GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2005/10/25/gone-is-the-idealism-the-cynicism-of-todays-leftism/trackback/

  1. There seem to be people in this world who NEED to believe that America is bad and wrong.

    The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, that:

    (1) the libertarian principles behind the American Revolution are, on average, superior to those of any other culture or political system yet known; and

    (2) INSOFAR AS America frequently lives up to those principles, then America is frequently good and right.

    Because the need to believe that America is bad and wrong is so persistent and widespread, and because the evidence to the contrary is fairly overwhelming, it (the need to believe that America is bad and wrong) requires explanation.

    I’m still not sure what the explanation is.

    I think it has something to do with the human desire for a lazy existence. Criticism is always easy; being devoid of personal initiative is always easy; looking to Big Government, “the community”, etc. for real or imagined “security” is always easy. The libertarian principles of the American Revolution do go against that part of human nature.

    In tandem with the desire for a lazy (low-initiative, high-criticism) existence, humans also have the desire to feel morally superior. The genius of left-liberal philosophy is that it combines the two desires. That is, it takes people’s desire for a lazy (low-initiative, high-criticism) existence and such ideas as naturally follow from that (socialism, nihilism, group identity, “blame society”, etc.), and dresses them up as moral superiority.

    Thus, under left-liberal thought, a person can nihilistic or lacking in responsibility in any number ways, and yet truly believe – truly feel – that they are loving and idealistic (i.e., morally superior).

    With that in mind….I think the “idealistic” pro-Communist Leftist of eras past and the “cynical” negative Leftist of today are, in fact, the same person. The one and only difference between them is that in eras past, the evidence of the horror produced by communism and socialism was not yet incontrovertible and overwhelming – but today, it is.

    Dan, I guess I’m echoing your basic point – just thinking it out in my own words.

    In eras past, it was much easier for a Leftist to believe their ideas could result in a good society – and hence, to believe they were loving and idealistic and on the side of the good society – and hence, it was much more fun to be a leftist.

    In today’s world, with the evidence we now have about the horrors to which leftism leads, a person can remain a consistent leftist over time, only if they:

    (a) badly confuse their own minds (witness Al Franken, GayCowboyBob, etc.); and/or,

    (b) personally profit from it (being a Clinton or a Kennedy, an ordinary holder of a government-funded job, etc.).

    Comment by joe — October 26, 2005 @ 1:37 am - October 26, 2005

  2. #1 – P.S. for clarity -

    and I would include Leftist businessmen, trust-fund kids, etc. under (b) above.

    All the George Soroses, Peter Browns, Rockefeller heirs, and other millionaires – large and “small” – who today are the major funders of leftism.

    In economics, the characteristic essence of a Left platform is: control and regulate things, so as to slow down the rate of change in the economy / business world.

    Many businesspeople profit from that. Hence, many businesspeople are in bed with the government and/or its regulatory bodies, and we are not actually living under a true Capitalist system.

    Tragically, in today’s world, the businesspeople who profit from government intervention and general stagnation are serviced by Republicans, as well as by Democrats. We see Republican “compassionate conservatives” echoing the leftist ideas of Democrats and working for policies that, again, slow down the rate of change – with profit to the current status quo, at the expense of the hard-working poor, the hard-working middle class, and entrepreneurs (of whatever class).

    Many trust fund kids also profit from a highly regulated economy. They have no idea how their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents made all that money. No idea whatsoever. But they know instinctively (or without words) that if they can slow down the rate of change in the world of business and economics, their GM or Microsoft stock will keep on being worth something. Economic leftism – Big Government, environmentalism, etc. – gives them moral “cover” for that.

    Again, we see the genius of left-liberal ideas in taking a natural human desire for laziness (a world that never changes) and providing moral cover or a strong semblence of moral superiority to it.

