’re merely propagating the myth that the friend of your enemy is your enemy. I have to ask , how have I harassed you, or anyone here?

    Which you claim are awful and evil, I presume.

    A presumption is based on evidence. What you have done is made an assumtion, which is an all too common trait among the right no matter their sexuality.

    What you’ve missed is that this blog, among others, has called out people like Ann Coulter for making such hateful remarks. Why don’t you demonstrate that you can do the same against your fellow Democrats?

    When the opportunity presents itself, I will. Over on “Cap This!” I made a remark about Bill Clinton introducing DADTDP and Hillary’s refusal to visit that foolish bit of hatred and in-equality.

    You obviously don’t read many Matt Foreman speeches.

    And you’ve obviously never heard of the Pink Pistols, or QueersforLife.

    Or, put differently, who believe that women should take responsibility for controlling their bodies prior to having unprotected sex,

    A belief held by people who don’t want sex education taught in schools; who want Planned Parent Hood shut down believing they only discuss abortions; who don’t want drugs like RU-486 available in America; who facilitate druggists inane beliefs that they will not provide contraception; and people who support religions and those institutions who oppose adults making a conscious decision to use birth control.

    who don’t believe the First Amendment requires suppression of Christianity while schools are allowed to require students to learn Islamic prayers,

    Who also believe your forefathers fought for a free Christianity, rather than a free Nation and choose to forget a separation of church and state put in place by the father’s of your country to protect churches and government from each other’s interference.

    and who fail to see how private gun ownership prevents putting more police on the street.

    People who fail to realize that while police are investigating gun related deaths at a staggering rate, their lives at put at risk and the lives of innocent bystanders, by those wielding any one of the 500 million weapons available in America today.

    Nuh uh.

    Did I ask you to out them , or invite them to come out; especially those members of your party?

    Coming out is an intensely-personal decision and should remain solely the province of the individual.

    Agreed. And as people who are out we should facilitate the persons who are deciding to come out, rather than treat homosexuality–especially within th GOP and conservative ranks, as a secret to be talked about in whispers.

    I am an independent and self-reliant person; therefore, I do not have to co-opt another person’s sexual orientation to prove my worth.

    But you do run down, ridicule and denigrate those of similar sexuality, who happen to stand o the other side of the aisle in order to feel some semblance of superiority. In a nation of great similarities, too many look for any opportunity to stand out–but not too far out.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 6:44 pm - August 31, 2007

  52. 1) I’m not connected with the GOP and don’t care what happens to it. (I.e., watch your assumptions.)

    Where did I state that you are in any way affiliated with the GOP?

    2) Your attempt to raise a distinction of anonymous vs. non-anonymous means nothing. Your claim to be “Paul Raposo” means nothing; that is, I have no evidence to verify it one way or the other – and no desire for any.

    I think it’s safe to believe that Paul Raposo is a legitimate name, more so than ILoveCapitalism. And since I’m sure you’ve already done a google search of me, I’ll leave the last part of that quote alone.

    Meanwhile, in today’s world filled with identity theft, I choose not to expose my identity; deal with it.

    Yeah, cuz GayPatriot is always the first place they check.

    Is he, or is he not, legally guilty as of this moment? Because of his plea?

    Yes.

    I heard something to the effect that he was going to change his plea. Has he actually done so? It matters because my comments are based on his legal state of guilt. When he goes back – or, if he has gone back – to a legal presumption of innocence, let me know and I’ll adjust.

    Yes, his attorneys, (damn those trial lawyers!) are trying to overturn his plea of guilty.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - August 31, 2007

  53. Yeah, cuz GayPatriot is always the first place they check.

    Well Paul, it’s apparently a place you check – as you attempt to play the “I know who you are” baloney game with some.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 8:24 pm - August 31, 2007

  54. his attorneys, (damn those trial lawyers!) are trying to overturn his plea of guilty.

    Does “are trying”, mean, “have in fact entered a new plea as of date [...]“?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 31, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - August 31, 2007

  55. as you attempt to play the “I know who you are” baloney game with some.

