Lefty bloggers outed a campus ex-Marine conservative, Matt Sanchez, by publicizing that he had appeared in a gay porn film years earlier, and Sanchez responds.
Given the left's constant talk about equality, discrimination, minority rights and systemic oppression, I thought the fact that I was a Hispanic, a Marine, a nontraditional, 36-year-old Ivy League student and a 100 percent flag-waving red-blooded Reagan Republican would make my point of view interesting, but so be it. Everything is political now, and even the double standards have talking points....
Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They'd be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points....
I am embarrassed to admit that was I worried that my fellow conservatives would distance themselves from me when the news about my film career broke. The opposite has happened. I've been asked to give my point of view, invited to speak at various functions, and invited back on television. My peers on the right have gone out of their way to give me a vote of confidence and avoid a rush to judgment. I appreciate the support. I am also not really that troubled by the abuse I've taken from the other side.
And there's an interesting take over at Protein Wisdom on the left's hatred of gays who won't toe the party line:
In Matt Sanchez, we have a conservative who, from the perspective of his earlier libertine attitudes toward sex and sexual orientation, wandered off the "progressive" plantation, and so, to people like [leftwing blogger Tom Bacchus], must be exposed, mocked, and MADE TO PAY for his ideological transgressions, the undisguised subtext being that the political positions of gay men must necessarily be tied to that of the collective, which not only presumes to speak for them, but which, it is clear, is willing to police its ranks by engaging, in the most vicious ways, in behaviors it claims ostensibly to find anathema-namely, reducing a person to his sexual orientation (the game of "outing") in order to undermine his positions (which has the net effect of arguing that your only value as a homosexual is tied inexorably to what you are willing to do for the orthodoxy's conception of "the cause"; your individualism, that is, is ironically only granted you should you willingly surrender it to the Greater Good).
I do think there's an important distinction between closeted homosexuals who work against gay equality, and gays who are libertarian/conservative and trying to work toward greater freedom from within that camp. But to a great many on the self-righteous, smug, and (yes) hate-driven left, any gay non-"progressive" is an open target that must be silenced or destroyed.
I don't know enough about Sanchez (who reportedly does not identify as gay) to peg him, but I do know that I'm appalled by the tactics of those who would bring him down.
More. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force weighs in with a defense of Sanchez-and porn. But the response, probably written shortly after the brouhaha began, assumes that Sanchez's fellow conservatives would break with him (they haven't, just as they didn't abandon openly gay conservative Jeff Gannon when bloggers publicized his past work as an escort/hustler). NGLTF also doesn't take into account that Sanchez is himself now a critic of the porn industry (which may, in fact, be what does make him acceptable to his fellow conservatives).
153 Comments for “The Left’s Politics of (Attempted) Personal Destruction, Again.”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Someone who advertized himself for sale on www. excellent-top.com has no business decrying his loss of freedom or anonymity. It is not “hate” that drives people to have disdain for Mr. Sanchez, its sadness and disbelief.
posted by ETJB on
Trust me. I have known plenty of gay Republicans & conservatives who become total assholes when you tell them that you dont toe their party line.
This was at an American college right? Well, then I doubt it had too much to do with Democrats vs. Republican and everything to do with a romance that ended badly.
Also it would seem that the outing has largely helped his career and standing in the conservative community.
posted by Carl on
How exactly is this “personal destruction”, Stephen? By pointing out that Matt was once a porn star, and possibly a male escort? Are you saying that we should be quiet when a man who made big money by catering to gay sex decides to side with the likes of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly?
How incredibly silly is it that this man would become conservative because of porn? Did he somehow think that gay porn studios were sunshine and kittens before he started whoring out for them? I don’t buy it for a second. He is just moving from one con game to another, if you ask me. I’m amazed that some of you see this man as a martyr.
And Stephen, how do you feel about his belief that gays are “deviant”? Do you agree with that?
“So, they start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship.”
posted by Carl on
My other question is:
Stephen, or anyone else who sees Matt Sanchez as a martyr – do you honestly believe that if Matt were openly gay, if he said after this scandal broke that yes, he’s gay, that those who are rallying to his side would still be there? Doesn’t it concern you that he is calling gays deviant and acting offended that people would assume his being in gay porn would mean he’s gay?
posted by Roy on
I agree with Stephen on this one, (although I’m going to refrain from painting all liberals as hateful and horrible, which seems to be Stephen’s main campaign on this blog). In order to retain legitimacy, we must choose our targets wisely. Snipe and destroy only those who directly harm gay rights. Working towards acceptance of the military on college campuses may be incidental to gay rights, but does not go to the heart of gay rights. I equate this exercise with crying wolf. Cry wolf too many times and people stop taking you seriously.
posted by TomChicago on
Some pretty pathetic attempts at pseudo-distinctions being made here. Had he been a lefty and in the closet, no one would have given much of a damn about the revelation. But the real meat of the matter is that he is sucking up to haters like Coulter, who damage gay people every day.
posted by Roy on
Thorny issue. I agree. But the outcome of this exercise has, in fact, backfired on the community, with certain right wing bloggers, who were in the process of distancing themselves from Coulter (on the heels of her F-word brouhaha), now turning around and painting gay bloggers as hateful and rallying around “poor little Matt.”
Lesson learned: Choose the right person at the right time. Although I believe (some) of the people who revealed his alter ego may have had hopes of further de-legitimizing the likes of the Coulter crowd, in fact, it had the effect of creating a distraction (and may have inadvertently created damage control) to the fallout of the Coulter affair. This was the wrong person at the wrong time.
posted by Carl on
Roy, I don’t buy that this “backfired”, because that would mean people who once supported gays no longer do. Those bloggers have never had any use for gays. And how in the world does a few gay bloggers pointing out this guy’s porn star past somehow mean that Coulter is helped?
-In order to retain legitimacy, we must choose our targets wisely.-
He wasn’t exactly a target. He made gay porn films. The more that people saw his face on TV under his new persona, the more likely they would recognize who he was. It’s not like people dug up personal dirt on him.
They can do their best to make a martyr out of this man, and he can do his best to make anti-gay statements, but no matter how much they huff and puff and “rally”, my guess is that this probably has had a long term negative effect on his status as a conservative pundit. They may feign tolerance (since he makes anti-gay statements and claims to be straight), but behind the scenes, they’re probably ticked off that he kept this secret.
posted by Roy on
Well perhaps my conclusion is premature. We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How incredibly silly is it that this man would become conservative because of porn? Did he somehow think that gay porn studios were sunshine and kittens before he started whoring out for them? I don’t buy it for a second. He is just moving from one con game to another, if you ask me. I’m amazed that some of you see this man as a martyr.
Well, some of us remember that unprotected sex, cigarettes, crystal meth, and getting sloppy drunk seemed rather cool for some people at one point, too; however, in the process of practicing them, they discovered they aren’t all what they were cracked up to be, and are now speaking out against these things that they used to feel were so great.
JoeMyGod provides an excellent example; he speaks in favor of safe sex, but he’s HIV-positive — which means he obviously didn’t practice it himself. Doesn’t that make HIM a “hypocrite” and a “con”?
And then, Carl, let’s deflate your little balloon right here with one bit of added emphasis:
Stephen, or anyone else who sees Matt Sanchez as a martyr – do you honestly believe that if Matt were openly gay, if he said after this scandal broke that yes, he’s gay, that those who are rallying to his side would still be there?
Well, Carl, you and your fellow leftists were claiming that the revelation of Sanchez’s porn background in the first place would send them in the opposite direction — and it hasn’t.
So now, since facts don’t back up what you said initially, you try another spin and hypothetical.
That’s because conservatives haven’t reacted in a fashion that makes the hate speech flung at Sanchez by you and your fellow gay leftists look good. They’ve been the ones who have accepted him, while you and your fellow harpies have done everything in your power to hurt, insult, and discredit him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Roy, I don’t buy that this “backfired”, because that would mean people who once supported gays no longer do. Those bloggers have never had any use for gays. And how in the world does a few gay bloggers pointing out this guy’s porn star past somehow mean that Coulter is helped?
Easy.
Coulter, who you wouldn’t expect to do so, is accepting the former gay porn star and affirming support for him.
Gays, who you might expect to accept him based on their so-called “tolerance”, are flinging hate and calling him names.
What happened in this case was that the public finally got to see what gay conservatives like myself in the blogosphere have known for years — gays are vicious, evil, and hateful to gays who don’t toe the accepted gay dogma, even to the point of trying to destroy them personally and demand they commit suicide.
And to point at you specifically, Carl, people are watching Sanchez be accepted, while you are flatly denying that it could, would, or ever did happen. You’ve just revealed yourself as even more blindly partisan than Coulter — at least SHE can be supportive of someone like Sanchez with whose past she likely disagrees.
posted by Avee on
do you honestly believe that if Matt were openly gay, if he said after this scandal broke that yes, he’s gay, that those who are rallying to his side would still be there?
Yes, because they didn’t abandon Jeff Gannon, who is openly gay, after the gay left tried to destroy him with revelations about his hustling. So try again, Carl.
posted by Roy on
NDT –
That is exactly what I am concerned about.
posted by Bobby on
There’s also straight men who do gay porn. Gay porn pays more, some even bring their girlfriends to the set for inspiration.
And goddamm it, just because you do porn doesn’t mean you have to be a liberal. If you like guns, if you like lower taxes, if you hate big government, if you support fighting terrorism instead of waiting for those bastards to strike here, if you like political incorrectness, and all those principles, you’re gonna be a conservative no matter what you do!
POLITICS IS SEPARATE FOR THE PERSONAL LIFESTYLES ANYONE MAY HAVE!
posted by Carl on
–
Well, some of us remember that unprotected sex, cigarettes, crystal meth, and getting sloppy drunk seemed rather cool for some people at one point, too;-
Yes, but those people presumably didn’t take crystal meth and get sloppy drunk and have unprotected sex for money, over and over again. These are also things that in many cases people get involved with through peer pressure and society. You have to make a real effort to seek out a career in gay porn, or escorting.
–
Well, Carl, you and your fellow leftists were claiming that the revelation of Sanchez’s porn background in the first place would send them in the opposite direction — and it hasn’t.-
That’s because he has called gays “deviants” and said he’s straight. If he said, “Yes, I’m gay,” then I have my doubts he would have been supported. That’s the problem with this great fantasy of tolerance that you keep pushing. Of course Coulter or Malkin or whoever else would accept him. He says he’s straight, and he says that you and I are deviants. Why wouldn’t they accept him? He’s saying everything that they would want to hear.
–
Gays, who you might expect to accept him based on their so-called “tolerance”, –
NDT, why exactly should gays accept someone who calls them deviant? He has made comments that suggest he is disgusted by gays period, not just those few who outed him. If a big Democrat were revealed as a former Republican, and he said he felt Republicans were deviants and self-hating, would you support and accept him?
Funny that, aside from the one or two brief statements of support days ago, I haven’t seen anything else about Sanchez on Malkin’s site. Some of the big conservative sites, like Redstate, haven’t said a word about this guy. My guess is that they aren’t anywhere near as supportive of him as you’d think.
-Yes, because they didn’t abandon Jeff Gannon,-
Really? Wasn’t Chris Crain, who is gay, the only person who would hire him? Gannon also has never said he’s openly gay, has he? He seemed to try to blur the lines. I think he said he was bisexual, or that he was gay and found religion. I can’t remember.
–
And goddamm it, just because you do porn doesn’t mean you have to be a liberal.-
Of course not. But if you do gay porn, and maybe gay escorting, if you get all kinds of money from gay men, then spare us the lectures about how deviant and awful gays are.
–
POLITICS IS SEPARATE FOR THE PERSONAL LIFESTYLES ANYONE MAY HAVE!-
Sanchez’s political party believe that personal life matter. And doing gay porn is not a “personal lifestyle”. That’s public. He sold his body for money and for everyone to see.
Isn’t it ironic that some conservatives want to see sodomy laws reinstated (which would not even allow gays to have sex in their own homes), some want to see gays barred from adopting children, some want homosexuality to be reclassified as a mental illness, yet a gay porn past is perfectly acceptable…as long as you’re a Republican, and as long as you’re straight.
posted by Bobby on
“Of course not. But if you do gay porn, and maybe gay escorting, if you get all kinds of money from gay men, then spare us the lectures about how deviant and awful gays are.”
—#1 lesson from conservative morality: Just because you do something wrong, doesn’t mean is right. In other words, if Jim did coke in the past, doesn’t mean he can’t condemn it later on. And by the way, where did he say that gays are deviant? I’ve never heard that.
“Sanchez’s political party believe that personal life matter.”
—If that was the case, Giuliani would not be so popular.
” yet a gay porn past is perfectly acceptable…as long as you’re a Republican, and as long as you’re straight.”
—As long as you don’t say that what you did in the past was ok.
His article on salon.com illustrates how brilliant he is:
“Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking; that’s just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn’t like porn’s liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.”
posted by Brian Miller on
As a Libertarian (neither conservative nor liberal), I find it difficult for Sanchez to claim the left are oppressing him for his gayness if he doesn’t himself identify as gay.
Isn’t he still claiming he’s heterosexual?
It’s a bit early to be complaining about being villified for being gay if he disputes being gay, is it not?
posted by Timothy on
What happened in this case was that the public finally got to see what gay conservatives like myself in the blogosphere have known for years — gays are vicious, evil, and hateful to gays who don’t toe the accepted gay dogma, even to the point of trying to destroy them personally and demand they commit suicide
Disclaimer: I’m a lifelong Republican and while I don’t consider myself to be “a conservative” as it is now defined, my ideologies are consistent with the small government/ individual freedom branch of Republicanism that used to be called “conservative”.
But, frankly, NorthDallasThirty’s comments are by far the least appropriate comments I’ve heard from anyone, conservative or liberal, regarding Mr. Sanchez.
Vicious. Evil. Hateful.
That is what NDT has labeled me. That is what he has also labeled NGLTF – a rather leftist organization, incidentally – who defended Sanchez’ right to a conservative ideology but objected solely to his association with those who freely throw around the term “faggot”. I may not agree with their conclusions, but they were far from vicious, evil, or hateful.
Interestingly, I’ve yet to see a single word about Sanchez in gay press or prominant gay blogsites that I could categorize as vicious, evil, or hateful. Some are angry. Some are dismissive. Some accuse hypocricy. But these are not vicious, evil, or hateful attacks.
I will remind the readers here that some are making assumptions that are not supported by fact. Here are a few clarifications:
1. Though Sanchez now presents himself as straight, he was not “gay for pay” in the porn industry but has a long history of same-sex romantic or sexual life outside of the studios. At some point in the past he was romantically involved with Andy Towle of towleroad.com
2. Those who champion Sanchez (and his poor persecution at the hands of “leftists”) generally do so for ex-gays or for gays who are willing to accuse “the gay community” of being evil – or so it seems in my observation. They (those who attend CPAC) do not have a history of supporting anyone who is gay and also is supportive of other gay persons. They will gladly accept a gay who calls other gays evil, though, so perhaps NDT and I have different experiences.
2. It is not hypocrisy to say “I once participated in porn but I no longer find that appropriate”. However, it is something quite else to keep silent about one’s history and accept recognition from a group that would disapprove had they known. It is false pretenses.
3. If one finds something to be wrong or unacceptable, then one should not do these things for money. If Mr. Sanchez finds homosexuality to be “deviant” (a term he used in an article he wrote for Salon), then he should not have engaged in porn and prostitution. And, from accounts, his prostitution efforts are so recent that as of yesterday I was able to access his (purported) website.
My objection to Mr. Sanchez is not that he is gay or bisexual and conservative. My objection is that he demeans others and presents himself to be other than (or better than) they are while hiding facts that once known show him to be quite the opposite.
And considering that Sanchez has NOT been attacked by gays to the extent that I would have supposed, I can only conclude that those who are “jumping to his defense” are doing so out of their own dislike of what they imagine “the gay community” to be. And that, my friends, really is vicious, evil, and hateful.
posted by Carl on
-And by the way, where did he say that gays are deviant? I’ve never heard that. –
He said it here:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/03/matt-sanchez-responds-sort-of.html
His other quote you mentioned:
“How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn’t like porn’s liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.”
Did he give back all the money he made from porn? Why hasn’t he spoken out against porn until AFTER he was outed? He’s a hypocrite. He had NO problem with gay porn when it paid his rent.
This man used gay men for $$$$. Now he’s crying victim, acting like an oppressed martyr, even though he also says he’s heterosexual. He wants it every which way, which, given his porn career, is fitting.
posted by Brian Miller on
This debate is exactly why gay people don’t get anything of substance done, politically. We blow our wads supporting anti-gay old party candidates who don’t give a fig about us (except when they want a campaign contribution). . . and when we’re not rationalizing away our common sense, we’re fighting over moronic and meaningless issues.
Instead of equal tax treatment, or uniting multinational same-sex families, or talking about gay parents’ unique challenges due to anti-gay laws (1 in 5 gay male and 1 in 3 lesbian couples was raising kids in 2000’s census). . . we just waste time in endless circular debates about who is more hateful and which naughty words we’re going to condemn this month.
Who cares about Sanchez? What does a porn actor who may or may not be gay have to say that’s of interest?
