Gay Patriot Header Image

The Idiocy of the Left

Posted by V the K at 8:01 pm - July 28, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

Check out the signs in the background; this is what passes for insightful political dialogue on the progressive left.

Screen-Shot-2015-07-28-at-7.43.19-PM

More Class from the #LoveWins Crowd

Posted by V the K at 9:07 am - July 17, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

Via insty: Gay marriage activist throws unhinged hissy-fit at Texas governor, gets bumped from flight.

As he was waiting with family and staff to board a flight back to Austin on Tuesday night after two days promoting Texas in New York City, Gov. Greg Abbott was approached by another passenger who shook his hand and then loudly and profanely expressed his unhappiness with the governor’s opposition to gay marriage. “I hope you [expletive] go to hell because of your stance on gay marriage,” the man told the governor, using an epithet for emphasis, according to Abbott communications director Matt Hirsch, who was with the governor. The man, identified only as a 32-year-old male by Port Authority police, was asked to step back by Texas state troopers traveling with the governor. As he walked away, Hirsch said the man, dressed in jeans and a T-shirt, directed a parting shot at the governor: “I’m going to see you on the plane.”

Gay Brownshirts Against Civility

Posted by V the K at 9:41 pm - June 16, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

Apparently, the Gay Left wants to make sure no one ever has a civil conversation with a Conservative.  No amount of groveling will make up for talking to one of those filthy people. And if they have to enforce these rules by behaving like middle schools… that’s just how they roll.

A few months ago, the oh-so-tolerant LGBT activists completely lost their minds after two prominent gay hoteliers, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, hosted a foreign policy discussion event for presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Because GOD FORBID they find some common ground with Cruz. Gay marriage should dictate all of your political views. Every. Single. One of them.

On Sunday, Mati Weiderpass got kicked out of a Fire Island bar for arguing with another customer over hosting the Cruz event.

“One guy got up and asked him what the rationale was to have dinner with Cruz. They got kind of heated and before you knew it, there was a lot of people yelling,” customer Evan Lobel said.

The club’s owner, P.J. McAteer, then asked them to leave. When they left, everyone cheered.

Because tolerance.

On an unrelated note, this is a thing that happened. I don’t feel like writing a post about it, but it happened.

Never Be Kind to a Leftist

Posted by V the K at 7:07 pm - May 7, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

A Subway officer was kind enough to let Lesbian Intellectual Sally Kohn ride the subway even though she forgot her wallet. She thanked him by calling him a racist.

So, the lesson here is, leftists are ungrateful jerks.

NY Times Editorial: Gays Who Step Off the Democrat Plantation Should Be Punished

Posted by V the K at 7:05 pm - April 27, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Liberal Intolerance

An editorial by the NYT’s Abe Rosenthal thinks the two gay hoteliers who met with Ted Cruz deserved the attacks and harassment they got for insolently reaching out to the other side in a civil manner.

It is, however, equally hard to understand what on earth they thought they were doing. There is not a Republican on the national scene who supports the right of Americans to marry whomever they choose. Very few of them truly believe in protecting the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans at all. And Mr. Cruz dwells on the far side of right-wing crazy on most issues, including this one.

The two gay dudes have since repented for being civil to a Republican, and promised it will not happen again.

Karma

Posted by V the K at 9:21 am - March 29, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Liberals

Remember the d-bag who made a YouTube video of himself berating a Chik-Fil-A employee because he disagreed with the owner of the chain’s support for traditional marriage? Thinking it would make him a big hero with the social left? He’s unemployed and living in an RV.

Adam Smith, 37, was the CFO of a medical device manufacturer in Arizona until the summer of 2012, when he started protested Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay marriage to an employee at a drive-thru.

“Chick-fil-A is a hateful company,” Smith told the employee. “I don’t know how you sleep at night,” Smith adds at another point. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”

After the employee, who never loses her composure, wished Smith a nice day, he responded, “I will. I just did something really good. I feel purposeful.”

Since then, Smith was fired from his job, and his wife and four children lost their home. The family was forced to sell and give away their possessions and move into an RV. He is now on food stamps, he says.

I feel sorry for his wife and kids.

Why haven’t his fellow SJW’s embraced him and supported him in his time of need? He was standing up for their cause, and none of them were willing to help him out? Sheesh, I guess they are too busy worrying about heteronormative microaggression triggers to help a brother out.

What Should One Say to a Left-Winger Who Wants to Take Away Your Human Rights to Appease Violent Radicals?

Posted by V the K at 5:20 pm - January 17, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Free Speech

If news accounts are correct, a Libertarian-leaning Australian Senator had a terse reply to a Multiculturalist Social Democrat who wanted to curtail free-speech rights in the name of not offending the oh-so-delicate feelers of Islamics.