    No games here, ILC. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

    Does “are trying”, mean, “have in fact entered a new plea as of date […]

    As I understand it, his lawyers are in “talks.” To whom they are talking and about what, I haven’t the foggiest.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — August 31, 2007 @ 8:42 pm - August 31, 2007

  56. Here, on your blog and on every other blog and forum you post on.

    Question, Paul; since you don’t know my real name, how do you know I’m not posting under it elsewhere?

    Oh, I’m sure his harassment of LGBTQ’s might have aided Rogers decision to expose Bruce.

    Really? Do tell, what “harassment” might that be?

    If phone calls are such harassment, then why didn’t Republicans support “no call” lists?

    Aside from that being a non-sequitur, did you actually look at the content of Rogers’s call, as described in my link?
    I certainly hope you are not inferring that I have harassed anyone.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 31, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - August 31, 2007

  57. Peter,
    You are right not only is it fishy but utterly slimmy. Of course Craig was set up. I have been around the block thousand of times – I know how the politician operate. What burns me is that the Republicans will not come to the aid of their own since everyone in the party is supposed to be so pure. The Democrats are just the opersite and now there will be another Democrat senator. God help America.

    Comment by John W — September 1, 2007 @ 1:48 am - September 1, 2007

  58. Question, Paul; since you don’t know my real name, how do you know I’m not posting under it elsewhere?

    Answer; I don’t care to know your real name. I pointed out that too many homocons and their supporters are silent within the party; you stated that they are vocal on this blog; I stated they are vocally closeted by hiding behind aliases.

    As far as posting somewhere else, I can believe that. I’ve lost count of the number of blogs and forums I’ve stumbled into where a North Dallas Thirty was posting. Are you sorta like the dread Pirate Roberts, wherein the mantle is passed down to others?

    Really? Do tell, what “harassment” might that be?

    In the case of this blog, any interpretation of that will be subjective depending on the reader’s views on the LGBTQ community. What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community. It really doesn’t matter what my interpretation of harassment is, since you will always disagree with that view, so it’s a moot point.

    Aside from that being a non-sequitur, did you actually look at the content of Rogers’s call, as described in my link? I certainly hope you are not inferring that I have harassed anyone.

    I appreciate a conservatives lust for rewriting history, Dallas, but I did not see that hyperlink in your original post. And where did I state you have harassed anyone?

    [GP Ed. Note - For the record, Paul's screaming liberal vitriol is housed in Canada. For what its worth....]

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - September 1, 2007

  59. [Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - September 1, 2007

  60. I appreciate a conservatives lust for rewriting history, Dallas, but I did not see that hyperlink in your original post.

    Did not, or chose not to see it?

    I would be more likely to believe the latter, given this statement:

    What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.

    Given what gay liberals and Democrats consider acceptable, I find that hard to believe.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - September 1, 2007

  61. #[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

    To think; we went looking for hypocrisy in the form of Larry Craig, when it was right here on Gay Patriot all along.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 4:27 pm - September 1, 2007

  62. LOL……there’s the problem, GP. You erase these things, and it gives these folk like Paul Raposo an opening to avoid answering why they accuse you of “hypocrisy”, but support behaviors they allegedly oppose when liberal gays are demonstrated to be carrying them out.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 4:51 pm - September 1, 2007

  63. Did not, or chose not to see it?

    Did not see it, because it was not there. Unfortunately, the Internet Archive only covers this blogs pages up until May 10, 2007, so I cannot present proof that it was added later.

    I would be more likely to believe the latter, given this statement:

    What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.

    I see the right is capable of the non sequitur themselves.

    Given what gay liberals and Democrats consider acceptable, I find that hard to believe.

    I genuinely find it hard to believe you find anything there offensive, considering just the other day on The Malcontent you wrote:

    “…and the few hundred thousand other out and promiscuous faggots who you claim to represent…”

    “…you don’t need to be polite about this or protective of promiscuous faggots.”

    “…given that there were faggots running around saying…”

    “…if the gay community would take sexual responsibility and purge faggots…”

    “… I think the behavior of faggots like Mike Signorile and JoeMyGod…”

    “…act exactly as other faggots want you to act.”

    And lastly, “That is such typical faggot behavior.”