What has he done to earn my attention or respect?
What has Ann Coulter’s insult to John Edwards got to do with issues of substance?
What do “what the other side says about me” arguments do for advancing gay rights or equalizing treatment under the law?
The answer to most of those questions, of course, is “absolutely nothing.”
Every time we indulge in them, we’re just wasting time, spinning our wheels, and earning the contempt of the old-party politicians who view gayness as something to pimp for campaign cash.
posted by Timothy on
Who cares about Sanchez? What does a porn actor who may or may not be gay have to say that’s of interest?
What has he done to earn my attention or respect?
I don’t know about respect, but as for attention…. oh, never mind. You can find the pictures on your own 🙂
posted by Timothy on
OK, OK,
I’m sure NO ONE wants to see the pics of Sanchez….
http://www.fleshclick.com/2007/03/screen_caps_matt_sanchez_in_id.php
posted by dalea on
Actually he appeared in a number of gay porn films, Bijou has 4 pages of listings for him under just one of his screen names. He had a career as a gay porn star. Which fame helped him run a long time ‘escort’ business. Which appears to be still a going concern.
I do not see the ‘left’ trying to do him in for ideological reasons. Rather I see the left falling on the floor laughing at how ‘family values’ conservatives will slobber over a conservative gay whore for political reasons.
Anyhoo, there are two issues here that strike me as important. First, why do conservatives have to pay for sex while liberals can find willing partners? The democratic sex scandals usually involve consenting adults. The republican sex scandals are about whores, money changing hands, and youths.
Second, truth in advertising. Looks like 11″ is an exaggeration. More like 8 1/2 or 9.
How did the star of such classics as ‘Touched by an Anal’ and ‘Jawbreaker’ get into the marine corps? Especially with a website, per AmericaBlog, that was advertising ‘escort’ services as recently as yesterday. Don’t ask, don’t tell, credit cards accepted.
posted by Bobby on
Liberals pay for sex too, remember Barney Frank and his office whore in the 80s?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Notice how Carl refuses to provide the actual quote:
It’s funny you ask this question. There’s something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are. So, they start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That’s why I’ve had the term self-loathing thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment.
The reason Carl hides it, of course, is because it doesn’t say what he and his “beleagured psyche” wants it to say.
And Bobby, aside from Barney Frank and his live-in whore, whom Frank paid in both cash and abuse of his office, don’t forget Gerry Studds, who was actually HAVING sex with minor-age pages.
Somehow, I think a Congressman using his influence to protect his whore and make money off a prostitution ring being run out of his house, as well as one taking seventeen-year-olds to Italy for sex, seems a lot worse than this — but those individuals are both lionized by the gay left and held up as models of gay behavior.
And the ultimate joke with Sanchez is, of course, that numerous slobbering gay leftists like Andy Towle and John Aravosis were so desperate that they were paying Sanchez to pose in front of a camera and, in Towle’s case, to escort him.
And really, that’s what this is about; a bunch of jealous gays who can’t stand the fact that a goodlooking successful guy can survive without them, and who thus has to be taken down several pegs until he either comes crawling back or has his life completely destroyed. Aravosis, for one, has called the offices of gays who disagree with him and harangued their bosses to try to get them fired.
posted by Roy on
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-begins.html
Great. Just great… The fallout is just getting worse.
posted by Roy on
How did the star of such classics as ‘Touched by an Anal’ and ‘Jawbreaker’ get into the marine corps?
Because blogs didn’t exist back then, so activist bloggers couldn’t inform the public about his alter ego.
Everyone better watch his back. Whatever you did ten years ago is now fair game.
posted by Carl on
–
The reason Carl hides it, of course, is because it doesn’t say what he and his “beleagured psyche” wants it to say.-
I’ve never hidden the quote. When people ask for the link I give the link. The problem is, NDT, he says that homosexuality is deviant behavior. He’s speaking in the context of people who assume he’s gay. He is saying that gays want him to be deviant, like them.
Again – why should we see this man as a martyr, NDT? He did gay porn for money. He made several gay porn films. Now when people find out the truth, he’s a victim? It’s not like people took photos through his bedroom window. He sold his body for the pleasure of gay men. Then he goes on national TV with bigots like Sean Hannity, people who think you and I are sick and twisted. Then when his past comes to light, Sanchez thinks that we’re “deviant” and acts like he’s being persecuted. Spare me. Isn’t being a conservative supposed to be about personal responsibility? What kind of conservative is he if he kept this hidden, knowing that his porn past was not far away?
-seems a lot worse than this — but those individuals are both lionized by the gay left and held up as models of gay behavior.-
So in other words, because some gay liberals did bad things, Sanchez is a great guy. Why is it that Barney Frank and Gerry Studds are used as an excuse every time a Republican is involved in any kind of gay scandal? Considering how well that talking point worked for Republicans in the Mark Foley scandal, I’m not sure of its effectiveness.
–
And really, that’s what this is about; a bunch of jealous gays who can’t stand the fact that a goodlooking successful guy can survive without them,-
Do you really think that Andy Towle or Joe My God are on some vendetta against this man (who is not all that good looking, if you ask me)? How exactly is pointing out that he used to be in gay porn some kind of evil plot against him? If he did not mislead people and surround himself with people who think that homosexuality is sick and perverted, then he would have nothing to worry about. I also have to ask why you condemn them and yet you seem to think that Sanchez, who took their money and their time and now sees homosexuality and pornography as something so terrible, is a martyr?
–
Everyone better watch his back. Whatever you did ten years ago is now fair game.-
If someone is going on TV as a big conservative hero and working with homophobes, then sure, their being a gay porn star is fair game. If someone went into the military without letting the military know that they made gay porn films, then sure, that’s also fair game. Sanchez chose to push himself as a public figure. The only thing that has been done to him is that people have pointed out that he got paid money to have sex with other men oncamera.
I don’t understand why it is that conservatives can say or do whatever they want, yet simultaneously be the biggest victims in the history of the planet.
Matt Sanchez chose to have sex with men on film again and again and again. He profited from this. That is what has been pointed out about him.
If this is “fallout”, then that is due to the life he has put himself in now. He was an adult. He could have found other work to pay his bills, as many people do. He chose to put his face and various other body parts out there for millions of people to see. If he doesn’t like people pointing that out, then he should have worn a bag over his head.
posted by Carl on
I also have to ask:
If a staunchly liberal Democratic activist/pundit and Marine reservist were revealed to have starred in gay porn, would conservatives sympathize with him?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The problem is, NDT, he says that homosexuality is deviant behavior. He’s speaking in the context of people who assume he’s gay. He is saying that gays want him to be deviant, like them.
That’s because most gays ARE deviant, Carl.
Most normal people do not tell people with whom they disagree to commit suicide — but, as we see on this very board, that’s typical behavior for many gays. Quite deviant.
Most normal people do not claim a candidate who supports stripping them of rights is pro-them — but, as we saw with John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans you were calling homophobic, that’s par for the course for most gays.
Your deviance has nothing to do with your homosexuality inherently — but it has a lot to do with your use of your homosexuality as an excuse for things like drug abuse and bareback sex.
Why is it that Barney Frank and Gerry Studds are used as an excuse every time a Republican is involved in any kind of gay scandal?
Because they nicely point out, Carl, that gays like you are not against lying to the public, abusing your office, breaking the law, and either running a prostitution ring out of your home or actually having sex, numerous times, with minor-age pages over which you had control and responsibility — as long as you’re Democrats and claim your homosexuality as an excuse.
Do you really think that Andy Towle or Joe My God are on some vendetta against this man (who is not all that good looking, if you ask me)? How exactly is pointing out that he used to be in gay porn some kind of evil plot against him?
Because the sole reason they did it was to hurt him and to destroy him politically and professionally.
Again, Carl, deviance; most normal people do not feel the overwhelming need to try to destroy someone personally because they disagree with them politically. But for gays, again, par for the course; John Aravosis, as I mentioned, has repeatedly phoned and harangued the bosses of gay people with whom he disagreed in an attempt to get them fired.
And again, you laughably demonstrate Sanchez’s point when you whine about “misleading people”; everyone knows that puppet gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds how you were sick and twisted and how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
Fortunately, as Roy and I pointed out, you’re ultimately destroying yourselves. People like Coulter are gaining brownie points by the fact that they’re being accepting and supportive of Sanchez — while you and your fellow gay leftists are flinging every manner of hate and derogatory statement at him with your avowed goal being to destroy him personally and professionally.
Or in short, the people who decried Coulter as “intolerant” are now demonstrating how intolerant THEY are — and Coulter is demonstrating how tolerant she actually is.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And considering that Sanchez has NOT been attacked by gays to the extent that I would have supposed, I can only conclude that those who are “jumping to his defense” are doing so out of their own dislike of what they imagine “the gay community” to be. And that, my friends, really is vicious, evil, and hateful.
That assumes, Timothy, that other people share your threshold of “attacked”.
For instance, I noticed that you were silent when I was told not once, not twice, but three times, in no uncertain terms, that I should commit suicide — something which I think most normal people would consider an attack.
Therefore, why don’t you demonstrate exactly what you would consider an attack to be, given the current path of believing that telling someone to commit suicide three times doesn’t seem to be one in your mind?
posted by Carl on
-That’s because most gays ARE deviant, Carl.-
Yet, as your evidence, you cite one person who told you to kill yourself. If we use that logic, where one bad person = everyone like them is bad, then doesn’t that mean ALL white people are deviant because of Ted Bundy? Are ALL black people deviant because of OJ Simpson?
–
Your deviance has nothing to do with your homosexuality inherently-
Then why do you assume that most gays are deviant? There are many, many gays and lesbians in the world that you and I will never know. Yet, they’re supposed to be deviant people because someone told you to kill yourself or because some gays voted for John Kerry.
-Because they nicely point out, Carl, that gays like you –
Gays like who? You’re gay too, NDT, and as long as you continue to support the party of Mark Foley, who kept up his activities for years and years with knowledge of many prominent Republicans in Congress, you’re on the same level as many of us.
–
Because the sole reason they did it was to hurt him and to destroy him politically and professionally.-
By pointing out that he was in porn for years or saying that they once went out on a date with him? That this “hurt” him is more a consequence of the line of work he decided to get involved in, more than anything to do with their own actions.
–
And again, you laughably demonstrate Sanchez’s point when you whine about “misleading people”; everyone knows-
Everyone meaning yourself.
-People like Coulter are gaining brownie points-
In your opinion.
These are your opinions. You think most gays are deviant. You think Coulter is tolerant. You think that mentioning 2 gay Democrats makes Matt Sanchez a martyr. You have a right to your opinion, just as you have a right to try to assign some kind of negative and overwrought baggage to anyone you disagree with, but your hyperbole really doesn’t do you any favors, NDT. You are speaking only for yourself, just as I’m speaking for myself.
I get the feeling that you don’t like gay liberals and therefore, you think they are the most terrible people in the world, and that you are more interested in that than anything involving Matt Sanchez.
I’m sorry that someone told you to kill yourself. I think that’s terrible and unfair towards you. But I have to say that all this hyperbole and hand-wringing over the horrors of the gay left still doesn’t make Matt Sanchez anything more than a hypocrite who used gay men for cash and is now exploiting the GOP the same way he used to exploit horny gay men.
posted by Carl on
Here’s an interview with Alan Colmes and Matt where Matt insists he’s straight AND his clients are straight, and also tries to claim that he hasn’t done any porn in 15 years (which is a bit odd, since on Wikipedia he has an interview in 1998 about his gay porn career and in that he said he just retired).
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/alan-colmes-ties-gop-marine-hero.html
posted by arthur on
Why do so-called libertarians attack lefties for their beliefs?
Why do the prominent, public homosexuals supported by right wing of the Republican Party seem to inhabit the Gannon/Foley/Haggard world of illicit sex and drugs?
Because they are pros.
posted by Brian Miller on
I don’t attack lefties for their beliefs — I attack Democrats for their pathetic record on gay rights.
And I get annoyed with “liberals” and “conservatives” whose only missions in life are to prove how victimized they are by the polemics of the “other side” — when in practical terms, both sides’ positions are identical.
posted by dalea on
Looking at this, John Aravoisis at AmericaBlog has some ideas that directly address the situation. Like to Brian. Here they are:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/so-gay-republicans-think-bill-clinton.html
Lots of facts here, something that IGF is sadly lacking in.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If we use that logic, where one bad person = everyone like them is bad, then doesn’t that mean ALL white people are deviant because of Ted Bundy? Are ALL black people deviant because of OJ Simpson?
Well, Carl, since you insist all conservatives and Republicans are bad because Ann Coulter is……
You’re gay too, NDT, and as long as you continue to support the party of Mark Foley, who kept up his activities for years and years with knowledge of many prominent Republicans in Congress, you’re on the same level as many of us.
LOL….unlike you and yours, though, Carl, I said that what Mark Foley did was WRONG and that he SHOULD be removed from Congress for what was at any rate a gross ethics violation.
You and yours won’t demand the same for people who actually do have sex with pages and who deliberately abuse their Congressional position to run a whorehouse out of their apartment and protect their ring of prostitutes.
That this “hurt” him is more a consequence of the line of work he decided to get involved in, more than anything to do with their own actions.
Sure, Carl, and when someone decides to dig up pieces of your past and publicize them in the hope of destroying you publicly and professionally, it’s your own fault for ever doing anything less than perfect in your life.
Why don’t you publish your name, Carl, so that those of us who feel like it can dig through your records, call your local media station, call your boss, and try to get you fired, as you support Towle, JoeMyGod, and John Aravosis doing? After all, it’ll only be your own fault if it works.
And then to dalea….that would be Aravosis, who exemplifies the term “paid Democrat whore”.
Furthermore, notice the difference between those two posts; Aravosis’s “facts” are primarily conjecture, and mine are clear, referenced links to Aravosis’s clear support of homophobic Democrats.
Perhaps that’s why he’s so obsessed with “hypocrisy” in others; it neatly obscures that he himself is a homophobe and a supporter of homophobes.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the ease and frequency with which you lie is convincing proof that you are a psychopath.
Northdallass lied “Most normal people do not tell people with whom they disagree to commit suicide — but, as we see on this very board, that’s typical behavior for many gays. Quite deviant.”
One person on this board told you to kill yourself. That’s a long ways from “typical behavior for many gays”.
Northdallas lied about Carl “Your deviance has nothing to do with your homosexuality inherently — but it has a lot to do with your use of your homosexuality as an excuse for things like drug abuse and bareback sex.”.
I don’t know Carl, but I bet you have no proof that he’s into drugs or bareback sex let alone that he used being gay as an excuse for it. You’re evil attempts to smear all gays for the behavior of some are completely transparent. And you whine about gays “attacking” conservatives.
Northdallass said “John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, and others who proudly proclaimed they had the “same position” as Republicans… gays like yourself coughed up tens of millions of dollars to surround yourself with Democrats who shook your hand one minute and the next, were telling crowds how you were sick and twisted and how legally discriminating against you was “the right thing”.
Where did these Democrats tell crowds gays were “sick and twisted”?! And notice your two-faced lying where here you admit the Republican/Democrat position on marriage is discrimination, but in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31195.html#commentform
at March 9, 2007, 12:02am you said ” you cannot argue that you are being “discriminated against” by not being able to marry your chosen sex partners.”. You claim one position when its convenient to you and then claim the exact opposite when you think that will better help you smear gays – disgusting.
Northdallass again lied about Carl and gays “you and your fellow gay leftists are flinging every manner of hate and derogatory statement at him with your avowed goal being to destroy him personally and professionally.”.
When did Carl avow that, you liar?! GayS are not all responsible for the actions of one person – stop falsely claiming they are.
Northdallass again lied “That’s because most gays ARE deviant, Carl.”. Studies by Evelyn Hooker in the 1950’s have shown that gays do not differ noticiably from straights on common measures of mental health. Studies since then have repeatedly confirmed that.
Northdallass said “in short, the people who decried Coulter as “intolerant” are now demonstrating how intolerant THEY are — and Coulter is demonstrating how tolerant she actually is.”.
LOL Northdallass, the only reason Coulter embraced Sanchez is because he’s taken an ant-gay position and condemned his past participation in gay sex – that’s anything but tolerant. Sanchez isn’t being criticized because he isn’t a Democrat, he’s being criticized because he’s anti-gay(I believe you can seperate the two, although it can be difficult with people like Northdallass, Coulter, etc.). He called gays “messed up”, “deviants” and said the gay psyche is “beleagered” as though that is inherent to being gay.
Northdallass whined (yet again) “I was told not once, not twice, but three times, in no uncertain terms, that I should commit suicide — something which I think most normal people would consider an attack.”.
You claimed to me that you weren’t bothered by that. Given the freqency with wich you whine about it obviously you were. Once again, why should gays be any less bothered by being condemned by most Christian sects than you are by being told to kill yourself?
Northdallass lied by saying “Carl…gays like you are not against lying to the public, abusing your office, breaking the law, and either running a prostitution ring out of your home or actually having sex, numerous times, with minor-age pages over which you had control and responsibility — as long as you’re Democrats and claim your homosexuality as an excuse.”.
