GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/29/on-anderson-cooper-tea-partygop-image-problem/trackback/

  1. Also recall that Cooper was the originator of the “teabagger” slur.

    Comment by Bruce Carroll - @GayPatriot — November 29, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - November 29, 2012

  2. Score another win for the Tea Party.
    Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall. Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/congressman-akins-wins-missouri-gop-senate-primary-to-take-on-sen-mccaskill/#ixzz2DegwL14P

    Comment by rusty — November 29, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - November 29, 2012

  3. Well, then FoxNews also contributed to the misunderstanding. Akin may have attempted to play up Tea Party credentials, but he was not the Tea Party candidate. Sarah Palin had endorsed one of his rivals, Sarah Steelman.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - November 29, 2012

  4. To note that all three Republican freshmen in the incoming Senate class had Tea Party appeal.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2012 @ 6:02 pm - November 29, 2012

  5. 4:33 pm on Thu, 04.12.12
    WASHINGTON – The struggle for tea party-related support among Missouri’s Republican Senate contenders continued Thursday as U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Wildwood, announced the endorsement of former presidential hopeful and congressional Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann.

    Michele Bachmann
    Akin’s corralling of U.S. Reps. Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa – staunch conservatives who, along with Akin, were among the caucus’ founding members in 2010 – follows last month’s dispute over the significance of the Tea Party Express’ endorsement of GOP Senate contender and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman.

    https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/24282/akin_tea_party_endorsement_041212

    Comment by rusty — November 29, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - November 29, 2012

  6. Akin ran as a Republican. That’s all the connection a low-information voter needs. Reflexive Democrats don’t exert their brains to make distinctions between types of Republicans, keeping tally of who said what, etc. Charles Manson would have beaten Akin.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 29, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - November 29, 2012

  7. Actually, Akin won mainly because of Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republican primary.

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - November 29, 2012

  8. The point remains, rusty, that Tea Party support was not unified behind Akin–and there was at least some division. And during the campaign, Steelman was far more identified with the movement than was Akin.

    He hurt the party and ensured that Missouri will have a Senator who is both unpopular in and out of touch with the state she will represent.

    For Cooper’s point to be valid, Akin would have had to be, as Christine O’Donnell was in 2010, the “anointed” Tea Party candidate. He wasn’t. Maybe he had some Tea Party backing, but the Tea Party is focused on economic issues, not crazy theories about rape and abortion, as Cooper implied.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - November 29, 2012

  9. It beggars belief that a gay high profile tv personality would use the gay slur teabagger (which probably was unknown to half of the country). This as usual tells you all you need to know about the left’s moral superiority.

    Even more ironic that when he came out he was oh so concerned with bullying. He bullied tea partiers that are also comprised of seniors, women, etc.

    Glad that his show was cancelled. Not that it will take his massive ego down a peg…

    Comment by susan — November 29, 2012 @ 7:33 pm - November 29, 2012

  10. At its core, there are two central beliefs that unit the Tea Parties:

    1. Government should not cost more than we can afford.
    2. The Government should stay within its Constitutional limits.

    It’s indicative of the mentality of the left that these two ideas are considered extremist.

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 7:41 pm - November 29, 2012

  11. The Left demonizes anyone who doesn’t agree with them, the more popular the more demonized. The Tea Party didn’t have a chance against the screeching Democrats and their megaphone, the MSM.

    Now OWS, on the other hand (swoooooon!)….

    Comment by Polly — November 29, 2012 @ 8:21 pm - November 29, 2012

  12. Will Intransigent Social Conservatives Sink Economic Liberty?
    by Stephen H. Miller on November 29, 2012
    Roger Simon, at PJ Media, tries to tell social conservatives some truths:
    But first, a heavy dose of reality: Unlike abortion, where public opinion is going in the social conservative direction for various reasons (including sonograms), on gay marriage, it’s the fourth quarter, the score is about 80-0 and you’re on the your own five yard line with two minutes to go.

    De facto gay marriages have existed in significant numbers in every one of our major cities and a lot of our suburbs for decades. Every year, the vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage is greater, recently winning in several states, and is likely to increase since the young vastly favor it. If you don’t think it’s going to be a fait accompli in the Western world in twenty-five years (probably considerably sooner), you’re living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
    But see the blowback below Simon’s column from his commenters. Many are those who will not hear. IGF

    Comment by rusty — November 29, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - November 29, 2012

  13. Every time a gay liberal loses a job in the coming recession, it will take all my strength of will not to say, “But look at the bright side, gay marriage passed in four states.”