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - September 1, 2007

  64. Wow. The formatting in my comment above looks like shite. is there a way to fix that?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 1, 2007 @ 4:55 pm - September 1, 2007

  65. Did not see it, because it was not there.

    I repeat your original statement, made above:

    I appreciate a conservatives lust for rewriting history, Dallas, but I did not see that hyperlink in your original post.

    Here is my original post.

    The hyperlink to the post demonstrating Mike Rogers’s harassing behavior is there.

    Which means you are wrong.

    But of course, you cannot admit that, so you make the claim that GP and I added it later.

    Unfortunately, the Internet Archive only covers this blogs pages up until May 10, 2007, so I cannot present proof that it was added later.

    So you cannot prove your accusation, but you make it anyway.

    That demonstrates your individual hypocrisy quite nicely.

    And finally, I’m glad you chose those examples; it just makes more obvious how hypocritical you are when you scream about the use of the word “faggot” by another gay person as a means of avoiding your support of gay liberals who openly and publicly wish death, violence, and pain upon others.

    And downright hilarious, given that your sockpuppet identity of “Charles Wilson” is currently over at the Malcontent and at BoiFromTroy calling people “Log Cabinettes” even as you mouth platitudes over here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - September 1, 2007

  66. NDT, you took the words right out of my mouth at #48. People like “Rapposo” (or whatever personality he/she chooses to adopt) can dish it out but damn if they can’t take it.

    More power to you, sister girl!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 1, 2007 @ 6:37 pm - September 1, 2007

  67. Paul, engaging them will not increase your understanding of them. ;-)

    Comment by fnln — September 2, 2007 @ 6:10 am - September 2, 2007

  68. Here is my original post. The hyperlink to the post demonstrating Mike Rogers’s harassing behavior is there. Which means you are wrong.

    That link opens up this posts comment section, which is exactly like the one we are reading now, Dallas. That’s why being able to check the cache on the Internet Archive would have been useful because it would have shown that the link was added later, after the fact.

    Being a curious individual, I always clink on links, even once to my detriment: I downloaded a virus and it crashed my computer.

    When you provided the link in your response asking if I had clicked on the non-existent link in your previous response, I clicked it and read it. If the link had been present in your first response, I would have clicked it and read it. It was not there, so I could not open the it.

    But of course, you cannot admit that, so you make the claim that GP and I added it later.

    Perhaps. The more interesting question would be, at the behest of whom?

    So you cannot prove your accusation, but you make it anyway.

    Because I know what I saw and I did not see a link in your response.

    That demonstrates your individual hypocrisy quite nicely.

    How exactly does it demonstrate hypocrisy on my part, as it pertains to this post topic and the arguments I’ve made, or our correspondence?

    And finally, I’m glad you chose those examples; it just makes more obvious how hypocritical you are when you scream about the use of the word “faggot” by another gay person as a means of avoiding your support of gay liberals who openly and publicly wish death, violence, and pain upon others.

    I believe what those examples of YOUR comments presents, is your own burning hypocrisy in bleating about “liberal” gays saying what you consider nasty things about a lesbian, while you yourself use hate filled and childish name calling when discussing a group you loathe. Let’s face facts, Dallas, you seemed to relish the idea of gay liberals dying a painful death of AIDS. Clearly for conservatives, two wrongs do make a right and in this case, a rightwinger.

    And nothing any liberal gay could have said would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with what CWOA and the AFA–both Republican party faithfuls–said about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Poe and their new born.

    And downright hilarious, given that your sockpuppet identity of “Charles Wilson” is currently over at the Malcontent and at BoiFromTroy calling people “Log Cabinettes” even as you mouth platitudes over here.

    Wow. I’m saddened to see that Nixon’s dying legacy to the Republicans is paranoia.