Carl, and progressive gays are not responsible for the wrongs of a few gays. Northdallass, by your “logic” conservatives like you stalk teenage boys for sex, break the law, criticize others sexual immorality while carrying out your own illicit sexual misconduct, solicit anonymous sex from police officers, cheat on your wives with gay hookers, cheat, steal, and murder.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Why don’t you publish your name, Carl”.
You outrageous hypocrite. You hide behing anonymity to spew your bile and hatred and lies about gays and then you tell others to publish their names.
posted by dalea on
It is being pointed out at AmericaBlog that Sanchez timed his announcement to coincide with his being shipped to Iraq. With true yellow elephant cunning, he will not be going. Real clever, huh?
posted by Timothy on
I’m concerned about two things that I see on this thread: dishonesty and hatred.
I see a lot of both and it comes from all ideological perspectives. But as an illustration, I’m going to focus on NorthDallasThirty and what he said about me:
NDT has accused me of being “silent” when he was told to kill himself and that this shows that I don’t think such a statement to be an attack.
Of course he uses the words “doesn’t seem” and “I noticed” to give him an out when I made the obvious rebuttal that I didn’t say anything because I was not aware of the situation that occured two months ago on a thread that I did not read.
NDT’s point really wasn’t anything to do with what I call an attack. He simply wished to deflect my criticism and thought the easiest way would be to discredit me. And the honesty of his statement was not a remote consideration.
Another example, also NorthDallasThirty:
Again, an attempt to discredit others. And this time stating an outright lie. If NDT has read the statements made by Andy Towel (and I think it’s safe to assume he has) he knows that Andy met and dated Matt in San Jose, long before he started his porn and escort career. Yet NDT was willing to lie about Andy and claim that Andy paid Matt for sex.
It bothers me that honesty and integrity have no part in the debate. And it makes it very difficult to believe anything that NDT says going forward. Which, since I am a Republican, I feel reflects poorly on me as well.
As for hatred, I hardly think I need to list examples. They are abundant.
I do think that the absolute worst of the gay community is present on these threads. We have people who demonize others because of party affiliation, who assign behaviors and attitudes to others without any basis or support, who characterize all gay people (including me) in ways that are vile, and who seem to have no limit to the amount of abuse they are willing to heap on others.
Frankly, if I had the power I’d magically turn many of you (on both sides of the scream fest) straight. I don’t want this brand of evil and hatred associated with me or with gay people in general.
posted by Audrey B. on
Timothy is the smartest person on this board. To see so many mature men acting like catty middle school girls, it makes me sad. I don’t care a wink about Mr. Sanchez, and how ever he wants to live his life is fine with me. As a libertarian, I believe all Americans should have the right to live as they want. It takes a strong people to handle freedom, not one that goes around complaining about being a victim all the time
posted by DavyChuck on
I should hope you’d be beneath the generalizations in this post. Why don’t you just go hang yourself? it’s the only way the Right will ever applaud you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One person on this board told you to kill yourself. That’s a long ways from “typical behavior for many gays”.
Gee, if gays were so against someone telling others to commit suicide, you’d think someone might have said something.
I don’t know Carl, but I bet you have no proof that he’s into drugs or bareback sex let alone that he used being gay as an excuse for it.
My, Randi, how quickly we forget — and when you’ve already made this mistake once.
When did Carl avow that, you liar?! GayS are not all responsible for the actions of one person – stop falsely claiming they are.
Or so say the people who are shrieking about how Ann Coulter using the word “faggot” proves that all conservatives and Republicans are antigay.
You outrageous hypocrite. You hide behing anonymity to spew your bile and hatred and lies about gays and then you tell others to publish their names.
LOL….yeah, it’s not like other gays have made it clear they’d love to see me dead or anything, right?
I simply pointed out that, since Carl wants to dig through other peoples’ pasts and use it to try to hurt them personally, professionally, and otherwise, he should at least do the favor of sharing HIS name like Sanchez did.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It bothers me that honesty and integrity have no part in the debate. And it makes it very difficult to believe anything that NDT says going forward.
That might upset me, Timothy, if you had ever demonstrated the slightest inclination to believe me in the first place. But when your first post out of the gate is, in essence, “NDT sucks”, you to a great degree wreak havoc on the illusion of your impartiality in judgment in the first place.
As to the rest of your post, it’s nothing I haven’t seen before from you; instead of dealing with the clear example of a gay conservative being attacked by another gay person, you came up with excuses for a) why you shouldn’t have to deal with it and b) why it was the other person’s fault anyway because they’re a bad person.
Notice that nowhere in there did you say that telling another gay person to commit suicide was bad.
Really, though, that’s typical. I’ve seen you and your fellow Ex-Gay Watch queers at rallies; you’re the ones who, when a foul-mouthed lesbian is spouting all sorts of blasphemies about religion on stage and with amplification, you’re the ones sitting in the back telling people, “Well, she shouldn’t be saying that, but really, you people deserve it anyway.”
Excellent example: your willingness to take Andy Towle’s story at face value, despite the fact that Towle is basically saying, “Sanchez is a paid prostitute who turned tricks with everyone for cash — except me, whom he dated for free.” You cover for Towle — the leftist who holds the correct views according to gay dogma — and denigrate me, the one who is saying what amount to heresies.
And I think this ties into your frustration here:
Frankly, if I had the power I’d magically turn many of you (on both sides of the scream fest) straight. I don’t want this brand of evil and hatred associated with me or with gay people in general.
Oh, Timothy, you have a great deal of power. Gay conservatives are not few and far between because being gay automatically makes you liberal; it’s because not many gays who are shown that, if you dare to espouse conservative ideas publicly or even have your picture taken with a conservative commentor who gays don’t like, you can be insulted, hounded, and told to commit suicide — and other gays will dig through your past, trying to come up with things which they will then air in the media, send to your boss, publicize on their own websites, and do their best to try to get you fired and knocked down professionally and personally. Meanwhile, you specifically, Timothy, will sit there and explain why this being done to someone is “not an attack” and is not in any way vicious, evil, or hateful.
Now, if you could only apply that sort of energy towards the other side, you might have some progress. But what liberals know is that, while you might make pious pronouncements about how “both sides of the scream fest” are doing horrible things, you only actually care and will do anything about one side — and it isn’t theirs.
Frankly, Timothy, your whining would make more sense if you were capable of recognizing attacks against gay conservatives or in chastising the people who make them. But that would require criticizing people who support popular gay dogma and supporting people who don’t, and you can no more do that than you can fly unaided.
What you don’t understand is that people like myself, when aforementioned lesbians are spewing antireligious bigotry, go up and grab the mike. Yes, it catches more flak and insults from GAYS — but it works a hell of a lot better than people like you sitting in the back trying to rationalize to people why they deserve to be insulted.
posted by thom on
Timothy ~
Excellent post, as usual. Please email me — I’d like to discuss an issue with you. Thanks.
thom
posted by Carl on
–
My, Randi, how quickly we forget — and when you’ve already made this mistake once.
–
What I said is that when gays feel they are worthless, they’re more likely to turn to bareback sex or drugs. Straight people also turn to risky sex or drugs if they feel worthless. NDT, you really aren’t proving a point just because you throw around random quotes.
–
I simply pointed out that, since Carl wants to dig through other peoples’ pasts and use it to try to hurt them personally, professionally, and otherwise, he should at least do the favor of sharing HIS name like Sanchez did.-
Actually, NDT, Matt Sanchez did porn under another name. He didn’t “share” anything. He went around on TV lecturing others and putting others down. Then he acted offended and morally outraged when people realized that he had sold his body for money for years and years on videotape.
Your party, NDT, is the one who has said there’s no such thing as a right to privacy. So this continued need of yours to make Matt Sanchez a martyr is perplexing to me. It’s not as if people took photos of Matt through his bedroom window. He was a gay porn star for years. He tried to hide that when he went on his new role as the big conservative pundit. People pointed out that he used to be in gay porn.
Using your logic, it was also a betrayal of those 2 bloggers who went to work for John Edwards when conservatives criticized them for some of their blog posts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I said is that when gays feel they are worthless, they’re more likely to turn to bareback sex or drugs. Straight people also turn to risky sex or drugs if they feel worthless.
Carl, what you said is that gays have “no rights”; therefore, they should be excused for having bareback sex and using drugs.
Given that there are gays like myself who never turned to bareback sex or using drugs, that’s a load of bullshit. And that is what Sanchez is pointing out — gays use homosexuality as an excuse to practice all means of deviant behaviors.
Actually, NDT, Matt Sanchez did porn under another name. He didn’t “share” anything. He went around on TV lecturing others and putting others down.
Just like you do here, Carl.
So by that theory, people would be justified in digging through your past and publicizing whatever they can in order to hurt you professionally and personally — as well as calling and harassing your boss to try to get you fired.
Or don’t you agree in consistent application of your own rules?
And the “right to privacy”. What a joke. When you and your fellow gay leftists start obeying it yourself, then you might be able to argue that other people should respect it.
Using your logic, it was also a betrayal of those 2 bloggers who went to work for John Edwards when conservatives criticized them for some of their blog posts.
Unfortunately, those two bloggers, when they went to work for the Edwards campaign, took time to publicize their antireligious hate and support of foul language. They were PROUD of it and touting it — until it backfired completely.
How that relates to Sanchez, I have no idea; his was simply because some vindictive gays set out to destroy his life for his having a picture taken with Ann Coulter — who has been far more supportive of him than so-called “tolerant” gay leftists like yourself.
posted by Brian Miller on
Wait a minute… is NDT trying to argue that the Republicans are staunchly standing up for privacy and the right to produce gay porn?
Oh dear, and here I thought they were the ones who implemented the USA Patriot Act, invaded the private records of ever US citizen, and just got spanked for violating the “protections” put into it.
As Chris Crain encouraged you to do, NDT, get off the cross… the nails and wood are solely needed.
Yeah, I know, I know, we’re all leftists oppressing you, ad nauseum.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Mr. Miller, I have made it clear from the very first day I showed up in the blogosphere that I was absolutely and completely opposed to outing and dragging a person’s sex life into matters, regardless of what political affiliation they were.
I have also made it clear that, while I consider porn personally to be a waste of money and effort, the only controls on it need to be that it doesn’t end up in the hands of minors, that it doesn’t involve minors, that it doesn’t involve killing people in the process of making it, and that it be kept away from people whose addictions to it have wrecked their lives. For the rest, the Constitution says that you have the right to make it, but that you can’t force me to watch it — and that’s quite good enough for me.
Oh dear, and here I thought they were the ones who implemented the USA Patriot Act, invaded the private records of ever US citizen, and just got spanked for violating the “protections” put into it.
And yet, Mr. Miller, you and yours were whining post-Oklahoma City, post-first WTC, and post-9/11 that our government wasn’t doing a good enough job of protecting us.
As any good law enforcement officer will tell you, it is much easier to limit crime when you can use surveillance to identify, track, gather evidence, and catch suspects prior to their committing the crime, versus waiting until AFTER it is finished.
Whether you like it or not, had the FBI been using this authority as broadly prior to 9/11, there likely would not have been a 9/11. The 9/11 Commission specifically identified the fact that the FBI was not doing enough to combat terrorism as one of the causes leading to 9/11.
In short, if you want privacy of your own records, you’d better start effectively smoking out terrorists so that the FBI doesn’t have to go looking for them.
posted by Carl on
–
Carl, what you said is that gays have “no rights”; therefore, they should be excused for having bareback sex and using drugs.
–
No, what I said was that some gays are likelier to engage in self-destructive behaviors because they have no rights.
–
Given that there are gays like myself who never turned to bareback sex or using drugs, that’s a load of bullshit. –
That applies to you. Not everyone. Just as Matt Sanchez was disgusted by porn, but others like Mary Carey continue to work in porn and are happy and carefree. And invited to GOP fundraisers.
–
Just like you do here, Carl.
–
This blog is read by few people. Fox News is watched by millions of people.
–
So by that theory, people would be justified in digging through your past and publicizing whatever they can in order to hurt you professionally and personally — as well as calling and harassing your boss to try to get you fired.-
Again, NDT, no one “dug through” Matt Sanchez’s past. He made porn films. He had his face on porn films. He made these films for people to see. No one went into Matt Sanchez’s personal life. And all of this about “calling and harassing your boss” has nothing to do with Matt Sanchez – that involves other people you’ve brought up, so I’m not sure what that has to do with Matt Sanchez. You’re dilluting your point.
–
And the “right to privacy”. What a joke. –
Then why are you going on about how people have destroyed Matt Sanchez’s life and how dare gay leftists try to ruin him?
-who has been far more supportive of him-
By appearing in a photo with him, or maybe saying something nice about him on her website. How generous.
This seems to barely even be about Matt Sanchez at this point.
posted by Carl on
By the way, NDT, have you read NGLTF’s statement of support for Matt Sanchez? They’re “gay leftists”, are they not? They don’t seem to be the horrible creatures you think the gay left consists of.
posted by Amicus on
Stephen H. Miller:
For what it is worth (about 2-cents), I wish to hell that the Consevative portion of the GLBT Coalition would get their act together enough to explain exactly what their own strategy and tactics are to accomplish something for Gay Rights.
Today, you are lamenting how the vast leftwing conspiracy that torpedeoed by “outing” … who exactly? Someone who was fighting GOP inside baseball for inclusion, openly and honestly?
At the same time, Andrew Sullivan writes disparagingly on his blog of the HRC, who make discreet phone calls to gay couples.
So which is it?
What’s more, the Conservatism on the Columbia Campus centered around an anti-harassment policy (link). That kind of thing used to be a progressive ideal – is Sanchez “Conservative” for being part of such an effort?
Does outing someone involved in Left politics today really matter much, except if there has been malfeasance along the way? Many think that McGreevey *might* have kept his post, if there had not been a job posting for Golan.
On the other hand, outing someone in Right politics is a recipe for … well, look what happened in Illinois to Jack Ryan when Smoking Gun broke news of his non-gay escapades.
Is the Left or its punditry to blame for this obvious assymetry? Or, is the problem within the Conservative Coalition itself?
In the end, I come back to the original question. If you want your Liberal and (Left-Libertarian?) GLBT brothers and sisters to reach out across the isle to affirm “gay solidarity” above all, what is your justification for doing so, in terms of a political strategy inside the GOP that is overtly hostile?
Without such an offering, it rather looks like gay conservatives are putting their belief in “small government, etc.” above their fight for Gay Rights, and, in a strange effrontry, asking their liberal counterparts to “tolerate” that.
posted by grendel on
nice post. Thanks for the breath of sanity. Though I suspect the effort may be lost in this case. I suspect anyone who begins an article with the words “Lefty bloggers …” is not really trying to engage in a rational discourse. The article is just another partisan screed — whose purpose is not to invite a dialogue but to smear opponents and rouse the base.
Steve is just channelling Rove.
Nonetheless, your question has been asked many times before (by you or others, I don’t know). I wish steve or someone would get around to answering it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Gee, if gays were so against someone telling others to commit suicide, you’d think someone might have said something.”.
Sure, Northdallass, change the subject because you won’t admit you lied when you said telling you to kill yourself is typical of many gays on this board. And several people including myself did say something, you’re just to dishonest and whiney to acknowledge it.
Northdallass said “you’ve already made this mistake once.”.
Yes, I see, however the main point is that you accused Carl of doing drugs and having bareback sex – you failed to prove he did so its clear you lied.
Northdallass tried to change the subject when I point out he lied about Carl when he said “you and your fellow gay leftists are flinging every manner of hate and derogatory statement at him with your avowed goal being to destroy him personally and professionally.”.
Again Northdallass, when did Carl avow that?! When did gayS avowe that beyone the one person who attempted it? No one said because Ann Coulter is anti-gay this makes all republicans anti-gay – its a well known fact that many, if not most republicans oppose gays right to equal marriage, anti-discrimination laws that include gays, etc.
Northdallass said “I simply pointed out that, since Carl wants to dig through other peoples’ pasts and use it to try to hurt them personally, professionally, and otherwise, he should at least do the favor of sharing HIS name like Sanchez did.”.
You expressed the desire to see Carl’s past dug through to hurt him personally and professionally, you should at least do the favour of sharing your name like you ask Carl to do, anything less is hugely hypocritical.
Northdallass said “Carl, what you said is that gays have “no rights”; therefore, they should be excused for having bareback sex and using drugs. Given that there are gays like myself who never turned to bareback sex or using drugs, that’s a load of bullshit. And that is what Sanchez is pointing out — gays use homosexuality as an excuse to practice all means of deviant behaviors.”.
LOL Northdallass, and given your logic it also follows that because there are LGBTs like me who don’t use their sexuality as an excuse to practice deviant behaviors your insistence that they do is bullshit.
Northdallass, you’re still whining about being told to kill yourself. If you aren’t bothered by that then stop bitching about it. You claimed to me that you weren’t bothered by that. Given your continued whining obviously you were. Once again, why should gays be any less bothered by being condemned by most Christian sects than you are by being told to kill yourself?
posted by Doug on
Exactly how can you ‘out’ someone by talking about their chosen career, ie gay porn star/gay prostitute?
posted by Carl on
–More. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force weighs in with a defense of Sanchez?and porn. But the response, probably written shortly after the brouhaha began, assumes that Sanchez’s fellow conservatives would break with him (they haven’t, just as they didn’t abandon openly gay conservative Jeff Gannon when bloggers publicized his past work as an escort/hustler). NGLTF also doesn’t take into account that Sanchez is himself now a critic of the porn industry (which may, in fact, be what does make him acceptable to his fellow conservatives).–
NGLTF may not have mentioned that because Matt Sanchez didn’t become a critic of the porn industry until after he was outed. Talk about damage control.
