Gay Patriot Header Image

No Winners in This Story

Posted by V the K at 4:59 pm - January 22, 2017.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Unhinged Liberals

Old leftist “hag” gets kicked off a plane for harassing Trump supporters.

It sucks that you lost your father-in-law, lady. But that doesn’t give you the right to harass other people on an airplane. You demand everyone around you… including the flight crew… cater to your feelings, while completely disrespecting everyone else’s.

Typical.

And this isn’t like those “A guy in a Trump hat called me the n-word. There aren’t any witnesses, but I swear it happened,” things. There’s video.

The Unity Paradox

Posted by V the K at 7:37 pm - January 19, 2017.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

A new Pew Research survey finds 86% of Americans describe the country as more politically divided today than in the past, while just 12% say the country is no more divided.” I’m sort of curious who the 12% are.

It’s curious that the country has become so divided when almost every politician preaches the gospel of “national unity.”  Barack Obama: “Instead of giving in to cynicism and division, let’s move forward with the confidence and optimism and unity that define us as a people.” George W. Bush: “We are showing the world the strength of our country, and by our unity and tolerance and compassion.” Donald Trump: “To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.” Everybody claims to want unity, instead our divisions harden and deepen.

Since the 1960′s, the autocratic left has sought to politically unify the country by systematically taking over not just political institutions, but also cultural institutions: the entertainment media, journalism, higher and lower education, religion, even sports… (have you watched ESPN lately? It’s turned into a kind of sports-themed MSNBC.) The idea has been to indoctrinate all Americans with common, leftist political philosophy with the aim of creating progressive leftism as the common currency, not just of politics, but of everything.

Why hasn’t the constant whine of leftist progressive indoctrinated united the country as its designers dreamed?

I would suggest that a constant drumbeat of political correctness fails for several reasons. First, there will always be people who disagree; in our case, conservatives and libertarians. The very intolerance of alternative ideas paradoxically enhances the appeal of those ideas. Also, the unquestioned assumptions monocrop political correctness leads to laziness and sloppiness among its adherents which makes it easy for smart dissidents to seize on the weaknesses of leftist arguments. (It is also helpful, in this regard, that socialism invariably fails in practice.) Finally, the adherents of left-wing political thought themselves become smug and intolerable. i.e. The annual exhortations to leftists to get in the faces of ‘your conservative uncle’ at Thanksgiving and Christmas. When people have internalized the dogma that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is not just wrong, but evil and stupid, they get kind of obnoxious. And the people on the other side are even less likely to listen to them.

Therein lies the paradox, the more you try to force political unity, the more you deepen and harden divisions in the body politics. We would actually be unified in a society that took pains to segregate politics from the culture. There would be less disagreement if it was normative just to keep one’s political opinions to oneself. The absence of a Dominant Political Culture would make it easier for people to talk to each other and listen to each other.

Are You Ready for Four Years of Unhinged Trump Derangement?

From the left

As the gay Jewish American hero Dan Goldstein pointed out, (Ivana Trump’s) father is trying to ruin our country and she is an accessory to that and she should hear that whenever she leaves the house. We should shout it at her. In fact, it’s unpatriotic not to, because that’s what Americans do: we fucking yell.

But what about her children, the pundits and concerned conservatives wondered. Her poor, rich children! No one was hurt, no one was traumatized, Goldstein, according to witnesses, didn’t even raise his voice. He looked “agitated.” I’ve had more intense and unsettling encounters with my three children online at Target. If she wants to go outside in America, she should be prepared for the occasional unpleasantness, and she can explain to her children why on her own time.

Nor does their temporary discomfort begin to compare, nor can it even be measured against, the pain and sorrow and misery and death that is to come when the Trump Administration dismantles the already flimsy Affordable Care Act, defunds Planned Parenthood, cuts social programs, separates more immigrant children from their families, puts more mothers and fathers in jail, sends their children to jail, and executes his cultural and physical war on our nation’s many millions of nonwhite Others.

And from the right

“My own view is that Donald and Ivanka and Uday and Qusay are genuinely bad human beings and that the American public has made a grave error in entrusting its highest office to this cast of American Psycho extras. That a major political party was captured by these cretins suggests that its members are not worthy of the blessings of this republic…”

“Climate of Hate” update again

I hope future readers (if any) realize that the title is ironic. Left-liberals claim that we’re living in a climate of hate. If we are: It’s the hatred that is spewed by America’s Left.

First: Yesterday, President Obama clarified that he will NOT call off the anti-Trump protestors.

“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.