    I’ve seen Mr. Wilson’s comments on The Malcontent and on Queerty and he and I are not one and the same. If that is the best defense you can come up with to defend your hateful use of anti-gay slurs, then no wonder the rank and file of the Republican party faithful is imploding.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:07 am - September 2, 2007

  69. More power to you, sister girl!

    Peter, Dallas doesn’t like it when men use the female in referring to other men. Just thought I’d let you know.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:10 am - September 2, 2007

  70. Paul, engaging them will not increase your understanding of them.

    Very true, but I does make great sport.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:13 am - September 2, 2007

  71. And we all know the above should read, “it does,” right? Geez, readers are going to think Bush wrote that for me.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 10:15 am - September 2, 2007

  72. LOL

    Comment by fnln — September 2, 2007 @ 12:14 pm - September 2, 2007

  73. #69 – “Peter, Dallas doesn’t like it when men use the female in referring to other men. Just thought I’d let you know.”

    Care to provide proof, Miss Thang?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 2, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - September 2, 2007

  74. That link opens up this posts comment section

    Of course it does. I am referring to the original post in which I put the hyperlink to the site outlining Rogers’s behavior.

    That’s why being able to check the cache on the Internet Archive would have been useful because it would have shown that the link was added later, after the fact.

    And yet you accuse other people of paranoia. LOL.

    Let’s face facts, Dallas, you seemed to relish the idea of gay liberals dying a painful death of AIDS.

    Ah yes, my “seemed to” — totally an interpretation on your part,of course — versus the expressed clear and direct wish of gay liberals that Samuel Cheney die of SIDS, which of course, you’re spinning and avoiding.

    And nothing any liberal gay could have said would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with what CWOA and the AFA–both Republican party faithfuls–said about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Poe and their new born.

    Oh really? Cite examples and we’ll compare. Your gay liberal leftists praying for the baby to die of SIDS, which again you’re spinning and avoiding, versus whatever you can come up with and link.

    I’ve seen Mr. Wilson’s comments on The Malcontent and on Queerty and he and I are not one and the same.

    Well, numerous sources disagree with you, including your own “cplsanchez” website, but what do they know?

    Furthermore, notice how you don’t condemn his remarks despite your supposed condemnation of namecalling of Log Cabin members; a lovely combination of both your inability to condemn your own sockpuppet and your hypocrisy when it comes to namecalling Log Cabin members.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2007 @ 1:21 pm - September 2, 2007

  75. Of course it does. I am referring to the original post in which I put the hyperlink to the site outlining Rogers’s behavior.

    Yes, Dallas, I know. I saw your original comment. What was not present was that hyperlink.

    And yet you accuse other people of paranoia. LOL.

    I’m not paranoid, just observant. And that is funny, considering I have never accused you of being anyone other than North Dallas Thirty. You on the other hand…

    Ah yes, my “seemed to” — totally an interpretation on your part,of course

    You wrote:

    “Bluntly put, JoeMyGod and Signorile are pissed because Merv Griffin died wealthy, respected, happy, and disease-free. Or, in other words, the exact opposite of how their ideology stated he would–and the exact opposite of how they know in their hearts the ideologically-pure like themselves will.”

    You seem pretty happy at the idea of Joe and Michael dying of AIDS.

    versus the expressed clear and direct wish of gay liberals that Samuel Cheney die of SIDS, which of course, you’re spinning and avoiding

    Howabout you clarify the stance of the AFA and CWOA, Dallas? Hell, clarify your own words and language when describing LGBTQ’s who don’t share your world view.

    Oh really?

    Yes, really.

    Cite examples and we’ll compare.

    Oh, I don’t know. Yourself for example, on your blog writing that you believe opposite sex parents are superior to same sex parents and therefore deserve to be revered in society and children function better with a mother and father, rather than two moms, or two dads. Clearly by your own words, Ms. Cheney and Ms. Poe and inferior to straight parents.

    Your gay liberal leftists praying for the baby to die of SIDS, which again you’re spinning and avoiding, versus whatever you can come up with and link.

    Just how many people wrote that, Dallas? Should I believe that all homocons believe same sex parents are inferior and damaging to children based on the opinion of one blogger, namely yourself?

    Well, numerous sources disagree with you, including your own “cplsanchez” website, but what do they know?

    Numerous sources? Why don’t you ask Bruce where he sent his email and who responded? Why don’t you contact Andrew at Queerty and ask who emails corresponds with occasionally? I understand this is a meme you are trying to propagating, Dallas, but it’s a pretty crappy one that is absurd and yet, at the same time, amusing.