Where is this support for Jeff Gannon? I haven’t seen or heard him anywhere among conservatives since he was outed. The only conservative who ever gave him a job was Chris Crain, who is, last time I checked, gay.
It’s kind of sad, truly sad actually, that the “gay left” issues a statement of support to Sanchez, and for that effort, their statement is picked apart.
posted by CLS on
Sanchez has been very dishonest in this. He has launched an attack on gays and the Left because he wants to write a book and his audience is the Right. But you can’t believe him. He has lied about when he stopped producing porn. Said he isn’t gay but then said that gay “eat their own” implying that he is. Says he is straight but was advertising sexual serices to men up until recently. He’s been totally dishonest about this. You can read more and follow the links at http://www.gayworldreport.blogspot.com which is libertarian oriented.
posted by Audrey B. on
I know this is way off topic, but I have to know. Carl, whats it like living next door to anthropomorphic fast food items?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
First:
What’s more, the Conservatism on the Columbia Campus centered around an anti-harassment policy (link). That kind of thing used to be a progressive ideal – is Sanchez “Conservative” for being part of such an effort?
That was before they figured out that Columbia university professors, like Nicholas De Genova, and students would call for attacks on US military members and a “million Mogadishus”.
If you don’t want them to carry their guns to class, then you and the administration had better use your power to ensure that that’s not a necessity for their safety.
Does outing someone involved in Left politics today really matter much, except if there has been malfeasance along the way? Many think that McGreevey *might* have kept his post, if there had not been a job posting for Golan.
We were thinking more along the lines of Gerry Studds, who actually HAD sex with pages, or Barney Frank, who was openly using his Congressional privileges to facilitate and protect the running of a prostitution ring out of his apartment.
The difference between Left and Right is this; McGreevey, Frank, and Studds were lionized by their party and gays, despite their crimes. Foley and Ryan were quickly drummed out of consideration of anything by their party FOR their crimes.It’s simply that the left has a much higher toleration for fraud, corruption, and child molestation among its kind than does the right.
Without such an offering, it rather looks like gay conservatives are putting their belief in “small government, etc.” above their fight for Gay Rights, and, in a strange effrontry, asking their liberal counterparts to “tolerate” that.
We look at it this way, Amicus; given the behavior of folks like John Kerry, Howard Dean, and the bulk of the “new Democrats”, plus the support of their gay advisors, gay leaders like Joe Solmonese, and gay organizations like HRC — all of whom ordered gays to ignore what the Democrats were expressing (with Kerry even proudly proclaiming he had the “same position” on gay issues as Bush, whose position they called hateful, hostile and homophobic), and pump tens of millions of dollars to homophobic Democrats rather than to campaigns fighting antigay state constitutional amendments — we’re fully aware of the fact that you and yours will throw gay rights right out the window if you think it will curry favor with your Democrat masters.
Contrast that to conservative groups like Log Cabin, which refused to endorse someone with whom they disagreed — versus the liberal groups who said they didn’t care what their candidates’ stances were on gay rights, they just wanted to elect Democrats.
So in short, we know you have no problem with tolerating — indeed, even supporting, giving millions of dollars to, and calling “pro-gay” — candidates whose positions you would call homophobic if they were Republicans.
The value proposition is this; you can either be honest and consistent, or you can continue suborning your will to that of the Democrats and meekly give them your money to fund their homophobic outreach — and in the process, demonstrating more and more to gay conservatives and to the world that “pro-gay” has nothing to do with gays, and everything to do with party affiliation.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Oh, we’re back on the suicide trip I see….ahem,
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
Thank You
PS
Your revisionist history of Frank and Studds is laughable at best. Please stop lying on this board.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “We were thinking more along the lines of Gerry Studds, who actually HAD sex with pages, or Barney Frank, who was openly using his Congressional privileges to facilitate and protect the running of a prostitution ring out of his apartment.”.
Northdallass, despite your buy-bull’s “do not bear false witness” commandment you consider it your god given right to lie, don’t you?
As I understand it Studds didn’t have sex with multiple pages, he had sex with one and Franks didn’t know there was a prostitution ring being run out of his appartment.
Northdallass said “The difference between Left and Right is this; McGreevey, Frank, and Studds were lionized by their party and gays, despite their crimes. Foley and Ryan were quickly drummed out of consideration of anything by their party FOR their crimes.”.
Bullshit, Mcgreevey was roundly criticized as a hypocrite by a lot of gays, none of these people were “lionized”. The Republicans like gingrich tried to blame the democrats for Foley, saying the Democrats were gay-bashing by outing him.
NorthDallass said “The value proposition is this; you can either be honest and consistent, or you can continue suborning your will to that of the Democrats and meekly give them your money to fund their homophobic outreach — and in the process, demonstrating more and more to gay conservatives and to the world that “pro-gay” has nothing to do with gays, and everything to do with party affiliation.”.
LOL Northdallass, the fact is if all Republicans had been elected a federal marriage ammendment banning equal marriage for gays would have been passed. Its only because lots of Democrats were elected that it wasn’t. Even the religionists have admitted they have no hope of passing such an amendment with the democrats controlling your political bodies. Obviously gays are better off with Democrats in general than Republicans in general. You lie to gays because you hate gays and want to have them shoot themselves in the foot by electing Republicans. Your transparent goal is to foster as much rejection of gays as you can which fortunately turns even more gays away from the Republicans.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mcgreevey was roundly criticized as a hypocrite by a lot of gays, none of these people were “lionized”.
LOL…..yup, yup.
Meanwhile, we have CP up there frantically denying that Studds had sex with pages or that Frank ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment and abused his Congressional privileges to protect it, claiming it to be “revisionist history”.
Randi is somewhat more canny, trying to argue that Studds claimed he only had sex with one page and that Frank claimed he didn’t know a prostitution ring was being run out of his apartment, despite the fact that he was using his Congressional privileges to facilitate its smooth operation and block law enforcement from finding it.
I do wish they’d be willing to admit that they don’t care if Congressmen have sex with pages and use their official positions to facilitate prostitution rings; it would be far more honest. But they’d look really hypocritical with their attacks on Foley, as Gingrich pointed out, so they don’t.
LOL Northdallass, the fact is if all Republicans had been elected a federal marriage ammendment banning equal marriage for gays would have been passed.
Of course, that ignores the fact that almost all states have their own laws or amendments banning equal marriage — laws and amendments which Democrats support.
As for shooting yourself in the foot, Randi, gays do that well enough already by taking tens of millions of dollars away from campaigns against state laws and amendments stripping gays of rights — and giving it to the homophobic candidates who support those laws and amendments.
It’s a wonderful system. Democrats manipulate gays like you, Randi, who irrationally hate Republicans, into giving them money because they allegedly oppose a FEDERAL amendment — and then turn right around and endorse STATE amendments which do precisely the same thing as the Federal one. They get the money AND they get their bans.
And to CP, ah yes, the old “it was a joke” non-apology.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Meanwhile, we have CP up there frantically denying that Studds had sex with pages or that Frank ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment…”
That is another lie. I never said either of the things you accuse me of. Please stop lying on this board. And your right about my post from February 2nd being a non-apology, I have nothing to apologize for. Since you feel the need to slander and lie about others and be an all-around asshole, I can do it to…and I will better the education (all apologies, Will).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said either of the things you accuse me of.
Feel free to say, then, that Studds had sex with pages, and that Frank was running a prostitution ring out of his apartment and using his Congressional privileges to facilitate it.
Or try another denial (“revisionist history”, good one) if you like; I’ll wait.
But this one is really the best of all:
And your right about my post from February 2nd being a non-apology, I have nothing to apologize for.
And that’s why I bring this up. You see nothing wrong with your behavior. Yet you are surrounded by people who scream bloody murder over how wrong it is to tell gays they should commit suicide, and how it’s never justifiable, regardless of what the gay person does — as long as the person telling gays to commit suicide is not gay themselves. If they are, there’s “nothing wrong”, as you so eloquently put it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, oh sure there were some people that supported Mcgreevy, but at least as many that condemned him. Of course you wouldn’t want to recognize that because it exposes your lie. And while you’re claiming Frank knew about the prostitution ring and hid it, your word being what it is you’ll need some proof of that before anyone believes you. Without that its pretty clear you’re lying again.
Northdallass said “Democrats manipulate gays like you, Randi, who irrationally hate Republicans”.
LOL Northdallass, Republicans are notoriously anti-gay and unapologetic about it. Fact is gays in the U.S. would be much worse of with a federal constitutional amendment preventing equal marriage and it is primarily the Republicans that support that and the Democrats that oppose it. Few gays are stupid enough to follow your “shoot yourself in the foot” lead and vote Republicans in to pass that amendment. You can run but you can’t hide from the fact that gays would be far worse off if nothing but Republicans had been elected.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you insisted to me that being told to kill yourself doesn’t bother you, so then act consistently with that and never refer to it again or admit you were bothered and there is no reason for gays to be any less bothered by the Christian condemnation of gays.
posted by Pat on
Regarding Studds, my understanding that he did have sex with a page. I don’t remember if he was still a page at the time, but the page was under 18. My understanding that where they had sex, it was legal, because the page was at the age of consent. But Studds did get off easy in my book. He should have resigned for that, and if not, should have been removed from the House of Representatives. At the very least, he should have got the praise that he did.
As for Frank, it is his contention that his lover (or whatever) was the one that ran the prostitution ring. You could argue that it would have been impossible for Frank to not have known. But you could also argue that Libby perjured himself and risked a nice jail sentence for no reason. I found those things equally unbelievable.
McGreevey’s fallout was mixed. Yes, there were clearly people that advocated for him. All I can say is in my own straw poll of my Democrat/liberal friends, almost all either despise him, or have a neutral feeling (who cares, he’s finally gone attitude), and one that I know of, actually liked him and bought his book.
As for Foley, I don’t think there is evidence that he had sex with any of the pages. I read the transcripts of his IMs. He apparently had one instance of online sex with one of the still under 18 pages/ex pages. But other than that, his message were extremely sexually manipulative and creepy, and happened rather often. At least he was eventually, sort of, dealt with properly, after the news became public domain. I have to wonder what would have happened if he didn’t resign.
It seems like it would be obvious that what Studds did was worse, but as far as I know, he only had sex with one page (obviously one page too many), while Foley’s behavior involved several or many. I don’t know the legal definition and degrees of sexual abuse here, so I can’t comment how abusive Foley was with all those pages.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “If they are, there’s “nothing wrong”, as you so eloquently put it.”
Where did you get this quote from? You must know by now that making up quotes to attribute to others is very VERY wrong. Please stop lying on this board.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, oh sure there were some people that supported Mcgreevy, but at least as many that condemned him.
Sorry, Randi, but this was your original claim:
Bullshit, Mcgreevey was roundly criticized as a hypocrite by a lot of gays, none of these people were “lionized”.
So we now go from “none” to “some” on McGreevey, we try hysterics over Frank, and we completely ignore Studds.
The difference? I provided clear evidence of these men being lionized by gays.
Of course, there’s been nothing but silence from the “honesty and integrity” gays like Timothy — but again, I rather expect that.
Few gays are stupid enough to follow your “shoot yourself in the foot” lead and vote Republicans in to pass that amendment.
LOL….and instead, they support homophobic Democrats who support passing these amendments and laws at the STATE level.
Again, Randi, it’s easy; all homophobes need to do to manipulate gay leftists like you into giving them money to support homophobia is to be Democrats. You’re so insane that you actually support giving tens of millions of dollars in support of candidates whose stances you would call homophobic if they were Republicans – and who proudly proclaim that their stances ARE the same as the Republicans you call homophobic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, you insisted to me that being told to kill yourself doesn’t bother you, so then act consistently with that and never refer to it again or admit you were bothered and there is no reason for gays to be any less bothered by the Christian condemnation of gays.
You keep desperately trying to do this, Randi, and I keep telling you; it’s not that it particularly bothers me, it just points out beautifully that gay leftists like yourself see “nothing wrong” with telling other people to commit suicide, as CP so eloquently put it.
Where did you get this quote from?
Right here.
And your right about my post from February 2nd being a non-apology, I have nothing to apologize for.
Obviously if you think you had nothing to apologize for, you think you did nothing wrong.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Obviously if you think you had nothing to apologize for, you think you did nothing wrong.”
Well, that’s a stupid thing to assume. In the future please don’t put quotation marks around words I never wrote. To attribute words I never wrote to me makes you a liar and untrustworthy.
posted by Timothy on
NorthDallasThirty,
You amaze me. Most people would feel chagrined to be called out on a lie. You, however, just make more statements that have no basis in fact whatsoever. I find that truly amazing.
Really, though, that’s typical. I’ve seen you and your fellow Ex-Gay Watch queers at rallies; you’re the ones who, when a foul-mouthed lesbian is spouting all sorts of blasphemies about religion on stage and with amplification, you’re the ones sitting in the back telling people, “Well, she shouldn’t be saying that, but really, you people deserve it anyway.”
and
What you don’t understand is that people like myself, when aforementioned lesbians are spewing antireligious bigotry, go up and grab the mike. Yes, it catches more flak and insults from GAYS — but it works a hell of a lot better than people like you sitting in the back trying to rationalize to people why they deserve to be insulted.
I don’t know what you are talking about. At all. Is this supposed to be an actual event you are talking about?
Because I don’t recall being at any rally where a lesbian was spouting blasphemies. And if so, I am sure that I don’t recall anyone grabbing the mike.
I really have no idea what you are referring to so I assume the lesbian was speaking at some rally and was doing so legally. So while I may disagree with her, I’d support her right to publically state her opinion. And I’m quite sure I wouldn’t say, “Well, she shouldn’t be saying that, but really, you people deserve it anyway.”
I don’t know. Maybe this is supposed to be some theoretical rally that never actually happened in which I say things I haven’t said but for which I can be blamed. Sort of like how I can be blamed for not speaking up against comments I didn’t see on a thread I didn’t read two months ago.
Incidentally, for the record, of course it’s wrong for someone to tell you to go kill yourself. Had I seen it, I would have said it was wrong.
But I do have to tell you that I am concerned about how free you are at saying untrue things about people. And even more odd is that you seem to believe these things you say.
You are clearly a very angry person. And you seem to have some inability to distinguish between fact and paranoid fantasy. Are you, by chance, James Hartline?
I don’t think I’ll interact with you any more. It’s difficult conversing with someone who is not bound by the limitations of reality or truth.
But I did want to clarify, lest someone else think that you are saying things about me that are actually true.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You don’t recall a lot, Timothy.
What I find interesting is your apparent inability to recognize that your protection of hate-flinging by other gays against people like myself and Sanchez in places like here is precisely why they later get up on stage and do counterproductive things like fling hate at the religious groups. It’s like allowing your children to throw food and scream at home, then acting surprised when they do it in a restaurant.
What makes it amusing in a rather sad and ironic way is that, if you knew me better, James Hartline would be the last person to which you’d be comparing me. You would have been taken a bit aback — and quite possibly pleased — by what I was doing this evening alone.
But what you know is what you assume based on my distaste for the typical gay way of doing things involving setting out to destroy someone because you don’t like the person with whom they’ve had their picture taken, or telling other gay people to commit suicide.
One of these days, you may come to your senses and realize that it’s not gays like myself or people like Matt Sanchez who are the enemy; it’s the ones you saw at the rally who use homosexuality as an excuse to hate and berate others. And you may also develop the ability to grab the bullhorn or the microphone away from the people who are ordering you to march in line and keep your mouth shut and tell them that your sexual orientation has nothing to do with their need to be antisocial.
But if all you can do here is join the game of pile-on, you’re demonstrating that that day is a long, LONG way off in the future.
posted by Amicus on
ND-30,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
In my prior post, I didn’t mean to suggest that there was *no possibility* of a gay-conservative strategy that liberals might latch on to. What I tried to say was that it might do to “get on the same page”. An easy-to-grasp framework from gay-conservatives might help, when issues like Sanchez come up, so that gay-liberal folks might say to themselves, “I don’t completely agree, but I can see why they are doing this or that in this way.”
Rather than take your post point-by-point, if I try to distill what I think is your implied answer to my question about the gay conservative strategy to make progress on Gay Rights. I put my comments right into the list (?C1?, ?C2??), to make it easier to read through.
A) You would like liberals to support GOP candidates who will vote positively on gay issues.
B) By “support” you mean donate campaign money and make endorsements.
1) So far, you don’t have a further distinction in strategy to make between local (state), congressional, or presidential/executive elections.
C1: The focus on voting and legislation ignores the positive value of symbolic, non-legislated inclusions ? including leadership roles. For example, Bush excludes gay families from his Easter “Parade”, but at least Clinton declared a national gay-pride day – sure, he didn’t take a risk to do it, but still, he did it. Whatever you think of Hillary, at least she goes to the HRC for a talk/speech. How many other candidates will do? Of course it’s not enough, but is a little something better than disdain or plain indifference?