    Comment by joe — October 26, 2005 @ 2:00 am - October 26, 2005

  3. I guess I’m a bit less willing to cut any adherent of totalitarianism — be it 30′s intellectuals or the left of today — any slack. It all comes from the same place, a desire to control people’s lives and deny them liberty, and that is a very evil place. At times, I am tempted to believe that the desire to have power over others is the true definition of evil.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2005 @ 10:27 am - October 26, 2005

  4. Yeah, lust for power would have to be listed as another big motive for leftists.

    I’m just not sure how much of it is “lazy” lust for power (the desire to have one’s own way, not change or adapt, not plan long-range, etc.) vs. “nihilistic” lust for power (actually getting off on controlling / destroying others).

    Comment by joe — October 26, 2005 @ 11:07 am - October 26, 2005

  5. I want to know…how could anybody look at Stalin’s Russia, and honestly say that was an example of a better way. No…I think the communists of the 30′s knew damn what the truth of the Soviet Union was. They all thought they’s be the apparatchicks, with the dachas and the priviliages, and the rest of us were only good enough to be their slaves. A few, like Whitaker Chambers, had the decency to get out, and fight the the madness. But too many like Dalton Trumbo stayed in and lied through their teeth and played the “poor widdle me…the big bad Senator MCarthy was mean to me….waaa.” I have no sympathy for the bastards…then, or now.

    Comment by kurt roberts — October 26, 2005 @ 11:46 am - October 26, 2005

  6. Actually, Kurt, given Walter Duranty’s dishonest (but Pulitzer-prize winning) reporting in the New York Times, for his reporting from the Soviet Union, many may have believed it to be the near-paradise he described.

    Those who continued to support this idealized vision of the Soviet Union after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 are more like today’s leftists that the early idealists who first supported Communism.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 26, 2005 @ 12:45 pm - October 26, 2005

  7. They knew what it was about. They saw where people were tried in absentia (sp?) and the gulags of Siberia and believed that was the best way to go.
    Today’s libs are still pissed that Alger Hiss and his buddies got nailed and I think that was part (however slim) of Nixon’s downfall.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 26, 2005 @ 8:31 pm - October 26, 2005

  8. No. 6, when you wrote this — “Those who continued to support this idealized vision of the Soviet Union after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 are more like today’s leftists that the early idealists who first supported Communism” — were you drunk or just trying to drive up traffic on this anemic website?

    And, if drinking, were you out with No. 3, who piped up with a claim that Democratic Liberals (which is who you mean when you sling “leftist” so freely) have “a desire to control people’s lives and deny them liberty”? Guess he forgot that you flaming faggots here faithfully lick at the rear of an extreme rightist party and lend unyielding support to rightist politicians who seek to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution and deny a woman her right to choose her own medical course — a party whose very reemergence in the 1980s was due in large part to its speaking in “tongues” (code words) to black-hating segregationists in the South. Yeah, you’re all about liberty and letting people control their own lives!

    You poor deluded, smug, and sanctimonious bastards have some nerve to sit around here opining about Democratic Liberals being Communists 15 years after the blessed fall of that ideology — a victory we ALL won, and about Democratic Liberals wanting to control people’s lives when it’s you who bear that trait more than any other. And you wonder why we despise you shits on the right, and wish for you every possible miserable moment in the Leak-laden weeks and months ahead. You deserve every second of the partisan agony you have in store.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 26, 2005 @ 9:25 pm - October 26, 2005

  9. No. 6, when you wrote this — “Those who continued to support this idealized vision of the Soviet Union after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 are more like today’s leftists that the early idealists who first supported Communism” — were you drunk or just trying to drive up traffic on this anemic website?

    Would you like to see the references made by today’s leftists and DNC operatives Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan describing the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents as “freedom fighters”, and Saddam’s Iraq as a kite-flying paradise with full liberty and a benevolent, kindly father figure ruling over all?

    Guess he forgot that you flaming faggots here faithfully lick at the rear of an extreme rightist party and lend unyielding support to rightist politicians who seek to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution

    Actually, I call such people antigay bigots. You and your fellow gay leftists call them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. If we want to silence you, GayCowboyBob, and Chandler, QP, all that needs to be done is to challenge you to say that John Kerry’s support of state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights was antigay and wrong.

    and deny a woman her right to choose her own medical course

    Oh, hardly. I have no problem with a woman choosing whether or not to have sex, or whether or not to have unprotected sex. It’s when she demands to deal with the consequences of the first or both of her decisions by taking a human life that I step in and say that her choices have been exhausted.