    Furthermore, notice how you don’t condemn his remarks despite your supposed condemnation of namecalling of Log Cabin members; a lovely combination of both your inability to condemn your own sockpuppet and your hypocrisy when it comes to namecalling Log Cabin members.

    Who are we talking about now and who, or what am I suppose to be condemning? You’re starting to go off the rails, Dallas. It’s not enough that I denounce name calling on either side, but I have to start crucifying people to boot?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm - September 2, 2007

  76. You seem pretty happy at the idea of Joe and Michael dying of AIDS.

    Ah yes, again, the “you seem”.

    Versus the clearly-expressed desire of gay liberals about Sam Cheney:

    I’m praying for SIDS.

    Of course, when confronted with that, you spun:

    And nothing any liberal gay could have said would be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with what CWOA and the AFA–both Republican party faithfuls–said about Ms. Cheney, Ms. Poe and their new born.

    Of course, when I challenged you to provide proof and citations of that, you flailed:

    Howabout you clarify the stance of the AFA and CWOA, Dallas?

    And then you proceeded to trash me based on another statement you claimed I made, again without citation or link.

    And then in your desperate attempt to cover up your sockpuppet identity, under which you are running around trashing people as “Log Cabinettes” and “fags”, you claim that because you use one name in email correspondence, you a) can never use the same name anywhere else and b) one person cannot have more than one email address.

    Finally, overall, this is just a pathetic coverup for your support of Mike Rogers’s actions, which includes calling up people, misrepresenting themselves as working for the police, and threatening said persons with arrest and penalties unless they subject themselves to interrogation by Rogers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 2, 2007 @ 7:57 pm - September 2, 2007

  77. Ah yes, again, the “you seem”.

    Oh! I’m sorry, Dallas. It’s apparent from your words, that you’re happy at the idea of Joe and Michael dying of AIDS.

    Of course, when confronted with that, you spun:

    So, which one is it, Dallas, one person wrote that, or, as you claimed, “…the expressed clear and direct wish of gay liberals…”? Liberals, plural infers more than one “gay liberal” has prayed for SIDS. Is that the case, Dallas, or was it the comment of one poster?

    And then you proceeded to trash me based on another statement you claimed I made, again without citation or link.

    You wrote:

    “The ideal is always in my mind for a kid to have a mom and dad. ”

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jeff144/823183141991977767/

    And then in your desperate attempt to cover up your sockpuppet identity, under which you are running around trashing people as “Log Cabinettes” and “fags”,

    I’m genuinely embarrassed for you, Dallas. You want so desperately for me to be Charles Wilson. Why don’t you go to his Matt Sanchez page, look at the forum you’ll see that Paul Raposo–me–has posted questions and comments there. Do you expect any right thinking–excuse the phrase–person to believe that Charles is posting as himself and as me, or vice versa?

    you claim that because you use one name in email correspondence, you a) can never use the same name anywhere else and b) one person cannot have more than one email address.

    Where did I claim that, Dallas?

    Do you know how Bruce Knew I was from Canada and assumed I was from TO? Because he obviously has a stats counter service, which gathers the location , email addy, computer ISP and even exact location of the readers to his blog. I know this, because I have the same thing on my blog.

    Now, if Charles and Paul are the same person, how does Charles get all the way to Toronto to use a computer and back to his location in the States? Easy–he does not, because he is he and I am me.

    Finally, overall, this is just a pathetic coverup for your support of Mike Rogers’s actions

    Again, please tell me where I wrote that I support Mike’s actions.

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 2, 2007 @ 9:57 pm - September 2, 2007

  78. LOL….and again, Paul spins.

    Of course I know about you posting under different identities to the same blog, Paul; where do you think I first discovered that you and your sockpuppet “Charles Wilson” identity were one and the same?

    Further confirming that is the synchronicity of your actions on both The Malcontent and on Boi from Troy with your actions here, in these cases showing up in a most timely fashion to hurl your insults of “fag” and “Log Cabinette” — as well as your extraordinarily-detailed knowledge of his blog and of his actions which you have just revealed here.