“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”

…Obama [said] that the right of free speech should be exercised…

Let’s be clear: This is beyond baloney. Obama never faced protests where conservatives smashed windows, set fires, and physically attacked his supporters in the streets. Destroying property and people isn’t “free speech”.

As lefties told everyone last spring, when the Left’s paid agitators were trying to foment violence at Trump rallies: The leader’s duty to denounce the violence and insist on peaceful speech/protest from his supporters. That is Obama’s duty, now. Once more, the clown Obama disgraces America and himself.

And by the way: Obama didn’t face protestors in any number, until long after he was sworn in and did some (bad) things. While we’re at it, Merkel’s Germany does not let German citizens have free speech. The article describes Germans who were threatened with jail for criticizing Germany’s refugee influx on social media. Pathetic!

Some other items:

The Steve Bannon kerfuffle

I don’t know a great deal about it. This is a post where I’m not presenting information, so much as asking for it.

But, to set up the question: Via Instapundit we have this from The Hill: Breitbart News planning lawsuit against ‘major media company’.

Breitbart News is preparing a lawsuit against a “major media company” over claims that it is a white nationalist website…

The website has been under intense scrutiny since President-elect Donald Trump named Stephen Bannon as a senior White House counselor and strategist. Bannon is the former executive chairman of Breitbart News…

“…Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will,” [said a statement.] “The diversity of the company’s news coverage and its staff continue to embody Andrew Breitbart’s colorblind, distinctly American commitment to ‘E pluribus unum’—out of many, one.”

Critics have taken aim at the site’s coverage in recent days. While Bannon was executive chairman of Breitbart, the website published a story by David Horowitz referring to conservative commentator Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew,” something that has been mentioned repeatedly in media coverage calling Breitbart a white nationalist website.

So, here’s what I “think I know”, at present.

  • Breitbart.com was one of the first to go all-in for Trump. They are pro-deportation of illegals, but in no way white-supremacist.
  • Just as the media’s knickers are in a twist over Trump and over the Alt-Right, they’re in a twist over Trump keeping Bannon as a senior, Karl Rove-type advisor.
  • But it’s ridiculous. If all that the media has is one Jew (David Horowitz) slagging another Jew (Bill Kristol) over something to do with Jewishness, on Breitbart.com while Bannon presided, let’s face it: They’ve got nothing.

Correct? Agree/disagree? What I would be most interested in here, is actual evidence – not mere assertion or opinion – that Steve Bannon and/or Breitbart are “white nationalists” or white supremacists. If any exists. (I have a gut-feeling against it.)

UPDATE – I didn’t see this coming: Trump Wants To Deport [Only] As Many Undocumented Immigrants As Obama Already Has.

UPDATE: Spengler (David P. Goldman) describes Bannon as “100% pro-Israel” – which would be unusual for a white supremacist. And the worst against Bannon that Jonah Goldberg can muster, is that Bannon is part of the alt-Right. Yawn, so is Milo. Sorry, Jonah. I do love you, most of the time.

I am open to a point suggested in the comments, that under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart.com has declined journalistically. But that’s a different matter. Being a poor journalist (arguably) doesn’t make you a racist.

How Much of a Jerk Is Dan Savage?

Posted by V the K at 7:53 pm - February 14, 2016.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

This much.

Stay classy, progressive leftists.

I’ll say it again, Dan Savage is a human canker sore.

Grow the Hell Up

Gay conservative gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos gave a talk at Rutgers University where he was interrupted by Social Just Us Wankers behaving like spoiled idiotic children.

Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos’ tour of U.S. university campuses has started off with a bang. His first event, at Rutgers University in New Jersey, was disrupted by feminists and Black Lives Matter protesters, who chanted slogans and smeared fake blood on their faces before storming out of the auditorium.

After their two minutes of fame, the progressives stormed out of the auditorium, leaving a trail of red paint for the janitors to clean up.

This is why I have no respect whatsoever … and actually thorough contempt… for the Progressive Left, for everything the Progressive Left stands for, and for anyone aligned with the Progressive Left.

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.)

Let’s Play, “Who’s Classier?”

Posted by V the K at 7:48 pm - August 18, 2015.
Filed under: Civil Discourse

Today’s contestants on ‘Who’s Classier:’

Republican Consultant Rick Wilson, for asking Ann Coulter, “Does Trump pay you more for anal?”

and

Democrat Lesbian Rosie O’Donnell, for her comment, “I’d like to take my period blood I no longer have and write, ‘you’re all assh—s.’ I’d like to smear it all over some people’s faces.

Which one do you think best epitomizes the classiness of their political class, gentle readers?

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?