C2: Gay people simply do not have the money or the numbers to swing national, general population elections or, arguably, the PAC-money-linked legislation the way corporate and other blocks do it. That has implications for what one thinks they can achieve and what national activists can be held accountable for.
Even under diminished expectations, it doesn’t have to feel like the wilderness along the way, completely, either. Why not have teddy-bears, “equals signs”, and a spiffy building that says, “We might be small enough to ignore, but we’re here and organized enough to stay around for the long haul, until the ships come in”?
C3: Even if GLBT could swing GP national elections with money or lobbying, the focus on candidates is misplaced, because candidates follow the electorate, not lead it, with little exception. The way to get “good” candidates is to change voters minds on issues.
So much is suggestive that endorsing candidates is NOT always the most efficient way to ‘change minds’ or promote equality. And, so long as there are other (even better?) ways, the focus on elections and legislative history as markers of achievement are not complete. In almost all social change struggles, some (early?) focus is on raising consciousness and education. So far, you haven’t offered any uniquely conservative opinion or strategy about that. Is there one?
C4: What’s more, pressing change on ahead of the electorate is a good recipe to get backlash. See more under “C”, below. Perhaps some think that backlash is just part of the thesis-antithesis that must be walked through, like fire. Others might think it ought to be well managed, if attempted. Still others are more incremental, even annoyingly patient.
Do gay Conservatives simply believe in more “redlines” than gay liberals?
Confrontation strategies are prone to near-term flame-outs and to one-step-forward-two-steps back (making your own mountain higher). Incremental strategies look near-term quasi-hypocritical and are prone to wash-out. Is there a special viewpoint to judge one is absolutely more effective than another, or is it just a matter of choosing whether you might want to be a tortoise or a hare? [Why can’t the community get past this dichotomy to put its members into a win-win position on this divide, I wonder aloud? Why not have both strategies formally recognized (they already are on the ground, arguably), and avoid the I’m-better-than-you-divisiveness?]
C5: However you come to judge that, it’s clear (factual) that the GLBT do NOT continuously shape their battlefield. They play defense (70% of the time?), and the attack is coming from the Conservative Right, these days, most often and most fully (the push for an FMA and the fact that it got out of committee are part of Conservative coalition politics). As these issues have come up, the Democratic Congress has put up a mixed record [cf. DOMA, to take one issue], but, recently, have been reliable, not for positive liberty, but in preserving what little negative liberty there is left [cf. FMA]. That is, they stall the attacks, even if they don’t promote the converse.
On that basis, feeding money and effort into the Conservative political machine, to the ones who put up the ‘attack’, might seem to require a higher standard of proof, since those conservative gay-friendly folks ultimately organize with a majority that may not share their gay friendly beliefs (as well as provide the GOP with seniorities and chairmanships that are inimical to other progressive values).
C6: Do Conservatives espouse a different strategy for the Executive candidates, state or national, than for the legislatures? The Executive is meant to lead on the issues, and since we might concede that the field for either party doesn’t have the goods on that because the electorate just isn’t there on some key gay issues, yet, do we think about the Executive differently?
If one accepts the assumptions of that backdrop, then wouldn’t it be better to focus on the checks-and-balances role of the Presidency or the Governorship? Can Democrats more safely veto unfriendly legislation than Republicans, and not face the abandonment of their base? Even if Kerry was “the same as Bush” on marriage, would Kerry have used the power of the Executive to call on the legislatures to make FMA a social-issue tool in the elections, as did Bush?
C7: There are alternative strategies, some completely different. One is old-school power-politics, focusing on political favors-for-payback for the *leadership*, not on any one candidate. Another is straight-up issue advocacy (a) relating to referendums, (b), surrounding candidates or appointees, or, (c), focused more generally on grassroots tolerance, understanding, and education.
I don’t know myself if there is a particularly conservative prioritization of any of those, however (that just says more about me, than whether there are any, I know ? it turns out that the personal thermometer I use doesn?t turn red and blue?) I DO know, however, that conservative pundits do seem to shift back-and-forth on these priorities when it suits them to criticize HRC or others…
C) By implication you are asking liberals to actively support libertarians organizing with the GOP, a sort of Goldwater-wing revival, perhaps.
D) Also by implication, you believe these people to have political viability (ability to win office) and to have enduring influence (not to be marginalized within their own party after getting elected).
E) As a strategy proposition, it’s not clear whether you think of all this as straight-up issue advocacy or, what seems more likely, simply a diversification and expansion strategy, i.e. law makers from different parties might immunize against the ups-and-downs in fortune of one party and there might be gay-supportive conservative candidates running when non-other exists.
C8: At the end of the day, do you think that ‘conservative libertarians’ are going to hold the day within the conservative coalition on gay issues? Perhaps, the long-run it’s too hard to tell (I’d bet that both national parties get to the same point at roughly the same time, but it’d be speculation. In the interim, I’d be surprised to see the GOP seize the lead on gay issues, however).
C9: In the near and short-term, if you don’t believe that libertarians are going to “win” but will share power with other members of their conservative coalition, then in terms of gay rights, their votes matter mostly as an augment of the (passively?) supportive democratic caucus. In other words, they are not going to get anything done except in alliance with members across the aisle. I guess that would imply that a conservative strategy is a derivative one, or a contingent one, not an outright or absolute strategy, yes?
F) The other part is harder (for me) to understand. You seem to be suggesting that gay liberals ought to have either supported Frank, McGreevey, and Studds during their tribulations less (i.e. looked *past* gay solidarity or party affiliation in favor of … ?law and order or character?), or supported Foley, Sanchez and proverbial Ryans more (i.e. looked *more* to gay solidarity and less to party affiliation), or both. Anyway, it’s not all completely trivial, because it may make a difference if you want to go about the campaign with mostly a professional, conservative gay-rights vanguard that does confrontation, or something else.
C10: Some gay conservatives seem to think of themselves as akin to ‘pioneers’. Pioneers have extra risk, by definition. What do you perceive those to be, who bears them, and how do you see them as providing forward motion for Gay Rights? It’s not to put you on the spot, but clarifying might help the dialogue with those gay liberals who might think of themselves as underdogs, but not ‘pioneers’. (If I’m wrong about ‘pioneers’, on some view, then skip it).
C11: Instead of channeling Rove against their liberal brothers and sisters, why don’t gay conservatives come out with what they think it is the gold standard for confronting the social conservatives, in practical terms? Since many, if not most, gay liberals (and moderates?) think that supporting the GOP political machine is inimical to libertas, let alone gay rights, what is an intuitive (easy to explain) set of bridging principles and/or considerations that you would like non-conservative gays to apply to conservative gay conduct of their own struggle?
If the gold-standard is no hypocrisy in terms of those who may end-up directly working on anti-gay measures, then that’s simple enough. However, if you put forward an openly gay, self-affirming group like Log Cabin, that’s another standard, arguably. A hybrid of the two? The gap between personal and political on the liberal side on this issue appears to be closing (as much as anyone can say for sure) while it seems to be alternating between widening and closing, depending on who you believe about is making gains inside the GOP. I’m not arguing for one or the other, please make no doubt, I’m just saying there has to be some positive way to talk about the nexus of ?personal space? and ?political involvement?, if that covers it, in terms of gay solidarity, rather than in Rovian framework of liberal-progressive-secular oppression.
That turned out longer than I thought.
Anyway, there is one last comment on Columbia, as an aside.
Social conservatives have been complaining about Liberals and others coming into small towns and turning them upside down by denying them such things as school prayers. At Columbia, it appears that they, themselves, have just managed to do the converse. To whit, they came onto a liberal leaning campus and forced them to “tolerate” the what they are lauding as their Conservative values, while abandoning what now look like pretenses to free speech.
(Also, neither Ryan or McGreevey did anything criminal in their jurisdictions, that I know.)
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “One of these days, you may come to your senses and realize that it’s not gays like myself or people like Matt Sanchez who are the enemy; it’s the ones you saw at the rally who use homosexuality as an excuse to hate and berate others.”
But I saw Sanchez at a rally where people used homosexuality as an excuse to hate and berate others. Does this not deflate your entire (tired and lazy) argument?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I provided clear evidence of these men [Studds, Mcgreevey, Franks] being lionized by gays.”.
And I saw thread after thread on the blogs where gays condemned them – you lie by ommission. I certainly wouldn’t call what you provided a lionization.
Few gays are stupid enough to follow your shoot yourself in the foot lead and vote Republicans in to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning equal marriage.
Northdallass replied “instead, they support homophobic Democrats who support passing these amendments and laws at the STATE level.”.
LOL, like the Republicans wouldn’t have?! What matters is not where the democrats and republicans are the same, but where they’re different, and if it were up to Republicans there’d be a federal constitutional ammendment banning all gay marriages and semblences of marriages in the U.S. which would be MUCH worse than the present situation – this would eliminate all existing gay marriages and unions and be much much harder to reverse/overturn than state amendments. Fact is gays would be worse off with all Republicans than they are with Democrats. No matter how you twist and how you spin a federal ammendment is far worse than state ammendments and that is what Republicans would bring and what Democrats prevent.
Northdallass said “You keep desperately trying to do this, Randi, and I keep telling you; it’s not that it [being told to committ suicide] particularly bothers me, it just points out beautifully that gay leftists like yourself see “nothing wrong” with telling other people to commit suicide, as CP so eloquently put it.”
You lie. I do consider that wrong and I said so on this blog as did several others – no one said there was “nothing wrong” with you being told to kill yourself. In reality your whining about this does NOT “point out that” LGBTs like me “see “nothing wrong” with telling other people to commit suicide”.
As Timothy realized rather quickly you are so caught up in your fabricated reality its hard not to believe you are mentally ill. Either you are mentally ill, or you’re lying about this not bothering you – which is it?
Northdallass said “One of these days, you may come to your senses and realize that it’s not gays like myself or people like Matt Sanchez who are the enemy; it’s the ones you saw at the rally who use homosexuality as an excuse to hate and berate others.”.
Northdallass, you do everything you can to create the most negative image for gays possible, you go out of your way to justify discrimination against gays, you lie over and over about gays to make them look bad and say they don’t deserve equal marriage and you’re not the enemy?! LOL, give me a break! Its obvious you’re the one using homosexuality as an excuse to hate gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
First, to Randi:
And I saw thread after thread on the blogs where gays condemned them – you lie by ommission. I certainly wouldn’t call what you provided a lionization.
Note the key words there: “you provided”.
Or, in other words, I brought forward evidence; you just insisted that it happened.
Right.
Meanwhile, as to your scare tactics, what I think is hilarious is this; you consider a Federal amendment “worse”, despite the fact that it requires a two-thirds majority of quorum of both houses of Congress and THEN a three-quarters majority of all the states to pass…..versus state laws and amendments that quite often require only a simple majority.
Again, the homophobic Democrats have easily manipulated you; they have you screaming about the imminent danger of something that is so difficult that it’s only happened a few times in our history, but happily handing over money and support to them to pass and push as “pro-gay” simple and easy bans that do the same thing.
And as for “easier to overturn”? One, not likely, given that DOMA, passed with overwhelming Democrat support and signed by a Democrat president, who touted it as defending “American values”, has stood for over a decade already, Federal challenges to state laws and constitutions are unlikely. Further, given that the Democrats’ cloak for their homophobia is to claim that a Federal amendment isn’t necessary because of states’ rights, if a state law and amendment is overturned, they lose that argument — and they will discover the necessity of one very quickly.
You lie. I do consider that wrong and I said so on this blog as did several others – no one said there was “nothing wrong” with you being told to kill yourself.
LOL….shall we review that statement?
Colorado Patriot, telling Northdallass to kill himself is over the line. I know he’s an asshole and its easy to feel he deserves it, but please try to take the higher ground.
And, as I pointed out in the following post, that was akin to saying this:
Or in other words, “People, telling Randi that she should put a gun to her head and pull the trigger is over the line. I know she’s an antireligious bigot with a foul mouth who makes ignorant statements, but please try to take the higher ground.”
If the latter wouldn’t be acceptable, your statement isn’t either.
And finally to the last, which really is the whole problem here:
Northdallass, you do everything you can to create the most negative image for gays possible, you go out of your way to justify discrimination against gays, you lie over and over about gays to make them look bad and say they don’t deserve equal marriage and you’re not the enemy?!
Your complaints are because I have no qualms pointing out how other gays lionize gays for having sex with Congressional pages, abuse anti-discrimination law, call opposition to public sex and leaving semen all over public places being “sex-negative”, demand that Christians who exercise their right to reasonable accomodation in the workplace be urinated and vomited upon, and so forth — all in the name of “homosexuality”.
In short, if you use homosexuality as an excuse for bad behavior, people are well within their rights to think of it as causative — and therefore, worthy of regulation.
If more people start to see that there are gays like myself out there who DO hold the community responsible for its bad behavior, who ARE willing to publicly state that homosexuality is no reason for antisocial and provocative stupidity, and who don’t bother making homosexuality their excuse for their own lack of self-control and anger, then the argument becomes much weaker. But as long as you make it clear that gay unity outweighs decency and common sense, people will react accordingly.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Then, to CP:
But I saw Sanchez at a rally where people used homosexuality as an excuse to hate and berate others. Does this not deflate your entire (tired and lazy) argument?
Not really.
But it kind of ruins your attempt to argue “they do it too” as a reason/explanation for your doing it.
posted by Brian Miller on
NDT, I’d suggest that you take Chris Crain’s recent public advice for you and come down off your cross so that the nails and wood can be used elsewhere.
posted by Timothy on
Hey, I could use a nail.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “But it kind of ruins your attempt to argue “they do it too” as a reason/explanation for your doing it.”
I have NEVER used the they-do-it-too explanation and resent you implying that I have. I have no interest in such a meaningless little pissing-match that such an argument would entail. If that is honestly what you thought my post was about you are in serious need of a reading-comprehension course. Again, please stop attributing quotes to me that I never wrote. To continue to do so makes you a liar and untrustworthy. Please stop lying on this board.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have NEVER used the they-do-it-too explanation and resent you implying that I have.
Oh, there’s no implication involved.
Since you feel the need to slander and lie about others and be an all-around asshole, I can do it to…and I will better the education (all apologies, Will).
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
That’s your response? Lame as ever. I am continually astounded by your lack of honesty. The quote you reference above was directed at YOU and YOU only. Based on your repeated LIES AND SLANDER, I made it be known that you should expect the same behavior in return. This is NOTHING like using you-do-it-to defenses in a battle of liberal VS conservative. You really take the cake when it comes to cowardly behavior. Simply astounding.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Based on your repeated LIES AND SLANDER, I made it be known that you should expect the same behavior in return.
And yet, you claim to not be using the “they-do-it-too” argument.
The more I interact with you and see how you and your fellow gay leftists treat people, ColoradoPatriot, the more understandable become these results.
And perhaps one of these days, people like Timothy and Brian will understand this, CP; I’m not the first person you’ve told to go kill themselves.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “what I think is hilarious is this; you consider a Federal amendment “worse”, despite the fact that it requires…versus state laws and amendments that quite often require only a simple majority.
LOL Northdallass, the fact that its harder to pass in no way precludes it from being worse, which it clearly would be. Your insistence that everyone should vote Republican, if realized, would ensure that it passes despite the extra difficulty and then it would be almost impossible to overturn for a long time to come.
Northdallass said “And as for [state ammendments being] “easier to overturn”? One, not likely, given that DOMA, passed with overwhelming Democrat support and signed by a Democrat president, who touted it as defending “American values”, has stood for over a decade already, Federal challenges to state laws and constitutions are unlikely”.
LOL Northdallass, I guess you never heard of Roe V Wade. The state ammendments and laws can be overturned based on the full faith and credit clause, not to mention the federal constitutions right to equal protection under the law. If a federal ammendment were passed these routes to U.S. wide equal marriage would be gone, and that’s the result that would come about if gays listened to you and shot themselves in the foot by voting Republican.
In a previous post I pointed out that Northdallass lied when he said “it’s not that it [being told to committ suicide] particularly bothers me, it just points out beautifully that gay leftists like yourself see “nothing wrong” with telling other people to commit suicide.”
Northdallass says now “LOL….shall we review that statement?” and quotes me saying “Colorado Patriot, telling Northdallass to kill himself is over the line. I know he’s an asshole and its easy to feel he deserves it, but please try to take the higher ground.”.
LOL Northdallas, you just verified you lied about me and LGBTs like me. Obviously from that quote I never said there was “nothing wrong” with telling you to kill yourself, quite the opposite, I said it WAS wrong, but in your make-believe world you hear the opposite of what I said.
Northdallas continued “And, as I pointed out in the following post, that was akin to saying this:
Or in other words, “People, telling Randi that she should put a gun to her head and pull the trigger is over the line. I know she’s an antireligious bigot with a foul mouth who makes ignorant statements, but please try to take the higher ground.”
If the latter wouldn’t be acceptable, your statement isn’t either.”.
LOL Northdallass, the difference between my statement and yours is that I told the truth, you are an asshole, whereas you lied about me when you said I make ignorant statments – other than that your statement was just as acceptable as mine.