    As for Communism, QP, it had as its major tenets the belief that accumulation of wealth was wrong, that the rich should be punished, that the state had the right to all property regardless of the citizen’s claim, that religion should be stamped out of public life, and that life was cheap — unwanted children should be aborted and useless elderly or “vegetable” people should be euthanized.

    Sounds like the DNC platform to me.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2005 @ 11:34 pm - October 26, 2005

  10. QP in #8, those who study the rise of American conservatism understand that its success in the 1980s had little to do with black-hating segregationists in the South. There is nothing in the rhetoric or agenda of modern conservatism that promotes segregation or racism of any kind.

    As to my comparison of today’s leftists to those who supported the idealized vision of the Soviet Union after 1939, I meant it in the sense that each group follows a movement in lockstep with its leaders. In the 1930s, they supported the Soviet Union even as it made a pact with the fascists. Today, they mock or otherwise belittle even the slightest steps toward democracy in Afghanistan.

    I also deliberately chose the term “leftists” rather than “liberals” in my comment as I was referring only to the most extreme activists (and bloggers) those whom ND 30 noted in #9 who call Iraqi terrorists “freedom fighters.” I know that many liberals support the president’s broad goals in Iraq, but not the means he has used to achieve them. While I disagree with those liberals, I appreciate their commitment to principle.

    Don’t get your hopes up too high on, what you call, the “Leak-laden weeks and months ahead.” You too may be disappointed by the results of the investigation. Indeed, I daresay, come Friday, each side will have something to cheer and jeer when the special counsel completes his investigation.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 27, 2005 @ 2:15 am - October 27, 2005

  11. Queer dear, somebody really got you going, sweetie. And I agree with you 100%. Notice that #9 is in his usual high dudgeon about John Kerry whilst carefully avoiding any mention of his hero, George Bush, a man who introduced a constitutional amendment to forever ban marriage for people like #9. What an Uncle Tom that one is!

    And get a load of #10 claiming, “There is nothing in the rhetoric or agenda of modern conservatism that promotes segregation or racism of any kind.” Where was he in 1980 as Ronald Reagan was trooping through the South sprinkling codes to attract the racists there?

    All this news about their party hacks leaking national security information and outing CIA agents must really be getting to the ladies here, for they seem to be losing whatever shreds of rationality they might have had in the past.

    Love Pussy

    Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 27, 2005 @ 11:21 am - October 27, 2005

  12. To those who fault the ’30′s idealists for preferring totalitarianism to democratic america, I think it’s worthwhile to point out that at the time, the western democracies were mired in a terrible depression that had dragged on for years. It looked like democracy was failing and the only successful models were fascism and communism.

    However misguided, I cut them slack for embracing communism and lying to themselves about Stalin. Their choices looked bleak.

    Fortunately, they were wrong.

    Comment by byrd — October 27, 2005 @ 2:04 pm - October 27, 2005

  13. Thanks for defending me on this one, Byrd. :-)

    Fortunately, there were wrong and many of them wised up to their error.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 27, 2005 @ 2:25 pm - October 27, 2005

  14. #12 – A Depression that was, in itself, brought on by socialist, communist and fascistic ideas.

    But that can be a story for another time.

    Oh hell – Here it is:

    - WW1 industry control boards and “progressive” laws never dismantled after WW1; tending to drag down the early 1920s economy.

    - To counterbalance the above, the Fed greatly inflates the money supply in the 1920s, igniting the Roaring 20s and famous stock market bubble.

    - 1929 – Stock market bubble bursts. At that exact moment, Fed perversely undertakes a severe contraction of the money supply.

    - 1930 – A Republican Congress perversely passes the protectionist / nationalistic Smoot-Hawley tariff, devastating international trade.

    - 1931 – International trade down by 2/3. Hoover and Congress take no actions to liberate the economy (e.g., still not abolishing the WW1 industry control boards). Fed continues to contract money supply. So, the devastation continues.