An anti free speech social Democrat named Gary Burns in Australia got a firm rebuke when he wrote to senator David Leyonjhelm about how Australia’s multiculturalism is the law. Leyonjhelm responded harshly, saying “Go f**k yourself you communist turd.”

YouTube Preview Image

I think pretty much the same thing whenever I hear certain politicians flapping their yaps, but I keep it to myself. I know it was not a civil way to reply, and not  one that should typify political discourse, but what should one’s response be to people who want to take your human rights away from you? Some would argue that Leyonjhelm should have replied with a well-thought out argument on the virtues of free and open speech. That probably would have been a waste of time; you can’t reason people out of what they weren’t reasoned into.

Meanwhile, the recipients of Senator Leyonjhelm’ s email have responded with Drama Queen Butthurt.

“This boofhead is not a fit or proper person to represent the good people of NSW. I’ve been called many things in life but never a communist,” he said.

“When I received the offensive email from the Senator I was so shocked I clutched my pearls and reached for the smelling salts.”

BTW

Mr Burns has previously sued broadcaster John Laws under the Anti-Discrimination Act for calling gay men “pillow biters”.

Remember when lefties liked free speech? (or claimed to)

Something in Bruce’s Twitter stream got me to notice this petition on Daily Kos, which is

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

I don’t know when DK started the petition; probably a few years ago. But it’s still active. Now, in terms of the U.S. constitution, what caused the Citizens United decision? As Justice Kennedy wrote in 2010 for the majority:

If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

So, the principle of Free Speech caused the decision. The First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech – is what the decision expresses and defends.

If we do the math, the Daily Kos petition is effectively:

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn free speech.

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech.

Example #12,770 of leftism actually being fascism and vice versa.

UPDATE: Something more current…With approval from the National Science Foundation, Indiana University researchers spent $1 million of taxpayer money on activities to silence non-leftie voices on Twitter. Here’s another link.

Lefty wet dream: Using the power of government to crush dissent

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 7:27 pm - November 5, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Liberal Intolerance,Liberalism Run Amok

Recent years have seen a disquieting affair in American politics. It seems that a certain local official – a conservative, partisan Republican – decided that he hated a leading Democrat in his State. The Democrat’s policies threatened the official’s wife’s job. The official and his wife joined in public protests against the policies, but not merely that. The official went on to use his office to harass a bunch of liberals with over-investigation.

This Republican official only ever found some minor offenses where the leading Democrat was not at all implicated – but it didn’t stop him from continually widening his secret investigation of the hated Democrat, his staff, and many of the State’s liberal advocacy groups.

The investigation included police raids on liberal staffers’ homes which frightened their families, seized their equipment and forced large legal bills upon them, with the victims kept under gag orders (where they couldn’t protest the raids). Plus the convenient (and probably illegal) leaking of their documents. It worked: One side of the political advocacy in that State was hindered, if not paralyzed.

Does that sound more like Nazi Germany than America? Yes, it does. By the way, the persecuted “Democrat” was Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin. The persecuted “liberal” advocacy groups were conservative supporters of his policies. And the “Republican” doing all that persecuting was John Chisholm (D), Milwaukee’s pro-union District Attorney.

George Will and William A. Jacobson have written about this matter. The legal fallout is still happening (and will doubtless go to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court). Thus far, the fallout includes both federal and State judges who have been outraged by the sheer one-sidedness and/or groundlessness of many of Chisholm’s actions.

Since Walker just won re-election by seven points, we know that Chisholm’s tactics didn’t work – this time. But, regardless of who won, Chisholm has undermined the legitimacy of American government. Walker’s opponent, Mary Burke, has done all she could to keep Walker under a cloud for the mere fact of Chisholm investigating him. And if Burke had won, she would now be under a cloud for having won illegitimately, by exploiting governmental suppression of her opponents’ voices.

I’m sure that some honest lefties remain in this world, who are outraged by Chisholm’s actions. But many other lefties will find it A-OK. Using the power of the State to crush dissent against leftism: it’s what some of them dream of. After all, it’s what Lois Lerner apparently tried to do (when she had the IRS target conservatives), and it’s what many lefties abroad have practiced for generations.

UPDATE: Outrageous ‘John Doe’ prosecution of Scott Walker supporters in Wisconsin ends. Along the way, WI’s Government Accountability Board admitted that the investigations were legally “indefensible”. And yet…they happened. Heads ought to roll. Will they? At least some of the victims are pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit against Chisholm.

So, are lefties jerks? Or just narrow-minded?