Northdallass said “Your complaints are because I have no qualms pointing out how other gays lionize gays for having sex with Congressional pages, abuse anti-discrimination law, call opposition to public sex and leaving semen all over public places being “sex-negative”, demand that Christians who exercise their right to reasonable accomodation in the workplace be urinated and vomited upon, and so forth — all in the name of “homosexuality”.”.
All lies as we’ve come to expect from you. I don’t oppose you pointing out actual wrongs of gays, my complaint is that you lie habitually about it. You blame the actions of individuals on all gays, you lied saying I “tear down normal and married couples as “stepford wives””, you lied saying I have sex partnerS, you lied saying I “demand public sex whenever and wherever”. You lie by indiscriminately saying gays are meth addicts, promiscuous bare-backing, drug abusing anti-religious. You lie by saying “gays call it the buy-bull” when it was just me saying that, and on and on. You are a habitual liar doing your very best to make all gays look bad while denying the existence of LGBTS like me who live exemplary lives.
Northdallass said “If more people start to see that there are gays like myself out there who DO hold the community responsible for its bad behavior, who ARE willing to publicly state that homosexuality is no reason for antisocial and provocative stupidity, and who don’t bother making homosexuality their excuse for their own lack of self-control and anger, then the argument becomes much weaker. But as lonlong as you make it clear that gay unity outweighs decency and common sense, people will react accordingly”.
Bullshit. If more people start to see you lying about gays, indiscriminately blaming the bad behavior of isolated individuals on all LGBTS, painting gays in the most negative light possible it just furthers the oppression and hatred of gays. You’re like the Nazi propagandists demoninzing the Jews, you demonize gays and insanely claim that somehow that’s going to make people think well of them. And you wonder why a lot of LGBTs see you as the enemy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL Northdallass, the fact that its harder to pass in no way precludes it from being worse, which it clearly would be.
And a tsunami hitting my house would likely be far worse than an earthquake. However, what you’re suggesting is that I focus on the tsunami, which is an extraordinarily unlikely event, and ignore the earthquake, which is practically a given.
Obviously from that quote I never said there was “nothing wrong” with telling you to kill yourself, quite the opposite, I said it WAS wrong, but in your make-believe world you hear the opposite of what I said.
Again, Randi, your statement (emphasis mine):
Colorado Patriot, telling Northdallass to kill himself is over the line. I know he’s an asshole and its easy to feel he deserves it, but please try to take the higher ground.
And here, really, is the biggest problem:
Bullshit. If more people start to see you lying about gays, indiscriminately blaming the bad behavior of isolated individuals on all LGBTS, painting gays in the most negative light possible it just furthers the oppression and hatred of gays.
If you want to call every single one of the links I put into this post a lie, knock yourself out.
But that sort of denialism and shrieking on your part is why glbts feel free to act badly, as in the examples I mentioned; it’s like a spoiled child who knows Mommie and Daddie will bail them out when they land in jail, pay off the girl they get in trouble, berate the teacher who gives them a bad grade, hand over cash on demand, and so forth. No consequences, no reason to avoid bad behavior.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “And yet, you claim to not be using the “they-do-it-too” argument.”
Why are you so obtuse? I am most certainly NOT using that argument and its obvious from my posts here that I’m not. To try and twist my words around, you take a completely irrelevent quote (which was an allusion to Shakespeare anyway, you fucking retard)AND post it out of context. Way to go ND30, you proved absolutely nothing and wasted everyone elses time…congratulations. Even if I were using that debate technique (which I’m not), what is the point of your argument?
ND30: “I’m not the first person you’ve told to go kill themselves.”
What an incredibly odd thing to type…do you have some sort of dossier on me and my various outbursts? How many times do I have to print my retraction before you stop bringing this ridiculous suicide issue up? Go back and read the offending post dude, it was a joke. A bad joke in very poor taste, but a joke none-the-less. So here…I’ll post my retraction again so you can start beating some other dead horse.
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
Thank You
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Go back and read the offending post dude, it was a joke. A bad joke in very poor taste, but a joke none-the-less.
First off, which of the three times you did it was the joke?
Second off, I seem to remember the rule among gays being that the “it was a joke” excuse wasn’t good enough.
Finally, as to your “retraction”, I think this says it all:
And your right about my post from February 2nd being a non-apology, I have nothing to apologize for.
posted by Adam Currier on
I find it odd that you consider the left to have outed a person who appeared in a (I assume) freely avaiblable pornographic film. It may have been little noticed (especially in the millions and millions of adult films), but it was still released to the public. He “outed” himself, regardless as to the person who pointed to the video.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
A retraction is not an apology, you poor dumb fuck. Do you ever get anything right?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A retraction is not an apology, you poor dumb fuck.
LOL….I’m just curious as to why you’re “retracting” a statement that you don’t think was wrong in the first place.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I think this explains it nicely.
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
Thank You
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “However, what you’re suggesting is that I focus on the tsunami, which is an extraordinarily unlikely event, and ignore the earthquake, which is practically a given.”
Trouble is Northdallass, if everyone voted Republican like you ask them to a federal constitutional ammendment banning equal marriage wouldn’t be unlikely at all. Once again, gays are better off (less worse off, if you prefer) with all Democrats than all Republicans.
Northdallass said “Again, Randi, your statement (emphasis mine):
“Colorado Patriot, telling Northdallass to kill himself is over the line. I know he’s an asshole and its easy to feel he deserves it, but please try to take the higher ground.””
Again, Northdallass, my statement proves you lied when you said “You keep desperately trying to do this, Randi, and I keep telling you; it’s not that it [being told to committ suicide] particularly bothers me, it just points out beautifully that gay leftists like yourself see “nothing wrong” with telling other people to commit suicide, as CP so eloquently put it.”. Clearly I said that was wrong, not that there was “nothing wrong” with it – stop lying, its obvious and your deceiving no one.
Northdallass said “If you want to call every single one of the links I put into this post a lie, knock yourself out.”.
The problem Northdallass is that distorted twisted and lied about every one of these. You say Studds was lionized by gays for having sex with Congressional pages – he did not have sex with multiple pages, he had sex with one page. You lied by claiming I and LGBTS like me don’t oppose what Bonnie Blakely allegedly did. You lied when you linked to an article where you say gays called opposition to public sex and leaving semen all over public places being “sex-negative” – the person that said he’s “sex positive” opposed and criticized that action. You indiscriminately blamed gays for the individual actions of Dalea when he said that bus driver might be vomitted and urinated on. You lie by ommission when you obsess over and focus on the wrongs of only gays and virtually never mention the numerous wrongs of heterosexuals.
When a heterosexual rapes a transexual http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012007txCop.htm
you never mention it. When heterosexual cops beat gays
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/01/012407cop.htm
you never mention it. You don’t go on and on about now Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife while berating Clinton for his indiscretions, I’ve never heard you mention how he callously served his wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer. You lied about Carl, saying he does drugs and has bareback sex and tries to excuse it by saying he’s gay You lied about me, saying I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives””, You lied about me saying I have sex partnerS and that I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever”. You habitually and indiscriminately accuse all gays of using meth and other drugs and being promiscuous THAT’S the problem Northdallass, your chronic lying and cockeyed portrayals of gays and straights.
Northdallass said to Colorado Patriot “Second off, I seem to remember the rule among gays being that the “it was a joke” excuse wasn’t good enough.”.
No one in that article you quoted said that. Swaggarts retraction was good enough for me and Colorado Patriot’s is as well. Once again, why should gays be any less bothered by religion’s condemnation of them than you are by being told to kill yourself?
posted by PCT on
Well said Randi, as usual.
And Colorado, I apologize to you for an earlier post where I was kinda rude. Anyone who can get under the skin of ND30 like you can is my hero.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Trouble is Northdallass, if everyone voted Republican like you ask them to a federal constitutional ammendment banning equal marriage wouldn’t be unlikely at all.
However, when they voted Democrat like you asked them to do, Democrats DID endorse positions you were previously calling homophobic and supported state laws and amendments banning equal marriage.
Or, in other words, you’re more concerned with what MIGHT happen than with what DID happen.
When a heterosexual rapes a transexual you never mention it. When heterosexual cops beat gays you never mention it.
Of course it’s wrong to rape transsexuals and beat gays.
However, the key difference, Randi, is that these people were caught, publicly excoriated, and punished for their crimes by other heterosexuals. Newt Gingrich publicly admitted he was wrong, apologized, and was criticized — as he should be — by other heterosexuals.
Contrast that with your arguments above, where “only with one page”, “allegedly”, “it was only one”, “I know he’s an asshole”, and so forth are used to spin away why you can’t hold other gays accountable for their bad behavior.
In short, Randi, heterosexuals do an admirable job of self-policing. Homosexuals like you are congenitally incapable of policing “your own” and attack gays like me who WILL point out and criticize the bad behavior of other gays.
What demonstrates that most convincingly is your insistence that I’m not gay — or, phrased differently, your denial of the possibility that another gay person could see gays as less than perfect.
Furthermore, relative to Carl, he argues that gays should be excused for having bareback sex and using drugs because they have “no rights” — despite the fact that people with “no rights” would hardly have gotten charges filed against the aforementioned individuals who hurt them, much less had them convicted.
posted by Brian Miller on
I have made it clear from the very first day I showed up in the blogosphere that I was absolutely and completely opposed to outing and dragging a person’s sex life into matters
Who cares? For all we know, you’re Mary Cheney’s alter ego.
You certainly seem to have a severe case of victimhood complex, coupled with a bit of a persecution complex on top of that — both of which are amusing, since you’re completely anonymous and thus nobody could persecute you in any meaningful way.
You seem to conflate people who dare to disagree with you with “persecutors.”
That is, of course, your right, but speaking as a general reader, it’s sorta boring after a while. Not to mention that it only underscores the redoubtable Mr. Crain’s advice to you (which I took as friendly) to hop off the cross and become something and someone other than a permanent-yet-anonymous victim of the outrage of the week.
There are plenty of folks on both sides of the old-party system that play that game — your “gay conservative” twist was new and interesting in the early part of the decade but now is old hat.
There are much more articulate, non-anonymous and meaningful gay conservative commentators out there who have a more varied, thoughtful and non-self-centered viewpoint. Not incidentally, they’re also a lot more interesting to read and consider than your posts/blogs.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You seem to conflate people who dare to disagree with you with “persecutors.”
Oh no, Mr. Miller; I have no problem separating people who disagree with me, like Pat, versus people who are disagreeable in the process of disagreeing, like you.
And, as that last post points out, I have a great deal of information and insight at my fingertips to share…..provided you and yours can ever get past your knee-jerk reaction to the fact that I’m not a typical gay dogmatist.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “However, when they voted Democrat like you asked them to do, Democrats DID endorse positions you were previously calling homophobic and supported state laws and amendments banning equal marriage.”
And Republicans would have done that and worse – a federal amendment banning equal marriage. Its no coincidence that the religious right has acknowledged there is no chance of passing a federal ammendment banning equal marriage now that the legislative bodies are controlled by Democrats. Its no coincidence that now that Democrats are the majority the religious conservatives are whining about how the anti-discrimimination law including gays might pass and DADT might be repealed. Only an idiot or a gay hater (you) would claim gays aren’t better off (or less worse off) under Democrats.
Northdallass said “Of course it’s wrong to rape transsexuals and beat gays.”.
[slow clapping] Rah rah Northdallass. Trouble is you ignore the vast wrongs of heterosexuals most of time and obsess over isolated wrongs of gays – you totally distort the image of gays and straights to try to make it look like gays are horrible and straights are angels when if anything is true it is the opposite. On one of the rare occassions I went into a gay bar my friend and I left our coats unattended without fear – I’d never do that in a straight bar. When one of them got knocked on the floor someone picked it up and came over to tell us – I never see that kind of courtesy from straights. If I was walking down a dark alley at night I’d pray that anyone I meet be gay rather than straight. I’d trust a gay person before a straight person anyday.
Northdallass said “However, the key difference, Randi, is that these people were caught, publicly excoriated, and punished for their crimes by other heterosexuals. Newt Gingrich publicly admitted he was wrong, apologized, and was criticized — as he should be — by other heterosexuals.”
You don’t know that they were all heterosexuals, many, if not most gay people are in the closet. And even if they were, so what?! 90 or 95 percent of the population is straight so the odds overwhelmingly favour wrongdoers being caught by straights. If you had 10 or 20 such heterosexuals and no gays you might have a point, but of course from what we’ve seen of you you would ignore the gays exposing and condemning bad behavior so you can create that distorted image you like so much.
Northdallass said “Contrast that with your arguments above, where “only with one page”, “allegedly”, “it was only one”, “I know he’s an asshole”, and so forth are used to spin away why you can’t hold other gays accountable for their bad behavior.”.
LOL Northdallass, I’m not excusing bad behavior, its you trying to excuse your bad behavior that I pointed out. I criticized Bonnie Blakely, Dalea and Colorado patriot – you lied and claimed I said there was nothing wrong with what they did. You lie about gays to make things sound worse than they are. You say Studds had sex with multiple pages when it was only one. You repeatedly bring up Blakely but ignore the many wrongdoings of straight people, you lie saying I have multiple sex partners and that I tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives”, you lie and say I “demand public sex whenever and wherever” and that is typical with how you characterize all LGBTs – regardless of our expemplary behavior you lie and say we’re drug using and promiscuous. You blame the actions of Dalea and individual gays on all gays. You’re a horrific shameless liar!
Northdallass said “In short, Randi, heterosexuals do an admirable job of self-policing. Homosexuals like you are congenitally incapable of policing “your own” and attack gays like me who WILL point out and criticize the bad behavior of other gays.”.
LOL, if heterosexuals did an admirable job of self-policing there’d be no need for police and obviously there is. Its clear from being in gay bars compared to straight bars that gays better police their own and need less policing – its far, far safer and more comfortable being surrounded by gays than straights that don’t know I’m LGBT. Get down from your cross, I’m not criticizing you for valid complaints about gays, I’m criticizing your lying, distorting, and twisting to demonize gays while virtually ignoring the wrongs of straights. And as I’ve told you several times before, I am not a homosexual I am a bisexual transgender.
Northdallass said “What demonstrates that most convincingly is your insistence that I’m not gay — or, phrased differently, your denial of the possibility that another gay person could see gays as less than perfect.”.
Of course gays see other gays as less than perfect, I do myself, we are all human and inevitably less than perfect. What makes me doubt your being gay is your hatred, demonization of gays, and lie after lie after lie. James is believable as an anti-gay gay, you’re just way too over the top to be real and given that you lie so freely about LGBTs, what’s to stop you from lying about being gay? That would explain your utter contempt for a group you claim to be one of. If you truly were a drug free monogamous responsible gay you wouldn’t be so certain you are the only one, you’d have to acknowledge that if you are that way there’s no reason to believe that many others aren’t as well, but you don’t – your lies and hatred are inconsistent with being gay (unless you ARE a promiscuous drug user and that’s why you think everyone else is.)
Northdallass said “Furthermore, relative to Carl, he argues that gays should be excused for having bareback sex and using drugs because they have “no rights”…”
Once again, my criticism is that you lied about Carl in this thread. YOU accused HIM of having bareback sex and using drugs and trying to excuse it when you have no proof. You regularly blame all gays for the wrongs of individuals.You say the worst about gays regardless of the reality. If you are not James Hartline, you certainly are his clone.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I always assumed ND30 was really Michael Savage…to each his (or her) own I guess!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’d trust a gay person before a straight person anyday.
So you make decisions about someone’s trustworthiness based on their sexual orientation, not on their actions.
Figures.
And really, that’s all your post is saying, Randi; you discriminate against other people based on sexual orientation, automatically assuming gays are not criminals and trustworthy, and that straights are criminals and not trustworthy.
What makes this particularly laughable is the lengths you go to prove it — even claiming that heterosexuals who criticize, prosecute, and punish other heterosexuals who misbehave are actually closet gays. That fits, though; you believe that gays who are willing to criticize other gays are closet heterosexuals, given your charges about me.
And that’s what creates your problems, Randi. You first denied ColoradoPatriot had told me to commit suicide; then you tried to claim I had provoked him, so it was justified. You tried to claim gays hadn’t lionized Gerry Studds; when I produced evidence that they had, you tried to argue that it was OK because he’d only claimed to have sex with one page. You constantly accuse me of lying over things like Minnesota nondiscrimination laws, only to spin away when you’re presented with facts and try to argue that it’s my fault for giving you boring links.
Homosexuality is your excuse for hatred of straight people, religion, conservatives, and everyone else under the sun. And the reason you attack me so strenuously is because, unlike other gays, I don’t wilt when you start flinging invective my direction. I’ve no doubt you’ve bullied several other gays the same way you have me, just the way I’m sure I’m not the first person that CP has told to commit suicide.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30, why are you still bitching and moaning about this? You would think that at some point you would just move on and let this idiotic topic just drop. Just for the sake of accuracy, here is the posting in question.
North Dallas Thirty | February 1, 2007, 3:24pm | #
“The only argument I’ve ever seen gay groups make for marriage is, “the Constitution demands you give it to us…”
ColoradoPatriot | February 1, 2007, 4:14pm | #
“What an idiot…honestly, did you mean to say “ever”? Because if that is true, you need to get your fricking hearing checked. Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you’d be doing us all a favor.”
