Gay Patriot Header Image

Fracture in hand

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 2:41 pm - September 13, 2017.
Filed under: Blogging

Working on it. For several days, it has been painful to type. Sorry guys!

UPDATE: It will need surgery. It will be fine. Thanks for all of your well-wishes!
I’ll be a one-handed typist for some weeks. (Which is slower than it sounds, because of the extra typos you make.)

Careful of what people claim to be

Every human being alive (I’m no exception) likes people who agree with him or her. Hearing what we want to hear gives our brains a positive jolt. Gathering with like-minded people makes us feel “at home”. It’s human nature. Heck, it’s the reason I started visiting this blog (which is Bruce’s), years ago.

We also like to think that our heroes / important authorities would agree with us. This can be used for a marketing advantage. For example, if you dislike Donald Trump or his key supporters, you can get a leg up – in terms of having on-the-fence people read you or believe you – if you pretend to speak for the Republican party, as Ana Navarro does.

Or you could go Reagan. I’ve seen many folks quote (or re-tweet) a certain anti-Trump presence calling themselves The Reagan Battalion.

For my part, I’ve always felt a tad suspicious of them. They never struck me as especially Reagan-esque, or as linked to the Reagan legacy in some extra way that would justify claiming his name. The name strikes me as a marketing effort to say “Believe us, because we promise, Ronald Reagan R Us! Totes legit!”

I tend to be suspicious of Argument from Authority, and its variations like Argument from Biography, or Argument from What I Claim To Be. This is one reason (there are others) why I don’t talk my biography here on GP. My presence sort-of-tells people I’m gay, and my handle (ILC) announces my general ideology; other than that, I work to make my information/arguments stand on their merits.

Anyway: Lucian Wintrich, a gay Trump supporter and journalist, has done a piece critical of The Reagan Battalion that may be of interest. He says they were part of the anti-Milo campaign earlier this year (which I agree was a smear pile-on and as such, not the tiniest bit Reagan-esque). Wintrich links to other journalism that ties The Reagan Battalion to Democrat money and sketchy activists, per FEC and IRS filings.

This is one where I don’t claim to know “the truth”; just pointing out the article and letting people comment.

If you had the spam

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:48 pm - July 25, 2017.
Filed under: Blogging

A Safari user or two kindly informed us that the GP comment section was causing a popup message something like “Your iPad has been chosen to win a $1,000.00 gift card.”

Yesterday they did some work on the blog. So, I’m hoping that would be cleaned up. If you saw the message previously, please let us know if you still see it (after running Apple’s or Safari’s version of local cleanup – I would not know what that is). Thanks!

Dangerous Faggot

I have unblocked the word “faggot” in our comments section. It was past time, for 2 reasons:

  • South Park “The F Word” made “fag” OK in 2009.
  • Milo – it’s impossible to cover him without mentioning his “Dangerous Faggot” lecture tour.

As to Milo, he has re-launched. (He appears around 58:45 in the video.) Highlights:

  • He has raised $12 million for a new media and book-publishing company that will be dedicated to ending political correctness and “making the lives of journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists and other professional victims a living hell.”
  • He will be suing Simon & Schuster (presumably for breach of contract?), asking another $10 million.
  • He is still planning MILO’S FREE SPEECH WEEK (no dates on it).

I saw this coming, after the Left’s coordinated attack on him in February. He’s not one to stay down and out.

By the way, Vanity Fair hates him. And if you’re thinking “pedophilia”, Milo had a few words for you back in February: “I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst.” We at GayPatriot agree.

The Gaslighters in the woodwork

Let’s be honest: The problems of American blacks today are caused largely by white intellectuals and politicians, and I mean the left-wing ones.

In the 1930s, such people created Planned Parenthood specifically to abort black babies (google Margaret Sanger). In the 1960s, such people created the Welfare State (Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”) which annihilated the traditional black family and led generations of American inner-city blacks away from productive pursuits, into dead-ends of left-wing “community activism” and much worse.

And today, such people pander to (or sometimes form the white membership of) the group #BlackLivesMatter, which perversely tries to lead blacks into a dead-end of complaining, hateful racism against whites. If ever, after we entered the 20th century, there was some kind of plot by American whites to destroy blacks and keep them down: American left-liberalism would be it. (If.)