    - 1933 – Finally, the above shocks are “absorbed” and the economy begins its recovery. Unfortunately, that coincides with Roosevelt’s ascent, and the Left successfully pushes the idea that the 2 events are linked and therefore, further severe socialistic regimentation of the economy is in order.

    - 1934-36 – The Roosevelt takes so many awful, destructive actions to regiment the economy that the economy enters a second phase of Depression. By 1936, unemployment is again nearing 1932 levels. Economists call this phase the “Roosevelt Recession”.

    - 1936-1941 – Some Roosevelt controls on the economy are found unconstitutional. Others are allowed to peter out. By the outbreak of WW2 (which was 1941 for the U.S.), the economy has recovered to 1930 levels.

    Could the Depression have been shorter, if sensible monetary, free-trade and free-market / deregulation policies had been followed?

    Answer: Yes. Far shorter. The severe recession of 1979-1982 evolved into a boom, instead of another Depression, essentially because Volcker and Reagan followed far more sensible policies.

    Comment by joe — October 27, 2005 @ 3:08 pm - October 27, 2005

  15. For more information, check out this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/140005477X/qid=1130440867/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-6501033-2214237?v=glance&s=books

    Comment by joe — October 27, 2005 @ 3:21 pm - October 27, 2005

  16. Notice that #9 is in his usual high dudgeon about John Kerry whilst carefully avoiding any mention of his hero, George Bush, a man who introduced a constitutional amendment to forever ban marriage for people like #9. What an Uncle Tom that one is!

    LOL….when I said I called “those people”, including George Bush, antigay bigots, Pussy, antigay bigot I meant it. Multiple times.

    The irony is, of course, delicious. You call me an “Uncle Tom” for being most vociferous in criticizing antigay bigotry regardless of party, but when it comes down to gays like Queer Patriot who call supporting stripping gays of rights via state constitutional amendment “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”…….

    And let me save you the spin, Pussy. If you’re allowed to be antigay to win an election, that would by logic apply to both parties. So would the theory that you’re being antigay in public and are pro-gay privately.

    Really, Pussy, what this is all about is that you, like the Democratic gays here, are just plain unable to say that John Kerry’s advocating of state constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights was wrong and antigay as well. That’s why you attacked me based on your false stereotype of me never criticizing Bush, which turned out to be wrong.

    In short, Pussy, unless you can call ANY attempt to deprive gays of rights

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2005 @ 3:45 pm - October 27, 2005

  17. I know I’ve seen Pussy’s unique warped thinking and hateful style many times before. Just curious – Which would be his/her/its past handles here?

    Comment by joe — October 27, 2005 @ 4:22 pm - October 27, 2005

  18. Pussy seems to always back QP’s harangues.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 27, 2005 @ 7:26 pm - October 27, 2005

  19. #17 — Well, first of all, GWB didn’t “introduce” the FMA, he offered support for it after it was put forward by others. Second, reaching back 25 years to a phantom campaign of “code words” is a throughly absurd refutation to GWP’s point that “There is nothing in the rhetoric or agenda of modern conservatism that promotes segregation or racism of any kind.” One wonders what these “code words” were. Some lefties have said that “tax cuts” are racist code words. I guess if you’re going to play that game, you can as easily say that when Reagan said “breakfast,” he actually meant “lynching,” and when he said “I’d like some orange juice, toast, and coffee,” he actually meant “reinstate Jim Crow.”

    Frankly, the hard core racism is now much more prevalent on the left than the right. Exhibit A: This left-wing blog’s response to a Black Republican running for Senate in Maryland: “Simple Sambo Wants to Move to the Big House.”

    http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/10/simple-sambo-wants-to-move-to-big.html

    In short, there’s really no point in arguing in someone who has zero interest in facts or reality, so why bother, really?

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2005 @ 7:58 pm - October 27, 2005

  20. Well, everybody’s after Pussy tonight. I can take it as well as put it out, so here goes…

    #16 – You are THE very epitome of the Gay Uncle Tom. You scrape and bow and do daily yes-work for the anti-gay party. How is that NOT Uncle Tom-ing with the best of them? Watching you write here, I’ve often wondered why you show no shame for your betrayal of gay people, but then I heard from a friend here that you sometimes claim to be a religious fundamentalist bisexual, so it all began to make more sense.