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - November 29, 2012

  14. Akin is a member of the Tea Party Caucus. His views on abortion are similar to those of Michelle Bachmann, one of the founding members. And, as Rusty pointed out, she endorsed him.

    If the Tea Party is serious about economic issues enough to distance themselves from “crazy theories about rape and abortion,” they would be emphatic about it and draw a clear line. But, they can’t, because the grey area is damning.

    I appreciate BDB trying to articulate what the Tea Party is supposed to be about, but he has his head in the clouds regarding the reality. Talking about the Tea Party’s intentions verses their actions is just idealistic posturing and pipe dreams from a Panama City sailer wanna hump-hump bar.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 29, 2012 @ 9:09 pm - November 29, 2012

  15. Simon puts this as food for thought

    But the Right is guilty of its own kind of hypocrisy. It’s interesting how some of those who most vociferously object to government interference in our economic affairs are most desirous of government interference in our personal ones.
    I’m referring of course to social conservatives, who want to legislate our morals and values according to their views.

    Comment by rusty — November 29, 2012 @ 9:10 pm - November 29, 2012

  16. So, we are going to flush the economy down the toilet for the sake of leftist victimhood fantasies.

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - November 29, 2012

  17. While leftist gays swoon and whine because somewhere, someone might be oppressing them (though they’ve never felt oppression in their lives) Liberals are handing out condoms to first graders. In Provincetown, MA. Hmmmm…. isn’t there where Andrew Sullivan summers?

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 9:51 pm - November 29, 2012

  18. Vince, to what particular Tea Party actions are you referring? Yes, there are social conservatives in the Tea Party, but the focus of the movement has been, as V put it in #10, on the size of government and personal freedom.

    Maybe Akin is a member of the Tea Party caucus, but his problems this year had little to do with the Tea Party and much to do with his own crazy nations and self-importance.

    Had he kept the focus on Tea Party issues and deflected the question on abortion in the cases of rape, he would be a U.S. Senator-elect today and Claire McCaskill would be on her way to a much deserved retirement.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - November 29, 2012

  19. Michele Bachmann has been a foster mom to 22 needy and neglected kids. I doubt rusty or Vince has ever done anything so charitable.

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 10:49 pm - November 29, 2012

  20. The “tea party” movement is now so far beyond its roots that it is unrecognizable. It started out completely non-partisan and without any national organization. It was an expression of outrage among the citizens for Congress passing Obamacare, Stimuzilla, and various other bailouts against the wishes of the people. The notion was to hold politicians’ feet to the fire and hold them accountable for their actions. It wasn’t a “conservative” movement, it was a “politicians are accountable to the electorate” movement.

    In the beginning it was about showing up at townhall meetings and running candidates in primaries, be they Democrat or Republican, who voted against the wishes of their constituents. Then we saw some conservative organizations, there were a few of them at first, attempting to be “the” national tea party organization. We saw personalities attempt to leverage the movement to promote themselves (Hannity’s “Tea Party Express” comes to mind). Somehow through all this, the Tea Party movement became equated with social conservatives but that was mainly from social conservative organizations attempting to hijack the movement.

    There is no nation “Tea Party” organization and it isn’t Republican and it isn’t Democrat and it isn’t Libertarian. It is about tyranny. It is about holding politicians accountable to their people. It isn’t about taxes and that “Taxed Enough Already” was another come-lately attempt to lay claim to the movement.

    It is very important that there be no national organization, that each group operate very much locally according to the local political realities. This prevents the use of certain tactics where a national leader can be vilified and that reflect poorly on the local groups.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 29, 2012 @ 10:50 pm - November 29, 2012

  21. Does “social conservative” have any meaning other than “holds an opinion liberals don’t agree with?”

    Comment by V the K — November 29, 2012 @ 10:54 pm - November 29, 2012

  22. To my mind, social conservatives do the same thing social liberals do: they try to use government to force their social cultural values on the entire country. They basically want to ban that with which they disagree, same thing the liberals do, but with a different slate of things to be banned.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 29, 2012 @ 11:18 pm - November 29, 2012

  23. It wasn’t a “conservative” movement, it was a “politicians are accountable to the electorate” movement.

    It was a Republican/Libertarian movement, otherwise they would have taken to the streets as spending was getting out of control. Didn’t happen, because there was a Republican in the White House.