Racism is both an illusion and a real problem (as illusions sometimes can be). Racism in America is being fomented even as we speak, by privileged, white American left-liberals. Not racism in the sense that America discriminates terribly against blacks, but the opposite: racism in the sense that America wants to give blacks an unreal sense of entitlement. Racism in the sense that America throws crutches and deadweights to blacks (not helping hands) and foments mistaken beliefs, both about blacks and among blacks.

Whose fault is it? If, for your entire life, the rich white lady who gets away with every crime (*cough* Hillary among others) tells you that America OWES you a living and owes you intense accommodation of your whims and that she will use government (force) to make sure you get it, wouldn’t you begin to believe her? I would.

In effect and for generations, narcissistic American lefties have been trying to gaslight American blacks.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse used by narcissists in order to instill in their victims an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion to the point where they no longer trust their own memory, perception or judgment…

The intention is to, in a systematic way, target the victim’s mental equilibrium, self confidence, and self esteem so that they are no longer able to function in an independent way. Gaslighting involves the abuser to frequently and systematically withhold factual information from the victim, and replace it with false information.

And yet some people blame blacks, the recipients of systematic gaslighting by American leftists. And blame blacks on the basis of their race. In short: Yes, Virginia, some people are nasty racists.

As tragic, current events have put “race” into the news and caused GayPatriot to increase its coverage, I have encountered perhaps 1 or 2 of these people in our comments. If “conservative” in America means that you value human dignity, independence and freedom – if – then I can’t consider these people conservatives; I personally, and sadly, am forced to think of them as accomplices to the vicious and evil schemes of the Left.

Here (#17) are (#19) three (#38) recent comments that I have in mind.

…Negroes seem incapable of governing or producing anything of value.

Black people are a violent, criminal, underclass.

If all blacks disappeared, America’s cities would become much safer and more livable.

I could spell out what’s wrong with the above quotes. (For example: What about white meth addicts and dealers, as a violent and criminal underclass? What about certain white Democrat leaders, like the Clintons or Jon Corzine (D), as a violent and criminal overclass? What about brilliant black Americans like Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, Janice Rogers-Brown and Allen West? How about if we take people as individuals and categorize them by their behavior and ideas and character content, not by something dumb like their genes and melanin content?)

I could spell it out, but another part of me says: Why bother? Hate is hate. It’s part of racism. That being so, it’s enough to say that anyone who wants to bring it here to GayPatriot ought to take it elsewhere.

I want less criminal violence in America: less from poor people – who may be white or black or any race; AND, less criminal violence from certain rich people and top leaders in the Political-Financial Complex – who, again, may be white or black or any so-called “race”.

The 43 Types of Commenters

Posted by V the K at 7:29 am - June 30, 2016.
Filed under: Blogging

Some of these seem familiar. Takes for example, #24: The Party Line.

The Party Line comment is one in which the poster simply repeats something they’ve learned – often verbatim – from another source. This can be a religious leader, a political teacher, a professor on a topic, a book, etc. The key to the Party Line comment is a lack of original thought and often even comprehension of the subject. Rather than a personal analysis, the Party Line merely repeats talking points on the topic.

And, then there’s #11: “Talking Points

The Talking Points comment is one in which a series of memes or pre packaged statements are regurgitated onto a message board or comment section. Often this is done without further comment and is sometimes even simply cut and pasted from another source.

Reminder on the mechanics of commenting

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:15 am - June 29, 2016.
Filed under: Blogging

As the GP comment form says, “Your first comment is held for moderation”. It means that when the system thinks you might be new, it doesn’t publish your comment until a person (administrator) has come and looked it over. And sometimes, it can take a few hours (or days) to get around to it. The point is, it’s nothing against you. After your first one is approved, it should get easier for you to comment.

Things We Condemn – and expect our opponents to condemn

So, this post is written by Jeff; but I may say we/us/our in the following, meaning that I’m pretty sure that other GP authors would agree with me.

From time to time, trolls show up in GayPatriot’s comments section: people who are here not to provide new info or discuss anything for real, but only to throw accusations. They are usually left-wing. It’s fun, because they so often provide evidence for our points about how the Left thinks (or rather, doesn’t think).