    #17 – You think I have warped thinking and a hateful style? Try reading NDTom’s twisted arguments that Republican policy is actually better for gay people than Democratic policy. Now that’s warped (and by its nature, quite hateful).

    #18 – How astute you are! Pussy does indeed always back Queer Patriot – and GayCowboyBob, and Chandler, and Monty, and Kevin, and anyone else with the balls to come on this site and tell you all what sniveling little GOopers you are. So I could any/all of them, right? By the way, darling, aren’t you the one here who likes to use the term “g*sh”? Do you realize how offensive that is to someone named “Pussy”? Keep that tongue away from me.

    #19 – You must be older, so quickly forgetting that it was your hero, George the Second, who proposed a Constitutional Amendment to forever ban gay marriage. How could you have missed that? It was only Feb. a year ago. Maybe you’ve been listening to too much of Uncle Tom’s revisionism and have gotten your history all screwed up. And speaking of history, you seem completely unaware that Reagan gave new meaning to the term “states rights” and other power-packed code while campaigning in Mississippi and across the South in 1980. He knew what he was doing – doing exactly what Nixon suggested over a decade earlier. You missed all that? Please tell me you don’t teach school.

    Love Pussy

    Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 27, 2005 @ 10:06 pm - October 27, 2005

  21. The funny thing, Pussy, is that I can answer the first part of your harangue by merely relinking to the previous post.

    Try reading NDTom’s twisted arguments that Republican policy is actually better for gay people than Democratic policy.

    It is. Republican policy towards gays is open bigotry, Democratic policy is to lie to gays publicly and practice behind-the-scenes bigotry.

    Democrats like you, Pussy, who applauded and called John Kerry’s plan to strip gays of rights via state constitutional amendment in the one state where we do have equality, as well as in several others, “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, do not go unnoticed, you know, nor do you get to call yourselves “better” in any way, shape, or form than other homophobes. You’re not dealing with spineless or purchased people here like most gay Democrats are; when you promise “full inclusion” and “equality”, you’ll be held to your statements. When you fail to deliver, you’ll be called out as what you are, and you’ve failed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 28, 2005 @ 10:12 am - October 28, 2005

  22. #20 – “You think I have warped thinking and a hateful style?”

    Well, let’s see.

    “…in 1980 as Ronald Reagan was trooping through the South sprinkling codes to attract the racists there?…”

    Yeah, Pussy, that’s pretty warped. I mean, pretty far off of reality.

    And NDT has a point. You get in “high dudgeon” about NDT when, in all likelihood, you are the Uncle Tom in your support of gay-hating Democrats.

    But I know you don’t believe me on either point. I can tell from other comments that you’re so far into your ideology you can’t recognize it.

    Comment by joe — October 28, 2005 @ 11:40 am - October 28, 2005

  23. This was posted by a left-wing English blogger, adovcating the slaughter of children in the service of international communism:

    As far as Israel is concerned, I am old enough to remember when the Zimbabwean Resistence shot down a Viscount airliner that belonged to Air Rhodesia. The survivors were then massacred on the ground. Various rightwing types then got themselves into a lather, but we, the real left, agreed with the guerrilla who was quoted as saying that “little snakes grow into big snakes, so it is always better to squash their heads when they are still young”.

    Now what was true of Rhodesia is true also of Israel. A little bit of consistency, comrades, is needed here. A western, capitalist, creole state that exists to suppress the locals is the same no matter where it exists. The sooner it ceases to exist the better it is for the locals and the better it is for us.

    Link: http://exile-blog.blogspot.com/2005/10/rightist-blogistas-twist-iranian.html

    Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 3:37 pm - October 28, 2005

  24. No. 20, Pussy love, you are my Dreamgirl, girl. Love your posts, keep them coming.

    No. 22, there’s a very good reason “not to believe” you — you just make it up as it suits you. Miss Pussy was right and you are either misinformed, ignorant, or deceitful. Evidence of Pussy’s point about Reagan using code words on the Southernors from Time Magazine archives, Dec. ’02:

    “It’s with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican’s selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out. Space doesn’t permit a complete list of the Gipper’s signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which (Trent) Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s’ ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for “states’ rights” — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.”