    Wikipedia details the movement right here. Why, it started four days after Obama started his new job as president and the Democrats gained more seats. Imagine that. Not in 2007 or 2008 when spending was ballooning out of control, but 2009, when the face of the Nation became a black liberal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tea_Party_protests,_2009

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 29, 2012 @ 11:38 pm - November 29, 2012

  24. The misrepresentation is not from lack of research, it’s deliberate propoganda.

    Comment by Paul — November 29, 2012 @ 11:49 pm - November 29, 2012

  25. BDB, You’re trying to describe the symptom of a disease as an anomaly. Sorry, no dice.

    Again, actions speak louder:

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/13/267880/162-number-of-new-anti-abortion-provisions-in-the-states/?mobile=nc

    Your rose-colored idealism about the Tea Party is quaint, but like communism … great in theory, not so great in execution.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 29, 2012 @ 11:57 pm - November 29, 2012

  26. And P.S. the link was posted only HALF WAY through 2011, FYI.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 29, 2012 @ 11:58 pm - November 29, 2012

  27. RE: 19

    V to K, Thank you to you and Michelle Bachmann for being standup parents.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 30, 2012 @ 12:13 am - November 30, 2012

  28. Vince, you forget who controlled the house and senate the last two years of the Bush admin. That is when things began to tank and the anger took off. Santelli sparked the Tea Party.

    Comment by Annie — November 30, 2012 @ 1:53 am - November 30, 2012

  29. It was a Republican/Libertarian movement, otherwise they would have taken to the streets as spending was getting out of control. Didn’t happen, because there was a Republican in the White House.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 29, 2012 @ 11:38 pm – November 29, 2012

    Yawn.

    The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

    The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.

    The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

    And double yawn.

    In short, Cinesnatch is screaming that taking eight years to add $4.9 trillion to the national debt is out of control spending that should be protested, but taking three years to add that amount and more is racist if you protest it.

    What Cinesnatch, aka Vince Smetana, is saying is very simple: Criticism of Obama is always racist, and if you criticize Obama, it proves you are a racist and acting solely out of racist motives.

    That’s really it in a nutshell. Cinesnatch wants to play the race card. He wants to smear and berate and shut up the Tea Party and conservatives by calling them racists.

    Which makes him a malicious bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 2:32 am - November 30, 2012

  30. Your rose-colored idealism about the Tea Party is quaint, but like communism … great in theory, not so great in execution.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 29, 2012 @ 11:57 pm – November 29, 2012

    Which is, of course, why you and yours want to recreate communism with you in charge.

    That’s typical. There are a whole slew of people who failed at capitalism and now want to go running right back to communism and Comrade Husak.

    Of course, the American public would never go for this, which is why you scream and rant and try to paint anyone who dares disagree with or criticize Barack Obama as a racist.

    Meanwhile, as for your abortion obsession, the reason why you are so desperate to push it is blatantly obvious.

    Getting too drunk or forgetting your condoms or allowing yourself to be pressured into it by your horny boyfriend or the kind of everyday, run-of-the-mill bad decisions we all make, like spending 6 dollars on coffee or watching Jersey Shore.

    Comment by Levi — September 24, 2012 @ 1:57 pm – September 24, 2012

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 2:39 am - November 30, 2012

  31. V to K, Thank you to you and Michelle Bachmann for being standup parents.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 30, 2012 @ 12:13 am – November 30, 2012

    I always love these attempts by Cinesnatch to attempt to pretend he’s anything other than a malicious, unprincipled, amoral bigot.

    Isn’t it funny? Cinesnatch and his promiscuous friends like Levi and rusty are the ones who support and endorse coercing and drugging women into unprotected sex, and Michelle Bachmann and V the K, who they loathe, berate, and attack, are the ones who actually give the children they produced a chance at life.

    Cinesnatch, Levi, and rusty consider themselves morally superior because they endorse the murder of children. They consider you morally and socially inferior if you, like Michelle Bachmann and V the K, actually raise, care, and pay for not only your own, but other peoples’ children.