HotAir pointed out yesterday that “Consistent liberals” are most likely to block others on social media for disagreeing with them politically.

Hence, my question. I’m honestly divided. In this complicated world, we’ve all known some lefties who are plain jerks, while some other lefties may be fairly nice people – apart from their never wanting to hear or know of any information that could make them question their prejudices.

I ran into the second kind of person just the other night, at my dad’s. “Cynthia” is a highly-educated neighbor in his retirement community, very nice in terms of watching out for my dad’s disabled girlfriend, and with a pleasant demeanor. So far, “not a jerk.”

But narrow-minded. As one example, she’ll dismiss (as in, will not hear) any information of Sarah Palin being anything other than a total dummy. Which is funny because the prominent Obama supporter and former “green jobs czar”, Van Jones, has now admitted in essence that the Left lied to people about Palin in the 2008 campaign:

“Sarah Palin .. people forget. She had the Democratic party shaking in our boots in 2008. She came out, she gave that speech at the convention. That was, hands down, one of the best convention speeches – not by a woman, by anybody in 2008. People were running for the hills…

Now it can be told! Now it can be told! We were scared!”

It must help the Democrats that their most officially ‘educated’ supporters are among their most dogmatically-gullible supporters. The Democrats can lie to such people and they won’t even care. For another example, we have President Obama’s recent admission that the Democrat candidates who are staying distant from him this year are engaged in a lie:

Well look, here’s the bottom line. We’ve got a tough map. A lot of the states are contested this time are states that I didn’t win. And so some of the candidates there – it is difficult for them to have me in the state…

The bottom line is though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress…These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me, and you know, I tell them, I said, ‘you know what? You do what you need to do to win.’

Dogmatically-gullible people: They enable the Democrats to get away with it. Some of them are jerks, some of them are nice – but narrow-minded.

Are You Listening, Harry Reid?

Posted by V the K at 7:18 am - October 9, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

This past weekend, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints held its General Conference: An event in which church members receive direct guidance from the leadership of the church. Among the exhortations of the church leadership was this instruction:

The commandment to love one another surely includes love and respect across religious lines and also across racial, cultural, and economic lines. We challenge all youth to avoid bullying, insults, or language and practices that deliberately inflict pain on others. All of these violate the Savior’s command to love one another.

The Savior taught that contention is a tool of the devil.That surely teaches against some of the current language and practices of politics. Living with policy differences is essential to politics, but policy differences need not involve personal attacks that poison the process of government and punish participants. All of us should banish hateful communications and practice civility for differences of opinion.

Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid presents himself as a member of the LDS Church. Will he follow the instructions of his church leadership? Or will he continue to engage in demagogic attacks and obstructionist tactics?

Never Missing an Opportunity to be Jerks

The founder of Chik-Fil-A (a.k.a. “H8 Chicken”) passed away this weekend, and news of his passing was received by the miserable left with their usual level of class and maturity.

More here, if you feel the need to have your accurate stereotypes about leftists reinforced.

Pro-Abortion Feminists Have a New Superstar

And she’s as smart as she is pretty. Seriously, one word from Rush Limbaugh, and I think we’re looking at the new Sandy Fluke. (Severe Language Warning: Because you know how leftists are when they try to reason with an opponent.)

I mean, seriously, all Rush has to say is “This is the last woman on Earth who needs to worry about birth control” and Bam! Keynote speaker at the Democrat Convention.  And maybe even a candidate for Governor of Texas Ohio.

(more…)

SCOTUS Rules for Hobby Lobby; Lefties Go Nanners

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that some companies cannot be forced to provide birth control and abortifacients to their employees on First Amendment grounds.

The left claims that by not forcing third parties to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to women, these companies are “denying women access to health care.” The left apparently believes that 1.) women are just life-support systems for uteri, and the only health care needs they have are for contraceptives, so that they may provide sexual gratification to men without risk of creating children and 2.) women are stupid, helpless creatures, who must have their contraception provided to them because they are incapable of getting it on their own.

It’s like saying companies are denying women access to food by not buying their groceries for them.

Birth control, by the way, runs about $9 a month for most women.

The left was really, really hoping that Church would once again be forced to bow at the feet of State, but it didn’t happen. So, they responded in the usual manner and spewed the f-word like a sailor with Tourrette’s while threatening Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court, churches, and America generally with vandalism, arson, and murder.

And then, of course, some of us question why, in a free society, the Government has any business whatsoever dictating to private companies what benefits they must provide to their employees.

(more…)

Gay Marriage Activists Pick on a Little Kid

Posted by V the K at 12:39 am - June 29, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Culture

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown posted a photo with one of his young sons after a FoxNews appearance, and the pro-gay marriage left let loose with the hate. And, interestingly, the gay left taunts the poor kid by… asserting that he looks effeminate and might be a homosexual. Bullies and hypocrites, the lot of them.