You can tell a troll because his accusations are illogical. He usually shows little understanding of our viewpoints as the writers of GP, which may differ among us on some issues, but which are always rooted in our respect for human life including liberty (human freedom).

For example, if you understood anything about our viewpoints, you would know that we condemn violence^^ against gays and lesbians. And against women. And against black people or any minority. We condemn physical violence against anybody who isn’t a perpetrator of physical violence, because we condemn all physical violence that isn’t necessary for self-defense. No peaceful citizen should have to live in fear for his or her physical safety.

Likewise, we condemn anyone who -calls for- violence^^ against gays and lesbians, against women, or against anybody else who hasn’t committed criminal violence. To our way of thinking, we shouldn’t have to say the preceding, because it should be SO OBVIOUS that it flows from our principles. But if it’s important to you that we say it: there it is. Easy to say. Done.

It’s an example of something so basic that we would expect any commenter on GP who wants to be taken seriously to feel the same way. A similar example of something basic would be condemning violence against children – including the sexual exploitation of minors, such as child pornography or pedophilia**.

Rejecting the sexual exploitation of minors is so obvious and basic to being a decent human being that a person should not normally be asked to condemn pedophilia – but, if she is asked to, it should be quite easy for her to say “Of course I condemn it – Done.”

The thing is: When it comes to the Gay Left, and because the Gay Left sometimes tolerates NAMBLA or promotes certain individuals who do condone sex with minors, it may be legitimate to ask the person to condemn it. And when they condemn it, that’s good. You got your answer, and you move on to other topics.

At this point, a gay leftie might say “But then we’re right to ask you if you condemn violence against gays!! Because you tolerate or associate with Christians, and Christians promote or condone violence against gays!!!1!11!1!”

And the answer is: No, Christians don’t. Of course you can find some crazy/fringe person who happens to call themselves “Christian” and calls for violence against lesbians or gays; but the key words there are “crazy” and “fringe”. The words apply because the real world is different. In the real world, all major denominations of Christianity reject violence against gays.

But, sadly, it is not equally true that all major Gay Left groups, Pride parades, etc. shun NAMBLA and condemn anyone who has sex with teenage boys. Sadly, no.

All this came up in a recent GP thread. A leftie commenter asked me if I condemn violence against gays, and/or anyone calling for violence against gays. I replied readily that I do.

Thinking that I was throwing the guy a softball, I said, now you can reciprocate my example by condemning pedophilia, right? He couldn’t or wouldn’t. Instead, he claimed that Christian leaders typically call for violence against gays. I demanded contemporary examples – and the one example that he provided (after some stalling and further hand-waving) was just a fringe nutcase, a worthless example.

To summarize.

  1. We (authors at Gay Patriot) condemn violence^^ against gays. (and always have)
  2. We condemn anyone who promotes or calls for violence^^ against gays. (and we always have)
  3. We condemn pedophilia**. (and always have)
  4. We find these things easy to say, when we are challenged about it.
  5. We think that any decent person should find these things easy to say, if they are challenged.
  6. We do NOT normally want people to be challenged on these things, in GP comments. (Why not? For staying on topic, for goodwill / presumption of innocence, etc.)
  7. But, if a troll is going to make challenges on these things, then he or she may expect to be challenged back – and had better come up with the right answers. As we do.
  8. In the future, when we are challenged, we may simply refer the troll back to this post.

(^^Violence meaning: real violence, which of course is physical violence.)

(**Pedophilia broadly also including hebephilia/ephebophilia, the sexual exploitation of teenagers or of any/all minors.)

On the Difficulty of Being a Patriot (when your citizenry sux)

Hi folks! (Jeff/ILC) I haven’t posted here for several months. Where have I been?

As a rule, I dislike negative people; I like problem-solvers and try to be one. But sometimes, even a problem-solver can get negative because problem-solving starts with acknowledging reality, and the reality may be very negative.

This is the situation I’m in, with regard to the United States of America. By my guess, Americans today fall into roughly four categories:

  • 25% good people. (Constructive people who see clearly and value liberty.)
  • 25% confused people. (Semi-good people who have been mis-educated with anti-freedom ideas. Some of these may live off the public trough, although they know they shouldn’t.)
  • 25% parasites. (People who expect to live off the public trough, claiming it’s right and they deserve it.)
  • 25% fascists. (People, usually leftists though not always, who actively want government to control more and more of everyone’s lives. Even speech, for example with speech codes.)