    Link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html?cnn=yes

    Follow the link. Read the whole story. It’s worse than you want to know.

    And, not surprisingly, No. 21′s just as bad as you in making it up — read his/her post above saying Pussy said this, Pussy said that — none of which Pussy actually said. Pussy put it right — he’s an Uncle Tom. But, Puss, credit where credit’s due: I’m the one who investigated Uncle and found him to be nothing more than just one f’d up “religious fundamentalist bisexual”.

    Merry Fitzmas Gay Patriots!

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 5:03 pm - October 28, 2005

  25. Of course, exploitation of race in the inner cities doesn’t even have to bother with code words since blatant race baiting is in the Dem party platform. Somehow, that’s always “ok”. Of course, no one living in the South could vote Republican for any other reason than the dream of burning crosses in the town square. It couldn’t have been for honest agreement with what Reagan spoke about and believed. I only wish the Left could hate and despise America’s enemies as desperately as they hate millions of their own fellow citizens.

    Comment by VinceTN — October 28, 2005 @ 5:51 pm - October 28, 2005

  26. And, not surprisingly, No. 21’s just as bad as you in making it up — read his/her post above saying Pussy said this, Pussy said that — none of which Pussy actually said. Pussy put it right — he’s an Uncle Tom.

    When Pussy decides to disagree with you and the rest of the gay Democratic chorus on here and say that stripping gays of state constitutional rights is wrong when a Democrat does it as well as when a Republican does it, then we’ll see. Until then, we all know what Pussy says.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 28, 2005 @ 7:02 pm - October 28, 2005

  27. Merry Fitzmas to you, too, Queer dear.

    Thank you for posting those wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am rebuttals to both Uncle Tom (for his lies about me — Santa Fitz would have a field day with him!) and to little joe (on the Reagan thing). Thinking of little joe’s dismissive attitude toward the Reagan thing, I wonder sometimes just how much these people read. Those facts about Reagan’s blowing kisses to the Southern segregationists have been established for, well, about 25 years now, and somehow the GOP zombies here missed it.

    Sorry I didn’t do the credit on your nailing Uncle Tom — you’re right, that was happening right as I starting visiting here. You did a fine workup on him.

    Love, Pussy

    Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 9:42 pm - October 28, 2005

  28. Actually, Pussy, I believe Queer Patriot was rather nicely put in his place by another commentor in said thread.

    And Pussy, my dear, the only lies being told about you are the ones you’re stating yourself. I’m just pointing out all the lovely invective you fling at gays who speak out against antigay bigotry while you coo so lovingly to gays like Queer Patriot who call antigay bigotry being “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 29, 2005 @ 12:08 am - October 29, 2005

  29. Why thank you for that link, Uncle Tom, honey. I went there, read the entire string plus a couple of nearby strings on similar topics and I have to report back to you, as somebody just learning who you are, that it was YOU who was put in place, sweetie, not Queer. Queer just went behind you, picking up all your statements about this and that, and putting it all in a neat synopsis that pretty much revealed you to be a gay-hating, Bush-loving, right-wing, bible-toting, fundamentalist, bi-sexual. Now if that ain’t f’d up, I don’t know what is. At least you’re a bi-sexual, which means you might someday again just…

    Love Pussy

    Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 29, 2005 @ 3:25 pm - October 29, 2005

  30. LOL…..if that were the case, Pussy, Queer wouldn’t need to so….shall we say….selectively edit my statements, as was pointed out there? :)

    And that’s why I posted the link — so that you and others could go there and read what I actually said. It also has the pleasant benefit of letting people compare what you say was there versus what they say was there; invariably, as happened to Queer Patriot, they find that folks like yourself who must in some way justify their support of stripping gays of rights have the strangest perspective on the statements of those of us who don’t support such fool notions.

    Thank you for obligingly showing us. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2005 @ 2:24 am - October 31, 2005

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.

0.255 Powered by Wordpress