    That’s liberalism. Morality comes from being as selfish and irresponsible as possible; those who advocate otherwise are haters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 3:12 am - November 30, 2012

  32. Even if AKin was a Tea Party candidate, it does nothing more than highlight the media guard of the left.

    Akin makes one remark and is attacked across the board. Meanwhile…

    Admitted tax cheat nominated SecTreasury *crickets*
    Maxine Waters’ ethics violations *crickets*
    James Clyburn’s racist remarks *crickets*
    Alan Greyson’s existance *crickets*

    See a patern?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2012 @ 7:48 am - November 30, 2012

  33. Akin was an idiot and a self-centered jerk who put his ego ahead of the best interests of the country. But as I like to remind people, the Establishment GOP didn’t exactly produce a lot of winners in 2012 either.

    Scott Brown – loser
    Denny Rehberg – loser
    Rick Berg – loser
    Connie Mack – loser
    George Allen – loser
    Pete Hoekstra – loser
    Rob McKenna – loser
    Tommy Thompson – loser

    Funny how no matter how many losers the Establishment GOP puts up, all the attention gets focused on the one “Tea Party” candidate who loses. (BTW, Tea Party candidates Ted Cruz and Deb Fischer won handily after fighting the establishment tooth and claw.)

    Comment by V the K — November 30, 2012 @ 7:59 am - November 30, 2012

  34. 1. Also recall that Cooper was the originator of the “teabagger” slur.

    Are you sure about that? I’ve always heard (and heard others refer back) that it was Rachel Maddow who coined the term (and used it—ahem—liberally in the beginning).

    Even with his occasional lapses in judgement, propriety, and accuracy, Anderson Cooper still does a more evenhanded job at story coverage than do the vast majority of his peers. It also seems like he cares about being generally unbiased and correct, rather than simply giving the appearance of same.

    Comment by RSG — November 30, 2012 @ 8:19 am - November 30, 2012

  35. ND30 > V to K asked if I have raised 22 foster children. I haven’t even raised one. I’m not in the income bracket or have the skills. What else could I say, but thank you to him and Bachman? Am I not allowed to have an opinion on abortion? There are a lot of irresponsible people on this planet. And it’s great that we have those, conservative and liberal, to foster those left without parents.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 30, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - November 30, 2012

  36. ND30 > V to K asked if I have raised 22 foster children. I haven’t even raised one. I’m not in the income bracket or have the skills.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 30, 2012 @ 1:24 pm – November 30, 2012

    Exactly.

    And yet, despite your being unable to earn the same amount, as well as lacking ANY skills or the willingness to do the same, are sitting there throwing mud at them.

    Bachmann and V the K are better people than you are, Cinesnatch. They’re especially better when you consider that they are willing to raise children that aren’t their own, while you and your fellow abortion-addled liberals kill yours.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 5:10 pm - November 30, 2012

  37. Despite my shortcomings, I express myself unanonymously. I hold myself accountable by attaching my name to my opinion. You can also find me on facebook.

    You write nasty things about people from the privacy of your computer.

    You are so courageous, ND30.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 30, 2012 @ 9:27 pm - November 30, 2012

  38. Duh, Cinesnatch.

    We already know that you abuse personal information that’s given to you, such as your attempt to blackmail my family members.

    And as far as “accountability” goes, you simply take advantage of the fact that conservatives are decent people who won’t engage in the type of conduct that is typical for liberals.

    But that’s typical. Someone shares personal information with you in good faith, you try to abuse it for personal gain. That isn’t decent behavior, but you do it anyway.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2012 @ 11:45 pm - November 30, 2012

  39. Like I said, really courageous, ND30: anonymously fling mud at people. That is a choice you make and you make alone. (Though, there are hundreds of millions of others who do the same thing, so you have plenty of company.) You have to sleep with yourself at night.

    I stand by my opinions, whatever they may be for whomever wants to agree/disagree with them, and I attach my identity (my name as well as easy access to my physical description via Facebook and whatever else google provides) to them to hold me accountable to anyone (including potential future employers, partners, friends, enemies, etc) and because I am not ashamed of what I believe or how I express those beliefs. That is a choice I make. And, thank you to GP, as well as a few commenters on here (and elsewhere) who do the same, for helping me get there by providing inspiration.

    We all have choices in life and rationalize why we make them. At the very least, mine are public and out there for everyone to see.

    I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 12:15 am - December 1, 2012

  40. If you actually were a decent person, Cinesnatch, you wouldn’t be so desperately whining and crying and demanding that people recognize you as one.

    But that’s understandable; on this thread alone, you’ve demonstrated why you are not a decent person.

    1) You kill children rather than accept the responsibility for producing them

    2) You mock and berate those who have accepted the responsibility for raising the children that you and your fellow irresponsible liberals have produced

    3) You insist that all opposition to or criticism of Obama is racist.