(more…)

Ridiculous Lefties, in daily life

When a viewpoint (leftism) goes against reason, logic and civil society – when its basic doctrine is in essence an attack on the rights of the individual – we should expect at least some of its adherents to be rude, “entitled” people in the encounters of daily life. Because the person and the viewpoint gravitate toward each other. Leftism fundamentally denies other people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, committed leftists should tend – not always, but on average and over time – tend to be unreasonable people who disrespect others.

It’s much better to laugh at these people than to feel upset by them. Consider this an open thread for posting your own favorite “ridiculous leftie encounter” stories, in the comments.

I’ll start with a very little one, that just happened. Picture a large gym, a bank of 12 large TVs shared by many exercise stations. A woman is exercising in front of TV #4. She watches #4 intently, with perhaps an occasional glance to TVs 3 or 5. TV #2 is far out of her field of vision, and clearly nothing that she’s watching. So she won’t mind if I change it, as I’m about to work in front of #2. I pick a sports channel. Oops! TV #2 had been set to MSNBC, and she’s a Ridiculous Leftie who must dictate everything that happens. She stops exercising and strides to the far wall just to change #2 back to MSNBC, glaring at me with vicious hostility. And then – get this – she *still* doesn’t watch it. (Probably since she would have had to strain her neck, to keep it up for long; or do even liberals dislike MSNBC?)

The story ended OK for me (I did speak with her and have reason prevail) but that’s enough. Tell yours! :-)

Clay Aiken’s Violent Hostility Toward Women

Posted by V the K at 9:51 pm - May 22, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

Clay Aiken, the Democrat candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 2nd District, who is gay but used to try and hide it (but never fooled anyone) seems to have some, um, hostility toward the women-folk. And some tendencies toward acting out violently.

Mr. Aiken expressed a desire to punch Ann Coulter in the face, and later thought it would be okay to refer to Ann Coulter using the same vulgar anatomical reference Bill Maher uses to refer to Sarah Palin. He also became so enraged during a State of the Union address, he expressed a desire to punch members of Congress in the throat.

There was a time when these kind of threats of violence against women would have been frowned upon by polite society, but in the Democrat Party of Alan Grayson and Ed Schultz, vulgarity and threats of violence aren’t just accepted, they’re expected.

If a Republican were to express a desire to punch Chris Hayes in the face, that would be a different matter altogether.

 

 

Gay Marriage Advocates to Gay Mafia: “Calm the —- Down”

Rather belatedly, a group of prominent Gay Marriage supporters has signed an open letter politely asking the Gay Mob to stop persecuting people like Brendan Eich and be more tolerant of people who disagree with them.

The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.

As a viewpoint, opposition to gay marriage is not a punishable offense. It can be expressed hatefully, but it can also be expressed respectfully. We strongly believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong, but the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job. Inflicting such consequences on others is sadly ironic in light of our movement’s hard-won victory over a social order in which LGBT people were fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding unorthodox opinions.

Don’t expect cooler heads to prevail; the real force behind gay marriage activism has never been the desire for equality, but the desire for vengeance.

 

Greg Gutfeld Makes the Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:36 pm - April 7, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Conservative Ideas,Gay Marriage

Yes, friends, it has been a while since last I blogged. Now, to be sure, I have scribbled out several ideas for posts, mostly related to civil discourse and gay marriage, an issue much in the news these past few with what one blogress (citing Taranto) called “the defenestration of Brendan Eich.

On the whole, our national debate on gay marriage has been mightily lame, with all too many advocates calling opponents “haters” or “bigots” and with some opponents contending that gay married couples aren’t capable of assuming the responsibilities of the ancient and honorable institution.

Well, in his new book, Not Cool, Greg Gutfeld actually contributes to the debate on gay marriage:

What marriage does for straight men–narrowing choice and creating a structure that encourages and preserves a healthy, prosperous life–should be available to men who prefer other men.  And if two ladies want to get hitched, go for it.  Maybe because I’m more worried about straight marriage than gay marriage.  As divorce rates rise, and illegitimacy rates skyrocket, it’s pretty clear the disintegration of marriage is not a promising path for all involved.  Why ban something for others that keeps the others from destroying themselves?

When marriage is what Gutfeld describes it to be, then it is a good thing, whether the spouses be of different sexes — or the same sex.

NB:  Several typos fixed since initial publication.

Fort Hood, again

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:18 am - April 3, 2014.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,National Politics,Social Issues

There will be plenty of time to understand what happened and make appropriate points. For now, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.