Was this really such an egregious assault on your mental health that you feel the need to hijack every thread on this board to remind us of the exchange? You seriously need to get a grip (and try sticking to the topic once in awhile). You are the very definition of an internet troll, give it a rest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Was this really such an egregious assault on your mental health that you feel the need to hijack every thread on this board to remind us of the exchange?
Wouldn’t the better question to ask be why the post in question warranted telling someone to shoot themselves in the head, not just once, but a a second and a third?
And by the way, the thread’s topic IS gay leftists who are abusive towards gay conservatives. I simply am pointing out one of the better examples of it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
No ND30, you’re wrong as usual. The topic is Matt Sanchez. You hijacked the thread and tried to make it about yourself (again, as usual). I know that it is hard for your conceited little pea-brain to grasp the concept of a topic that doesn’t center on yourself, but try a little.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I quote from the original post:
But to a great many on the self-righteous, smug, and (yes) hate-driven left, any gay non-“progressive” is an open target that must be silenced or destroyed.
I don’t know enough about Sanchez (who reportedly does not identify as gay) to peg him, but I do know that I’m appalled by the tactics of those who would bring him down.
I would also reference the Protein Wisdom quote, which points out in detail that this process of hate tactics against gays who don’t toe the party line — such as your demands that I commit suicide — are quite endemic among the gay left.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Ahem…
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
Thank You
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “So you make decisions about someone’s trustworthiness based on their sexual orientation, not on their actions.”.
No, I’ve come to trust gay people more BECAUSE of their actions versus the actions of straight people – I’ve never been assaulted by a gay person, but I’ve been assaulted all too many times by heterosexuals. I make my decisions about people’s trustworthiness based on a variety of factors of which sexual orientation is but one. One is the situation at hand, past behavior of the individual, how well I know them, etc. If I know nothing about an individual other than there orienation than that’s the only thing I logically can base a decision on.
“Northdallass said “You first denied ColoradoPatriot had told me to commit suicide; then you tried to claim I had provoked him, so it was justified.”
See, now you’re heaping lie upon lie. I never denied that he told you to kill yourself. I never said it was justified, I said it was mitigated by your actions and you are willfully stupid about the distinct meanings of those two words. Do I need to spoon-feed you the dictionary definitions yet again?! Furthermore you lied in this thread when you claimed I said there was “nothing wrong” with you being told to kill yourself when the quote of mine you provided clearly showed me saying it was wrong.
Northdallass said “You tried to claim gays hadn’t lionized Gerry Studds; when I produced evidence that they had, you tried to argue that it was OK because he’d only claimed to have sex with one page.”.
Again, your lies overflow, I never said it was okay, I said it was wrong for you to lie and say he had sex with multiple pages when it was with one page. Somehow in your twisted mind when I point out your lies I’m a bitch because gawd knows you’ve got a right to lie despite what those ten commandments say.
Northdallass said “And the reason you attack me so strenuously is because, unlike other gays, I don’t wilt when you start flinging invective my direction”.
LOL Northdallass, what you mean is you’re proud to be a liar and unwilling to admit when you’re obviously wrong. The reason I criticize you is because you are a habitual and unrepentant liar who does everything he can to harm gays and paint them with a broad negative brush. You started the attacks on me. You viciously lied about me saying I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives”, you lied saying I have multiple sex partners, you lied saying I “demand public sex whenever and wherever”. You lied about Carl in this thread saying he uses drugs and has bareback sex and tries to excuse it with the fact that he’s gay. Your chronic lying is obvious, widely known, and well documented. That’s why Independent Gay Forum took your blog off their blogroll, they didn’t want to be associated with the likes of you. If you want to redeem yourself stop lying and show some balance in your criticisms
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said to Colorado patriot “…your demands that I commit suicide — are quite endemic among the gay left.”.
Bullshit. Only one person on this board told you to kill yourself and he retracted that statement. Several people on this board criticized that statement, but you never acknowledge reality when you can make up your own anti-gay version.
I hate to break it to you Northdallass, but being a liar doesn’t make you a hero, it makes you scum.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ve never been assaulted by a gay person, but I’ve been assaulted all too many times by heterosexuals.
LOL….but then you ignore the examples of homosexuals assaulting other homosexuals, such as your publishing of thom’s private email, ColoradoPatriot’s telling other gays to commit suicide, and so forth.
I can say I’ve been assaulted by heterosexuals only once, and that was in San Francisco. But I am assaulted by homosexuals like you every time I speak up.
Meanwhile, the rest of your post is simply an attempt to parse and spin away from publicly stating that gay people did something wrong. Your technique is to attack the person who points out the gay person’s bad behavior and divert attention away from it.
Since you blabber and whine that attacks on other people are “mitigated” if they are provoked, I would put it this way; since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.
Or are you now going to hypocritically change tactics and claim that nothing “mitigates” a heterosexual or religious person attacking a homosexual?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “ColoradoPatriot’s telling other gays to commit suicide…”
That is a LIE. I told one person (you, ND30 the asshole) to kill himself. It was a joke that I have retracted NUMEROUS times (have you retracted ANY of the numerous LIES you have posted here?). Please stop lying on this board.
ND30: “…since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible…”
This is a LIE and is SLANDEROUS. What proof do you have to accuse her of that? What does this have to do with Matt Sanchez? Why are you so obtuse? It makes it very VERY difficult to take anything you write seriously when you expose yourself to be a habitual LIAR and COWARD. Please stop lying on this board.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It makes it very VERY difficult to take anything you write seriously when you expose yourself to be a habitual LIAR and COWARD.
That assumes, ColoradoPatriot, that you would take something I wrote seriously in the first place.
Given the fact that you continually make excuses (“you’re an asshole”, “it was a joke”) for your telling me to commit suicide not once, not twice, but three times, while simultaneously insist that what you did wasn’t wrong in the first place….I kind of find it hard to believe that you’re even capable of doing that.
What proof do you have to accuse her of that?
Do you really want me to cite every post Randi has made in which she calls religious people things like “idiotic” and “superstitious”, “ignorant”, and so forth?
I’ll warn you….the link limit on these posts is 5, so by quick calculation, it may take upwards of ten of them.
And remember, CP, if I can demonstrate that Randi has acted like an “asshole” towards straight and/or religious folk, their telling her to kill herself or assaulting her directly is “mitigated”. Since you can tell other people to commit suicide because you think they’re assholes, they should have the same right and protection towards Randi.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”
LOL Northdallass, when you can’t excuse your lies you just pile ever more outrageous lies on top. Do you have any proof that I’ve physically attacked or murdered anyone? Of course not, you’re just a liar. Words alone can never justify or mitigate a physical attack and nothing anyone says mitigates a physical attack on another. If I had physically attacked these people that physically assaulted me that would be one thing, but I didn’t – contrary to your lies. Only an evil person (you for example) would think mere words on my part mitigates “any and all attacks” on me.
Northdallass said “I am assaulted by homosexuals like you every time I speak up.”.
Now, now Northdallass, I’ve never set eyes on you let alone laid a hand on you. What you really mean is that every time you lie and distort I hold you accountable for it – that’s not assault, that’s morally responsible behavior.
If I were to post every one of your lies I’ve encountered in the few months I’ve been monitoring your BS it would take hundreds of posts.
Let’s focus on a few of your lies. You said Studds had sex with multiple pages when it was just one. You lied claiming I said it was “OK because he only had sex with one page”, I never did. You lied saying I denied that CP told you to kill yourself, I never did. You lied saying I said there was “nothing wrong” with him saying that and then laughably to “prove” it you quoted me saying it was wrong. You lied claiming I said it was justified when I actually said it was mitigated by your provocations. You lied saying “demands that I commit suicide — are quite endemic among the gay left.” when only one person on this board suggested that and he retracted the statement. You lied saying that no one criticized that action when several people did. You lied saying I have multiple sex partners and that I tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives”. You lied saying I “demand public sex whenever and wherever”. You lied claiming I said the skinning alive of Christian aid workers was justified because the Afghanis were attacked. You lied saying Carl does drugs, has bareback sex and tries to excuse it because he’s gay. You lied when you linked to an article where you say gays called opposition to public sex and leaving semen all over public places being “sex-negative” – the person in the article that said he’s “sex positive” opposed and criticized that action. You lied blaming gays for the individual statements of Dalea. You lied blaming gays for my individual reference to the “buy-bull”. You lied blaming gays for the individual anti-religious statements of Elton John. You lied claiming the vast majority of gays are anti-religious when Dalea showed you most gays are religious.
And that’s just off the top of my head.
But what’s really funny Northdallass, is your constant whining about CP’s suggestion that you kill yourself. You claim to be gay and your buy-bull demands that you be put to death for that reason. Pretty hypocritical of you to praise it and whine about CP suggesting you adhere to what you claim to honour and follow. You can’t claim he’s done something wrong when you claim the buy-bull is something right.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL Northdallass, when you can’t excuse your lies you just pile ever more outrageous lies on top. Do you have any proof that I’ve physically attacked or murdered anyone?
And there you spin again, Randi, trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have called religious people things like “idiotic” and “superstitious”, “ignorant”, and so forth — which, by your logic, would “mitigate” their condemning you to hell.
What you really mean is that every time you lie and distort I hold you accountable for it – that’s not assault, that’s morally responsible behavior.
LOL……actually, what you do is attack first, then try to spin away when you are confronted with the facts.
Sort of like above, when you insisted that Gerry Studds, noted gay Democrat and page-molestor, had never been praised or lionized by gays — only to be confronted with the evidence that he had, at which point you feverishly tried to spin that it was only one page.
What makes it funny is your insistence that you’re not making excuses for what he did, but repeatedly emphasizing that he allegedly only did it with one page, as if that somehow mitigates – there’s that favorite word of yours again when it comes to gays misbehaving — the fact.
But what’s really funny Northdallass, is your constant whining about CP’s suggestion that you kill yourself. You claim to be gay and your buy-bull demands that you be put to death for that reason. Pretty hypocritical of you to praise it and whine about CP suggesting you adhere to what you claim to honour and follow. You can’t claim he’s done something wrong when you claim the buy-bull is something right.
LOL…..look up the key phrase, “Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone,” and you’ll have your answer.
Again, Randi, your inability to recognize or cite anything in the Bible that contradicts your hate and antireligious bigotry is a rather remarkable weakness on your part.
And since you claim that the Bible is wrong, on the basis that no action should ever “mitigate” telling another person to commit suicide….apply it to ColoradoPatriot equally.
Also, thanks for demonstrating that gays like ColoradoPatriot, who claim to be religious, stand idly by while you call the Scripture they claim to revere and respect to be “bull” and that the faith they allegedly profess and follow, is nothing but “superstition” practiced by “idiots”.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Given the fact that you continually make excuses (“you’re an asshole…”
Why are you putting quote marks around something I never wrote. This is VERY wrong for you to do – a very COWARDLY act.
ND30: “ColoradoPatriot, who claim to be religious…”
This is a LIE. Please reference where I have discussed my own religious beliefs. You can’t make things up about other people, ND30…to do so makes you a LIAR and a COWARD.
Ahem,
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
Thank You
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why are you putting quote marks around something I never wrote.
Mhm.
That is a LIE. I told one person (you, ND30 the asshole) to kill himself.
Next:
This is a LIE. Please reference where I have discussed my own religious beliefs.
Gladly.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
And what are your links supposed to prove other than you are willfully LYING on this board? I’m sure you read the links you supplied which show me NEVER using the phrase you attributed to me and NEVER discussing my religious beliefs. Asshole. PLEASE STOP PUTTING QUOTATION MARKS AROUND PHRASES I NEVER WROTE, TO DO SO MAKES YOU A LIAR AND A COWARD. Please stop lying on this board.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, I love watching you trying to deny your own outrageous lies. You said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible“.
“Every manner possible” MEANS physical assault, murder, sexaul assault, rape, breaking bones, slashing, cutting, punching, kicking, shooting, etc. You don’t have any proof I’ve committed the heinous crimes you accuse me of. Obviously you lied yet again and you are neither man nor moral enough to admit it. Name calling doesn’t even remotely amount to assualting people “in every manner possible” but of course you let anger get the better of you with your irresponsible words and keep digging when you’re already in a hole.
Northdallass said “what you do is attack first, then try to spin away when you are confronted with the facts.”
LOL, the fact is that Studds had sex with one page, you lied saying it was multiple pages. In this same thread you lied saying gays called opposition to public sex and leaving semen all over public places being “sex-negative” and then linked to an article to “prove” this but the person in that article said he was “sex positive” but that he opposed that action and criticized it. And laughably you whine about being attacked first, but it was you who attacked Carl by falsely claiming he did drugs and had bareback sex and excused it with being gay. LOL, in your twisted mind when someone holds you accountable for your lies and attacks somehow that in itself is supposed to be an attack.
What’s really despicable about you is that you refuse to see the glaring line between words and physical assault. Harsh words can mitigate a response with harsher words, a physical attack can mitigate a response with a greater physical attack, but mere words can never mitigate a physical attack. Your immorality is obvious when you claim criticisms of religion mitigate the act of eternally torture or that physical assualts on me may have been mitigated by mere words of mine. – there obviously is no equivalence between the two.
Northdallass said “look up the key phrase, “Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone,” and you’ll have your answer.”.
LOL, Northdallass, by that ‘logic’ no wrong is ever to be punished. And that phrase was in reference to adultery, not to gays. Jesus never said anything about gays, never contradicted your god’s insistence that they be put to death. Obviously it still stands and its mighty hypocritical of you to whine about being told to kill yourself when you praise a book that demands you be put to death.
And of course Northdallass you lie about CP as well. Given your propensity for lying you can’t be allowed the indiscretion of putting words in quotes he did not specifically say (“you’re an asshole”) because if we give you an inch you take a mile. Also, CP noting the similiarity between his relationship and Jonathon and David isn’t a claim to be religious anymore than my noting I’m like Jesus in promoting “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a claim that I’m religious. As is typical, you lie by reading into words things that aren’t there.
That’s the difference between you and I Northdallass, you consider it your gawd given right to lie and I never knowingly say anything untrue. Given the outrageous evil contents of your buy-bull, my critical characterizations of buy-bull believing Christians are perfectly accurate. With the possible exception of you I don’t believe I’ve ever referred to Christians as idiots. But of course you don’t really believe in the buy-bull anyway, if you did you wouldn’t habitually break the “do not lie” commandment and you’d have given away all of your belongings to the poor as Jesus commanded.
posted by ETJB on
(1) Personally I do not feel that adult prostitution or porn should be illegal. It should be regulated and legal.
(2) If you are starring in porno films or being an male escort, chances are people are going to find out about it.
(3) ‘Gay for pay’ does in fact exist. So does ‘Straight for pay’. I recall something about ActiveDuty adult web page getting some marines into a bit of trouble. Where was the IGF then?
(4) If the conservative really stand by him — do they support the legalization of adult porn and prostitution? If not, then they shouuld be calling for this man to be jailed.
(5) Again, this is likely a college romance or fling gone wrong.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Every manner possible” MEANS physical assault, murder, sexaul assault, rape, breaking bones, slashing, cutting, punching, kicking, shooting, etc.
Indeed it does — if it would be possible for you to get away it, I have no doubt you would do those things.
I simply put nothing past you, Randi. We’ve already seen you go to the outer limits of verbal assault on this board, as well as your publishing of thom’s full name and private email message to you, which is a huge breach of trust and privacy on your part.
Your immorality is obvious when you claim criticisms of religion mitigate the act of eternally torture or that physical assualts on me may have been mitigated by mere words of mine.
Randi, the problem with that analysis is this; you’re arguing that you are harmed by statements of “eternal torture” — which you don’t believe exists in the first place. Since you don’t believe that exists, how can threats of it be anything more than words?
Furthermore, since you argue based on that that merely making threats equates to physical assault…..you get the idea.
Meanwhile, thank you for providing an excellent example of your practice of spinning in an attempt to avoid having to admit that a gay person did something wrong.
Given your propensity for lying you can’t be allowed the indiscretion of putting words in quotes he did not specifically say (“you’re an asshole”) because if we give you an inch you take a mile.
Next up, this:
Also, CP noting the similiarity between his relationship and Jonathon and David isn’t a claim to be religious anymore than my noting I’m like Jesus in promoting “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a claim that I’m religious.
Of course, the little issue of the commitment ceremony he’s describing is conveniently left aside.
You need not worry, Randi. CP’s religious belief has long since been trumped by his need to be accepted by antireligious gay leftists like yourself.
Jesus never said anything about gays, never contradicted your god’s insistence that they be put to death.
Then you are declaring that Timothy’s Ex-Gay Watch, Soulforce, and numerous other gay “religious” organizations are wrong when they state that the Bible should not be used to justify killing or harming gays and that Jesus counseled mercy and acceptance to ALL, including gays.
And you would also include them in this:
Given the outrageous evil contents of your buy-bull, my critical characterizations of buy-bull believing Christians are perfectly accurate.
Not that they’re going to say anything……LOL.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “””Every manner possible” MEANS physical assault, murder, sexaul assault, rape, breaking bones, slashing, cutting, punching, kicking, shooting, etc.”