    4) You brand all Tea Party activity and all Tea Party participation as motivated solely by racism.

    And, as I’ve already pointed out you attempt to abuse peoples’ personal information and trust to blackmail them.

    I am quite comfortable with who and what I am. And you seem quite stunned that those who know me personally are more than willing to tell you what a great guy I am.

    Because they certainly do not say the same about you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2012 @ 1:17 am - December 1, 2012

  41. I have only met two people in person from GP: Dan (Blatt) and a commenter who goes by the handle ILC. And, as far as I’m aware, those interactions went quite well. Since last seeing Dan, he has attested to my character on GP. You can look it up in your LOL (Library of Links). Having met ILC during one weekend last year on his visit to L.A., we got along quite well and had a very good time talking to each other. During a discussion in March (and later) on GP, ILC hurled some awful insults in my direction and things have not been the same since. After contacting me by email, I asked that he not write to me anymore, as he was unrepentant of his personal attacks and no longer wanted to interact with him via email.

    So, please do not anonymously pretend to know what occurred between my self and Dan and ILC face to face. Thank you.

    And, as far as your bullet points, readers can decide for themselves if they are true or not.

    For the record, I never doubted your “great guy” status in-person. I had it on good word and truly believed it. What I found fascinating was that “great guy” status in-person in juxtaposition to how you conduct yourself on this board. Just to be clear. But, if you know me better than myself, then so be it. And, there have been many who have made comments to how you conduct yourself on these boards. And, one of the moderators on this site has pulled you aside to discuss your behaviors.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 1:47 am - December 1, 2012

  42. Actually, I’m a little fuzzy on dates. Now that I think about it, I may have seen Dan one more time (in July) since the last time he made a comment about my character on a GP thread. He has said something either once or twice and it was sometime earlier this year. My memory isn’t the best, but I try to be as accurate as possible and am willing to stand corrected if I am mistaken.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 1:51 am - December 1, 2012

  43. I have only met two people in person from GP: Dan (Blatt) and a commenter who goes by the handle ILC.

    Gee, Snatchy, I’ve met way more than that.

    For some reason, people who see you comment here don’t think you’re worth talking to or meeting with in person — and you turn off the people you do meet.

    But of course it’s their fault. LOL.

    And, there have been many who have made comments to how you conduct yourself on these boards. And, one of the moderators on this site has pulled you aside to discuss your behaviors.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 1:47 am – December 1, 2012

    I think ILC put it perfectly.

    BF: It’s a cycle that I’ve been through with him a few times, before learning to see through him. Ten minutes of seeming “reform” as the setup for the next spree of juvenile bomb-throwing, whining, narcissim and tactics of deception.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 25, 2012 @ 3:09 am – July 25, 2012

    And ironically, barely two weeks later:

    May I politely suggest that we simply IGNORE trolls like Cinesnatch? He?/She?It? is clearly not interested in having an actual discussion, and like a non life-threatening inner-thigh rash is best simply ignored.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — August 12, 2012 @ 11:48 pm – August 12, 2012

    Not to mention all the times you’ve been “admonished” by the moderators.

    But again, that’s typical. Levi and Aaron and Passing By and your fellow liberal troll friends fling mud anonymously, yet you don’t criticize them or call them cowards.

    So really, what you’re making obvious is that you want everyone else to follow principles you don’t and hold standards that you won’t.

    Once people realize that you don’t respect decency or decent behavior, your whining about it becomes transparently hypocritical — and makes your complaints the subject of derision rather than introspection.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2012 @ 2:58 am - December 1, 2012

  44. Not to mention all the times that one time you’ve been “admonished” by the moderators.

    FIFY. To my memory, Dan has never admonished my behavior on GP via email or on the GP boards. Bruce has not either, to my memory. He has, however, deleted exactly one of my comments during a thread where there were several eliminated made by only a few posters. If I am mistaken in any of this, feel free to provide the evidence from your LOL. You have been consulted via email by at least one of the moderators on this site on more than one occasion about your behavior. I simply haven’t. If you don’t want to acknowledge that, it’s your choice. If you don’t, that’s also your choice.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 3:25 am - December 1, 2012

  45. To my memory, Dan has never admonished my behavior on GP via email or on the GP boards.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 3:25 am – December 1, 2012

    In contrast to what you previously stated:

    Now that I think about it, I may have seen Dan one more time (in July) since the last time he made a comment about my character on a GP thread. He has said something either once or twice and it was sometime earlier this year.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 1:51 am – December 1, 2012

    Which means you lied.