When I was a kid, things were not much better; but they may have been a little bit better. The proportions seemed to be more like 30, 30, 20, 20. So the balance was a little more in favor of the good people.

I believe that, by now in 2015, the balance has tipped against the nation’s remaining good people. As a result:

  • We get “leader” after “leader” who is either pathetic and confused (Donald Trump, any of the Bushes), or pathetic and malevolent (Barack Obama, any of the Clintons or Kennedys).
  • We get government officials that continually lie – for example, saying that unemployment is 5.1% when it is 11% or more – and a media that couldn’t care less, as long as Planned Parenthood or its other favorite causes will be funded.
  • Add your own. (Libya? Syria? Talk about illegal wars! Given that ISIS and the disgusting, U.S.-backed “Syrian rebels” are much the same people, shouldn’t we be asking if ISIS may be an incredibly-stupid U.S. covert op?)

I gotta be honest: It’s depressing. As I survey this post-modern, corrupt, neo-socialist wreck of a nation that had once proudly taught the world about human freedom and productivity, I feel disgust and disappointment. I’ve been absent from the blog because I hit a point where I simply did not want to pay any attention to current events. And because I (still) feel uncomfortable writing at a blog with the word “patriot” in the title when, in Obama’s America, there is increasingly less that is worth defending.

I love and support the America that its Founders had intended: a beacon of liberty. I do not love or support (except by paying a ton of taxes, in cash) the America that we have in the year 2015: a deceit-filled, national-socialist travesty whose eventual crash (and/or takeover by China) can no longer be prevented.

That’s at the political level. On a personal level: I have to admit that it took me a couple decades to “get it” – that is, to understand real economics, psychology and morality and how they should interact to make a free society. It took me awhile, because I was mis-educated originally (was told a lot of the standard lies), and because my general desire to love people and give them credit made it hard to disbelieve the lies. It took me a long time; so why not be patient with the many people today who “don’t get it”?

Here’s why not. Yes, it took me a long time; but I did “get it”, because of my lifelong commitment to figuring out what’s real and what isn’t real, what works and what doesn’t work. I don’t see most people making even half of such an effort. I see a majority of people lying to themselves and others, spouting crap, not caring that they’re spouting crap, and treating their families like crap – as they indulge themselves with daily marijuana, coke, alcohol, iPorn, affairs/hookups, all-day gaming or other destruction. Which they rationalize.

Anyway…your thoughts?

We Need This Guy

Posted by V the K at 11:48 pm - July 16, 2015.
Filed under: Blogging

Logical Fallacy Ref: Enemy of Trolls

ref01071515

 

We *All* Know This Guy

Posted by V the K at 7:21 pm - June 8, 2015.
Filed under: Blogging

11401507_10205576102056035_2867617353007291261_n
Dilbert

The changing blog (and some LCR news)

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 6:32 pm - June 3, 2014.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay Politics,Log Cabin Republicans

Recently, Log Cabin Republicans were denied a booth at the Texas GOP convention. I’ve debated with myself (a little) if I should even mention it.

Why the disinterest? As longtime readers know, GP is a group blog. Bruce and Dan are Republicans; and more than that, Republicans who have had past dealings with LCR. One of them might want to cover this topic. But they seem to be busy these days. Posts lately have been written mainly by V the K (who has been awesome! – if a little incendiary at times 😉 ), and to a lesser extent by me.

And I have been an Independent for years. I believe V is too. In other words, as committed non-Republicans (presently doing the posts), we may often just not care about LCR-related news. The more so because, over the years and at the national level, LCR has so often abandoned the conservative and/or small-government principles that we believe in.

Speaking purely for myself (and with no knowledge of whether the Texas LCR group is better than national LCR), I can hardly blame any Republican group for wanting to exclude LCR from anything, since LCR so often seem to be barely-Republicans. I believe very much in freedom of association.

But it turns out that anti-gay animus could be at work, in this case, because the Texas GOP platform claims that “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.” And that is worthy of comment. I find it silly, for the following reasons.