    Even more amusingly, the only quote you can find of mine that comes even close to what you are claiming you must truncate to make “prove” your point:

    But I also had uncles, older cousins, and teachers who did, if not the whole of that, significant parts of it.

    The ideal is always in my mind for a kid to have a mom and dad. But I think gay couples in particular should obsess less about what the kid doesn’t have and more on allowing him (or her) access to people who can be that loving guide, authority, friend, and role model.

    And certain groups of people should keep in mind that the more attention they focus on other peoples’ kids, the less they’re putting on their own.

    Compare that to the clear call of gay liberals for Sam Cheney to die of SIDS and for his parents to be punished and devastated:

    I’m praying for SIDS.

    And where you wrote you support Mike’s actions?

    When you claimed Bruce’s postings justified them — as he cited on the main page of the blog.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 3, 2007 @ 1:07 am - September 3, 2007

  79. LOL….and again, Paul spins.

    And again, Dallas avoids answering questions put to him.

    Of course I know about you posting under different identities to the same blog, Paul; where do you think I first discovered that you and your sockpuppet “Charles Wilson” identity were one and the same?

    Your diseased mind perhaps?

    It’s apparent that you are the only person who believes that Charles Wilson and Paul Raposo are one and the same. However, it will not give you the opportunity–as you hoped–to avoid the sad fact that you glory in the idea that gay men who do not share your conservative bent should die of a slow, painful, wasting death.

    Since Bruce is overly accommodating to you, then present your evidence that Charles Wilson and Paul Raposo are the same person. prove it, Dallas. I’ve proven I am who I said I am. Prove me wrong, Dallas.

    Further confirming that is the synchronicity of your actions on both The Malcontent and on Boi from Troy with your actions here, in these cases showing up in a most timely fashion to hurl your insults of “fag” and “Log Cabinette” — as well as your extraordinarily-detailed knowledge of his blog and of his actions which you have just revealed here.

    What have I revealed here, Dallas? i read The Malcontent for the first time last week, I’ve never heard of Boi From Troy til you mentioned him and I discovered Charles Wilson’s Matt Sanchez page when he posted it on Queerty.

    Again, Dallas, the onus is on you to prove your charges. I’ve proven that you’ve used anti-gay slurs; hoped your enemies would die of AIDS; stated that you believe straight parents are superior to same-sex parents; and fortunately, you have proven your insanity, so that is something I don’t have to work on.

    Even more amusingly, the only quote you can find of mine that comes even close to what you are claiming you must truncate to make “prove” your point:

    I stated that you wrote on your blog that straight parents are superior to gay parents. I provided the quote and a link to your blog.

    Now watch everyone, as the hypocrite Dallas tries to spin himself out of his own hateful words.

    The ideal is always in my mind for a kid to have a mom and dad.

    You can quote the entire page, Dallas, but that won’t change the fact that you wrote that you believe the ideal is straight parents, just as I stared you had written. You’re spinning like a Maytag, Dallas.

    Compare that to the clear call of gay liberals for Sam Cheney to die of SIDS and for his parents to be punished and devastated:

    Compare that to what Dallas has written about his political “enemies,”:

    “Bluntly put, JoeMyGod and Signorile are pissed because Merv Griffin died wealthy, respected, happy, and disease-free. Or, in other words, the exact opposite of how their ideology stated he would–and the exact opposite of how they know in their hearts the ideologically-pure like themselves will.”

    And where you wrote you support Mike’s actions? When you claimed Bruce’s postings justified them — as he cited on the main page of the blog.

    What I wrote was:

    “Oh, I’m sure his harassment of LGBTQ’s might have aided Rogers decision to expose Bruce.”

    Now, Dallas, where in that comment do you see support for Roger’s actions?

    Comment by Paul Raposo — September 3, 2007 @ 12:11 pm - September 3, 2007

  80. Wow. The formatting in my comment above looks like shite. is there a way to fix that?

    Yeah Paul, but you won’t like it one bit: stop talking shit, LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - September 3, 2007

  81. (or should I call you “Charles”? Well, I don’t care, one way or the other.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 3, 2007 @ 1:58 pm - September 3, 2007

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.367 Powered by Wordpress