    And again:

    Bruce has not either, to my memory.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 3:25 am – December 1, 2012

    Once more, you lied.

    Cinesnatch-

    Your boorish behavior has become stale. If you don’t have any productive points to bring to the table, except constant attacks on Dan or I, then I’d like to ask you to leave.

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 10, 2012 @ 11:13 am – May 10, 2012

    You don’t have a bad memory, Cinesnatch. You just lie and expect to get away with your lies.

    Case in point:

    If I am mistaken in any of this, feel free to provide the evidence from your LOL.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 3:25 am – December 1, 2012

    Think about that very carefully. You don’t know if what you’re saying is true, but you go ahead and say it anyway.

    That really shows the window into your personality, Cinesnatch. You will make statements up front without evidence in an attempt to attack someone and then require them to defend themselves.

    Why do you make statements which you don’t know to be true?

    And then, this was really funny:

    You have been consulted via email by at least one of the moderators on this site on more than one occasion about your behavior.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 3:25 am – December 1, 2012

    Oh really? How would you know? Have you been reading their email or mine?

    Or….did you just use information that was told you in trust and confidence in a private conversation to try to attack someone?

    You mean, to the fact that you are lying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2012 @ 2:38 pm - December 1, 2012

  46. How would you know?

    I was told by one of the moderators at GP that you were consulted about you behavior. And this happened a couple of times. That’s how I know. And it was shared with the provision of keeping it private.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 10:35 pm - December 1, 2012

  47. We all have choices in life and rationalize why we make them. At the very least, mine are public and out there for everyone to see.

    I have nothing to be ashamed of.

    Without casting aspersions as to the particular character of any individual, I would like to point out that making such statements as the above implies that people who do not do such things or do not have a Facebook profile plastered everywhere (or, who do not have one at all) are somehow hiding something or filled with shame.

    While trolls are everywhere—both on and offline—it is the activities they engage in (eg, comments and actual real-time behavior) by which they should be judged, not the identity [real or perceived] by which they do so. Otherwise its akin to looking at all male teenagers in trenchcoats as potential terrorists, as was done in the months after the Columbine High School shootings.

    After all, there are plenty of “out and open” individuals who engage in shameful behavior, often perpetually [Dan Savage & Perez Hilton come to mind], and are seemingly rewarded for it in the interest of “freedom of speech [and/or] expression”. Or at the very least, not censured for it.

    Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.
    —H. Jackson Brown, Jr

    Comment by RSG — December 1, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - December 1, 2012

  48. RSG,

    It was written specifically to what I post on GP. Sorry I wasn’t more clear or chose my words more carefully.

    Feel free to speak to how individuals attack others personally from anonymous sources.

    I was trying to talk about accountability and it sounds like I could have done a better job.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 11:35 pm - December 1, 2012

  49. CORRECTION:

    46. And it was shared WITHOUT the provision of keeping it private.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 2, 2012 @ 12:31 am - December 2, 2012

  50. And it was shared with the provision of keeping it private.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 1, 2012 @ 10:35 pm – December 1, 2012

    What a surprise. And it wasn’t.

    Moreover, you’re still not dealing with the main issue: you claim you didn’t know whether something was true or not, but you said it anyway.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - December 2, 2012

  51. We both know what is true. You are the one who can’t deal with it. What a surprise.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 3, 2012 @ 11:15 am - December 3, 2012

  52. 51.We both know what is true. You are the one who can’t deal with it. What a surprise.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 3, 2012 @ 11:15 am – December 3, 2012

    Actually, I do know what is true, Cinesnatch; as I already showed, you don’t.

    You simply lie and lie and lie and lie and demand that other people produce evidence proving that you’re lying, then scream and throw tantrums when they do.

    One of these days, you might actually think BEFORE you say something — which would also avoid the nasty impression you create when throwing tantrums afterward when someone, be it a friend, potential partner, or employer actually points out that you’re not correct.

    But I wouldn’t bet on it. Your kind invariably creates a nice death spiral that ends up with them friendless, jobless, and convinced the whole world is against them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - December 3, 2012

  53. Dan, anyone can write the things you do anonymously.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 3, 2012 @ 3:24 pm - December 3, 2012

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.

0.332 Powered by Wordpress