First, the Texas GOP may be inadvertently serving the interests of LCR: dignifying them with controversy (thus, publicity) that they may not deserve. Second, I do think it would be much more accurate to say that -the extreme Gay Left- tears at the fabric of society, as does the Left in general.

Your thoughts?

Yes, it’s easier not to think about politics

My title (point) will strike most people as obvious. But some “obvious” things remain theoretical until they hit you. Then they feel almost like a new thought.

I’ve been on a break from “the news” for over 2 months now, and I feel relaxed. Life is easier this way. What Obama and the Democrats have been up to, by way of destroying most of what has been healthy and good about America, is so sad. And out of my control, so it’s easier to think about other things.

This may lead to a small insight into the “low-information voters” who support Obama / Democrats. Politics deals with life-and-death questions. A budget or regulatory change can force any number of people into changing their lives. ‘Not thinking about it’ is probably easier for most people, including those voters.

The average Democrat voter (that I’ve encountered) has a feeling that the Democrats seem to like abortion privileges, gays and blacks; and she likes those things, too; and she doesn’t think any further about politics, because she figures that whatever else the Democrats are up to, she would probably also like. Never mind that in reality, the Democrats are the stalwarts of that Big Government – Big Banking nexus which siphons off her earning power year after year, and whose nature is essentially fascist (anti-freedom).

What’s depressing for libertarian-conservatives is that the Republicans are only a little better. The GOP are better – as in, usually they are a bit less insane. But the GOP Establishment are also captives of (or intimidated by) the same Big Government – Big Banking nexus that uses/runs the Left. The GOP and Democrat establishments unite in seeking to destroy the Tea Party – who are the main people interested in a smaller government, to restore the prosperity and freedom of Americans.

Remember, conservatives, many Americans do* want to like President Obama

I believe it’s been a week, maybe more, since I even checked this blog.  I did not get to the post I wanted to write on JFK, contrasting that smart Democrat’s record with the media coverage of his murder and his legacy.  I had a few notes for posts on Obamacare and honesty and one on Obamacare and prediction. Reading something this morning in the Daily Caller reminded me of a piece I had read yesterday in Commentary, articulating an idea which gets at the meaning of Obama’s reelection last year.

Peter Wehner wrote:

In their fascinating behind-the-scenes book on the 2012 election, Double Down, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write that the campaign’s research showed “that there was a deep well of sympathy for Obama among voters.” In focus groups after the first debate, they write, “people offered excuse after excuse for his horrific presentation. In Florida, one woman said, almost protectively, ‘I just bet you he wasn’t feeling well.’”

That deep well of sympathy–that willingness to give the president the benefit of the doubt and the attachment and connection voters felt for Mr. Obama–has been crucial to his success for his entire political life. He has always been viewed as a likeable and decent man, even when his campaign employed fairly ruthless tactics. But the days of broad public faith and trust in this president appear to be over. And no wonder.

I think this is why the image of Obama responding to Hurricane Sandy was so beneficial to the incumbent.  People do want to like him.  And in the coverage of the storm and his response, that Democrat looked very much like the man they wanted to like.

It remains to be see whether the disaster of the Obamacare roll-out and the realization (despite his many promises) that many Americans who liked their health care plans couldn’t keep them will erase the goodwill many Americas feel for the incumbent.  That said we on the right should not lose sight of the fact that as Halperin and Heilemann put it, many Americans do have a “deep well of sympathy for Obama”.

——

*And the question now becomes whether we should change the tense on this verb from present to past.

NB:   (more…)

The “End” of GayPatriot

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:04 am - October 3, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Bruce's Outside Posts

No, no, no… calm down!  Our blog isn’t going anywhere!

I decided to move forward with my online and social media “brand” and ditch the “GayPatriot” moniker today.  Dan ditched “GayPatriotWest” a few years ago and I didn’t understand why.  I thought our names were cool and provided an instant recognition of who we were.  But, as usual, Dan was right so I’m following suit today.

Since December 2011, I’ve been striking out on my own as a political, media, grassroots consultant.  Leaving the clutches of Corporate America has been quite liberating and I’ve enjoyed the projects I’ve worked on to date.  I also made a conscious effort to push the “GayPatriot” brand for myself online, especially Twitter.

Well, I think the time is right to promote and grow who I am as a person and a professional — not hide behind a cute and fun nickname.  I’m engaged in a wide variety of endeavors now with the Match Game show, “The Wrap” podcast, and of course professional projects.  Time to grow up!

So from now on – you can find me on Twitter @BruceCarrollSC

PS – NO, I’m not running for office.  Just changing things up a bit!

-Bruce

Open thread

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:39 am - September 9, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging

Whatever y’all want to talk about. What should GayPatriot blog on, more?

My absence from the blog/Open Thread

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 pm - August 25, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Bruce's Outside Posts

I regret not having had the occasion to blog for quite a few days now. And do hope to chime in again soon.*

I have heard also that while Bruce has not been blogging much recently, he has been tweeting up a storm. And since I am not on twitter, I am not aware of the content of his many tweets, though have heard rumor of several.

Please note that if you wish to opine on his tweets, you should contact him, not me. He is responsible for his own words. For though I do blog at GayPatriot, I am not GayPatriot. That title belongs to Bruce and Bruce alone.

Now that I have spoken, have it in the comments. Let that section be our open thread. And be civil. Even as I urge you to express yourselves, respect those whom you criticize, address their arguments don’t insult their persons.

*ADDENDUM: A number of things, mostly involving my book, but also involving my family has kept me from blogging. As to the family, it’s mostly good things, with a beloved niece and cousins visiting Southern California.

“Smart Diplomacy” Illustrated

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:33 pm - July 3, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Politics abroad

Screen shot 2013-07-03 at 10.30.32 AM

The gay marriage decisions & the gay marriage debate

I find it a somewhat delicious irony that on the day the Supreme Court hands down its gay marriage decisions, a day I had planned on blogging about the debate on gay marriage.  But, I had been planning that before knowing that on the actual day, I would be more focused on writing the first chapter of the second part of my epic.

I have long thought the debate on this important issue, this fundamental social institution, has long been particularly lame.  And from reading my Facebook feed, see that it has become ever more so, with all too many (but fortunately not all) treating the decisions not so much as constitutional interpretation and social policy, but as personal validation — as if they needed some government body to decide the “right” way so they can feel recognized.  But, that feeling of approval will fade.

That said, I have seen two statements on Facebook which do get at the meeting of the decision, from people on opposite sides of the political aisle.  And I’m sure that in due course, I will discover some thoughtful blog posts and editorials.  But, for now, while I have much to say about marriage, my mind is on my book.  At the end of May, I finished the first draft of the first part of the book (over 150,000 words) and spent the better part of this month revising it, having intended today to print out the whole thing and take it to a printer (so I can share it with friends).  (As I begin serious work on the second part.)

So, let me offer the meaningful Facebook post for your consideration.  My friend Harmeet Dhillon (my predecessor as president of the U-VA Federalist Society) offered this on the standing issue which served to overturn Prop 8:

As a political law practitioner, the broader implication of today’s Prop 8 ruling is 1) a narrow interpretation of standing and 2) apparently there is no recourse by the citizens if their elected constitutional officers (here, the Attorney General) simply refuses to enforce a law passed by the majority of voters. The former is likely an artifice of the Court trying to dodge a merits decision on a very controversial issue, but the latter severely undercuts the power of the citizen-sponsored proposition in California, regardless of subject matter or what political persuasion is affected. A sobering reminder that your vote on propositions sort of matters sometimes, while your vote on who is the Attorney General matters a whole lot. And not enough of you vote!

Our left-of-center reader Rob Tisinai gets that state recognition of marriage is about more than just “rights”: (more…)

STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS!

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:52 pm - June 24, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse

Just because Barack Obama won the 2012 election, in large part, by dishonestly portraying Mitt Romney as a cold, uncaring, out-of-touch plutocrat does not mean our readers have grounds to level similar personal charges against our (and their) critics.

And please do not make assumptions about my left-of-center friends.

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, take issue with the arguments they raise, but do not level personal attacks on the individual making them.  You don’t know that person.  You don’t know why he has made the case that he has.

I do not check the comments all that regularly, but in the past few days, have received repeated reports from readers about commenters using ad hominem attacks in exchanges with their adversaries.

More on this after I’ve discussed the matter with Bruce.