Indeed it does “. LOL, Northdallass, when I first pointed that out you called it “spin”, now you admit what it really means – careful, you keep going down this path and you’re going to admit you have no proof I’ve done this and that you told an outrageous lie, again.
Northdallass said “if it would be possible for you to get away it, I have no doubt you would do those things”.
What you claim to have no doubt about has no bearing on reality as we’ve seen from your non-stop lies. Unlike you I do my best to live up to the harm no one philosophy and when I fail (as we all inevitably must) I do my best to make ammends – you think people who innocently think differently of religion than you deserve to be eternally tortured. You tell lie after lie and when they are exposed you tell even more outrageous lies instead of admitting and apologizing for your wrong like a moral human being.
Northdallass said “the problem with that analysis is this; you’re arguing that you are harmed by statements of “eternal torture” — which you don’t believe exists in the first place. Since you don’t believe that exists, how can threats of it be anything more than words?”.
Northdallass, the problem is that you supposedly believe this and YOU claim my words mitigate and/or justify eternal torture, or as you put it “any and all attacks”. I see a vast impassable barrier between using critical words and responding with physical assault, you don’t.
CP said “ND30 the asshole”, not “you’re an asshole” – technically you lied when you claimed to quote him saying “you’re an asshole”. Its a minor point, but as we’ve seen with you if we give you an inch you’ll take a mile, I don’t blame him for being a stickler on that.
Northdallass said “”Also, CP noting the similiarity between his relationship and Jonathon and David isn’t a claim to be religious anymore than my noting I’m like Jesus in promoting “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a claim that I’m religious.”
Of course, the little issue of the commitment ceremony he’s describing is conveniently left aside.”.
LOL, Northdallass, a committment ceremony doesn’te equate to a declaration of religiousity – atheists get married and have committment ceremonies.
Northdallass said “Then you are declaring that Timothy’s Ex-Gay Watch, Soulforce, and numerous other gay “religious” organizations are wrong when they state that the Bible should not be used to justify killing or harming gays and that Jesus counseled mercy and acceptance to ALL, including gays.”.
No, I’d agree with them entirely that the buy-bull should not be used to justify killing or harming gays. However, that is not to say that the buy-bull itself doesn’t call for the murder of gays, obviously it does and many, if not most Christians would agree that that’s what Leviticus says even though most of them lie and say the buy-bull says that is to be ignored. And Jesus never said anything about gays, good or bad – you’re just reading into it what you’d like it to say so you can ignore what it does say, you cafeteria “Christian” you.
And yes, anyone that believes in a literal buy-bull, that a just and loving god eternally tortures his intentionally imperfect creations for behaving exactly as he knew they would, a god who lets belief in him and his religion of preference be debatable and eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise, is someone I’d be concerned about being around or having in any position of authority or influence.
Having said that, gay accepting Christians and anti-gay Christians are a bit like Republicans and Democrats. We’re much better off with gay accepting Christians and Democrats, or at least they are they lesser of two evils.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, when I first pointed that out you called it “spin”, now you admit what it really means
Actually, I already made this point clear.
And there you spin again, Randi, trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have called religious people things like “idiotic” and “superstitious”, “ignorant”, and so forth — which, by your logic, would “mitigate” their condemning you to hell.
Instead of admitting to your hate speech and namecalling of religious people, you tried to spin away from it.
And really, that’s why I think it entirely possible that you would assault, and likely HAVE assaulted, people physically. You simply have not demonstrated that you are capable, either of controlling your emotions and actions, or exercising any degree of responsibility for your actions. You blame others almost constantly for your words, your behaviors, and your beliefs — and these are people who are ultimately quite dangerous to be around, because they can always find a reason for actions that border on and cross into the psychotic.
For example (emphasis mine):
CP said “ND30 the asshole”, not “you’re an asshole” – technically you lied when you claimed to quote him saying “you’re an asshole”. Its a minor point, but as we’ve seen with you if we give you an inch you’ll take a mile, I don’t blame him for being a stickler on that.
Again, even though you admit something is a “minor point”, you must launch full-scale war, not “giving an inch” — and for what? To avoid having to criticize another gay person or admit that another gay person did something wrong.
Again, this can be useful in one respect; you quite often speak before thinking.
And Jesus never said anything about gays, good or bad – you’re just reading into it what you’d like it to say so you can ignore what it does say, you cafeteria “Christian” you.
Remember my original statement?
Then you are declaring that Timothy’s Ex-Gay Watch, Soulforce, and numerous other gay “religious” organizations are wrong when they state that the Bible should not be used to justify killing or harming gays and that Jesus counseled mercy and acceptance to ALL, including gays.
So you are stating that these organizations “read into the Bible what they want it to say” and should be disparaged as “cafeteria Christians”.
And then, I thought this was the most revealing part of your screed:
a god who lets belief in him and his religion of preference be debatable and eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise
Interesting. So you expect God to compel us to believe in him, and the fact that He allows us to make up our own minds whether to reject Him or not is wrong?
As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 21:31b – 32, the simple fact of the matter is that there will always be those who have seen, but choose not to believe. It’s a fact of existence.
True, there are always going to be those like yourself who want to have their cake and eat it too; however, God takes the logical tack of accepting what you say about Him at face value. You didn’t want Him around; He’s not going to force the issue, now or in the hereafter. It’s less a question of God torturing people in the afterlife than it is people realizing that an afterlife without God IS torture. But again, you were told, and you exercised your choice not to believe and not to accept.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”
After initially denying it you’ve acknowledged “every manner possible” MEANS physical assault, murder, sexual assault, rape, breaking bones, slashing, cutting, punching, kicking, shooting, etc.
That was a vicious lie and you can’t deny it. THAT’s hate speech and unfortunately its typical of the way you treat LGBTs.
Northdallass said “Instead of admitting to your hate speech and namecalling of religious people, you tried to spin away from it. And really, that’s why I think it entirely possible that you would assault, and likely HAVE assaulted, people physically.”.
Now you’re projecting your own actions and beliefs on me. Unlike you, I’ve never denied my actions and words – you repeatedly deny your lies even when your face is rubbed in it and then you try to cover your original lies with even more outrageous lies. If you believe that people who deny their words would and have physically assaulted others then clearly you are referrring to yourself. By my count you’ve lied at least 14 times in this thread alone.
And talk about psychotic, you said “even though you admit something is a “minor point”, you must launch full-scale war, not “giving an inch””. In your twisted mind asking you to make sure your claimed quotes are exactly what’s been said is
an all out war – PUH-LEEZE. That epitomizes you, someone asks you to speak the literal truth and that’s an all out war to you. And my words were “if we give you an inch”, not “not “giving an inch””.
Northdallass said “So you are stating that these organizations “read into the Bible what they want it to say” and should be disparaged as “cafeteria Christians”.”.
I’m saying ALL Christians read into the buy-bull what they want it to say and are cafeteria christians – of course how could they not be given the insantity and contradictions it contains. Nevertheless, the passages condemning gays are not directly contradicted any where else in the buy-bull and those claiming the buy-bull isn’t anti-gay are taking it less literally than Christians who do.
Northdallass said “So you expect God to compel us to believe in him, and the fact that He allows us to make up our own minds whether to reject Him or not is wrong?”.
No, the idea that he eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise is wrong.
Northdallass said “the simple fact of the matter is that there will always be those who have seen, but choose not to believe. It’s a fact of existence.”
LOL, what bullshit. NO ONE has seen, that’s a fact. If your god were to show up and start shuffling around skyscrapers and mountains throughout the world, take over all tv and radio stations and newspapers, appear there and in the skies to everyone and pronounce that he exists I seriously doubt anyone would think otherwise. The fact is that there’s no more evidence for the existence of your god then there is for leprechauns and the tooth fairy – and he deserves the same amount of credibility.
Northdallass said “It’s less a question of God torturing people in the afterlife than it is people realizing that an afterlife without God IS torture”.
LOL, again with the bullshit – you truly are a cafeteria Christian. Most Christians believe in a literal hell as the buy-bull tells them. Mark 9: 43-49
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. Everyone will be salted with fire.”
Of course lying is just the way you do things as we’ve seen over and over and over. Your hatred of LGBTs consumes you and you clearly are without conscience.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think this best needs to be taken in reverse.
If your god were to show up and start shuffling around skyscrapers and mountains throughout the world, take over all tv and radio stations and newspapers, appear there and in the skies to everyone and pronounce that he exists I seriously doubt anyone would think otherwise.
Well, unfortunately, as the New Testament points out, even though Jesus was doing the equivalent for the first century AD — feeding multitudes, casting out demons, healing the incurable, even raising people from the dead — people still didn’t believe.
If there’s one thing meeting you has done for me, Randi, it’s been to give me enormous insight into the psychology of those who saw Jesus raise the dead, give sight to the blind, etc…..and still didn’t believe.
And that is also why I think it perfectly possible that you’ve physically assaulted people, just as it is obvious that you’ve verbally assaulted them; there literally is nothing that you cannot rationalize doing.
posted by Elais on
NorthDallasThirty
It seems you have proven that there is literally nothing YOU YOURSELF cannot rationalize in order to demonize ‘gay left’.
Can you list all the things the GOP have done and will do to advance gay rights? Or will you continue to be a Stepin Fetchit for the GOP in the hopes they will give you a crumb of rights?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I told Northdallass “If your god were to show up and start shuffling around skyscrapers and mountains throughout the world, take over all tv and radio stations and newspapers, appear there and in the skies to everyone and pronounce that he exists I seriously doubt anyone would think otherwise.”
Northdallass said “Well, unfortunately, as the New Testament points out, even though Jesus was doing the equivalent for the first century AD — feeding multitudes, casting out demons, healing the incurable, even raising people from the dead — people still didn’t believe.”.
Oh, bullshit, none of that ever happened, that’s why people didn’t and don’t believe in your fairy tales. You’ve got as much proof for those events taking place as there is proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, leprechauns, Zeus, Thor, and Apollo. And your myths deserve to be considered in that light. I hereby spit in your god’s eye and command him to strike me dead this very minute, or have his non-existence soundly demonstrated.
Northdallass said “I think it perfectly possible that you’ve physically assaulted people, just as it is obvious that you’ve verbally assaulted them; there literally is nothing that you cannot rationalize doing.”.
Calling you out on your lies and pointing out the foolishness of your fairtale beliefs is not a verbal assault. By the same token I think that is perfectly possible that you’ve physically assaulted people, or that anyone has, the problem is you claimed I DID. You said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”
– that’s an outrageous lie and its pretty clear you’re the one on the verge of losing control and physically assaulting people for taking umbrage to your lies. Your twisted rationalizations for violence are clear for all to see.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, bullshit, none of that ever happened,
Thank you for demonstrating my point — namely that, regardless of what happens, there are always going to be people who, for reasons of their own, disbelieve.
I hereby spit in your god’s eye and command him to strike me dead this very minute, or have his non-existence soundly demonstrated.
Good thing that I prayed to Him to preserve your life despite your insult, then. 🙂
But that also demonstrates God’s superiority over you, Randi; you would have struck the person who insulted you dead.
Calling you out on your lies and pointing out the foolishness of your fairtale beliefs is not a verbal assault.
Ah, if only that’s what you were doing. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Can you list all the things the GOP have done and will do to advance gay rights?
Well, we need to clarify some things first, elias.
Do you consider this to be “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
Do you consider this to be doing something for gays?
And finally, do you see this as being right?
Remember, these are people on whom was spent tens of millions of dollars by the gay community and who were given unqualified endorsement as “pro-gay’ and “gay-supportive”.
Now, are those actions, which represent the Democrat Party and its true beliefs about gays, “pro-gay” and “advancing gay rights”?
If so, then we can go into detail about Republicans. If not, then it seems odd that you would worry so much about Republicans when homophobia is so rampant in your own party.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Thank you for demonstrating my point — namely that, regardless of what happens, there are always going to be people who, for reasons of their own, disbelieve.”.
I hate to break it to you Northdallass, but I haven’t seen any miracles, so my disbelief doesn’t prove that
“regardless of what happens” there are people who disbelieve. You don’t know anyone who’s seen miracles and disbelieves – once again you’re making up stuff to support your own fragile belief in fairy tales. All I need to believe anything is sufficient evidence. Have your god raise up my long dead father, and make my aged mother 30 years younger and then you’ll have convinced me. Until then take you religion and stuff it.
Northdallass said “Good thing that I prayed to Him to preserve your life despite your insult, then.”.
Now that really made me laugh! Unfortunately you missed all the times prior to that that I’ve done the same thing – tell me, how are the actions of the god you prayed to significantly different from one that does not exist? Lots of people pray to god to have sick people cured and when someone with cancer goes into remission people like you claim it was god’s doing. If god sometimes cures sick people, tell me, why does god never cure amputees?
Northdallass said “But that also demonstrates God’s superiority over you, Randi; you would have struck the person who insulted you dead.”.
You lie yet again, under no circumstances would I physically attack anyone for mere words – words can never justify a physical attack, that’s a huge barrier that I will not cross. However as we’ve seen with you that’s not the case. You lied saying “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.” – you imagine words are physical assaults and don’t see a solid barrier between mere words and physical violence. Its only a matter of time until you assault or kill someone merely for disagreeing with your lies, if you haven’t already.
And if you had to convince your god not to kill me that shows he could have gone either way – hardly a paragon of virtue.
I told Northdallass “Calling you out on your lies and pointing out the foolishness of your fairtale beliefs is not a verbal assault.”
Northdallass responds “Ah, if only that’s what you were doing.”
So in other words, you claim you weren’t lying when you said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives”, when you said I have multiple sex partners, when you said I “demand to have public sex whenever and wherever” – prove it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Now, are those actions, which represent the Democrat Party and its true beliefs about gays, “pro-gay” and “advancing gay rights”?”.
Northdallass, prior to DADT gays couldn’t serve in the military at all – that was an incremental improvement for gay rights.
Democrats prevented and continue to prevent the pasage of a federal marriage amendment banning equal marriage, that is an improvement for gay rights. While democrats have taken many anti-gay stands, not nearly as much as Republicans. ENDA and a complete opening of the right of gays to serve in the military have a chance of passage now with Democrats controlling the legislative bodies – as elias asks, what have the republicans done or will they do to advance gay rights, HMMMM?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You lie yet again, under no circumstances would I physically attack anyone for mere words – words can never justify a physical attack, that’s a huge barrier that I will not cross.
I think you forgot the “spit in his eye” part — which qualifies as a physical assault.
But what I think is funny is this, Randi; if you claim that what you did is “mere words” and that you would never physically attack one over them, why then, should God bother striking YOU down over them — especially when it’s only yourself you’re hurting?
I hate to break it to you Northdallass, but I haven’t seen any miracles, so my disbelief doesn’t prove that “regardless of what happens” there are people who disbelieve.
Of course not, Randi; you deny that ANYTHING could be a miracle. Nothing in your life ever happens that could even be remotely unexplained.
If god sometimes cures sick people, tell me, why does god never cure amputees?
Again, how do you know He hasn’t?
But that’s a good example of your inability to believe, Randi; it wouldn’t be good enough that someone is cured of cancer, it would have to be that someone regrew a hand right before your eyes. And even then, I have no doubt you’d blame it on a hallucination.
And as for your second post…..wow. You claim DADT was pro-gay and that Dems don’t support the FMA, even when given clear evidence of it.
Perhaps that’s because you’re still desperately trying to explain why lesbian Hilary Rosen, gay Andrew Tobias, and their organizations (HRC and the DNC) are giving money to a FMA supporter.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “I think you forgot the “spit in his eye” part — which qualifies as a physical assault.”.
Oh, poor little boy, I hate to burst your bubble, but one can’t assault an imaginary character…don’t cry, be a big boy, there’s no such thing as god and you’re big enough to face that now.
Northdallass said “if you claim that what you did is “mere words” and that you would never physically attack one over them, why then, should God bother striking YOU down over them — especially when it’s only yourself you’re hurting”.
If your buy-bull was true he’s psychotic, angry, and out of control – of course he’d kill me for showing contempt. You claimed yourself to believe it was only because of your interference that he didn’t. Your god claims to punish and kill innocent people regularly, the buy-bull says he’s killed people for far less than my words. The real reason why you claimed to pray to spare my life is you wanted an excuse for the inaction we both knew was inevitable. We’ve seen from your lie you’d love to see me harmed:
“since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”
Northdallass said “you deny that ANYTHING could be a miracle. Nothing in your life ever happens that could even be remotely unexplained.”.
Again with the willful blindness and lies – I made no such denial. Reread my posts at March 17, 2007, 1:35pm and March 18, 2007, 12:31pm. I gave you a number of miracles there I would find convincing. You claimed Jesus raised people from the dead, have at it tonight, say your little prayers and let’s see my father alive and well tomorrow, then I’ll get on my knees and pray and phone you up and thank you for leading me to Jesus.
Northdallass said “how do you know He hasn’t[cured amputees]?”.
It’d be all over the news if he had – you got any examples you want to show me? I didn’t think so.
Northdallass said “You claim DADT was pro-gay and that Dems don’t support the FMA, even when given clear evidence of it.”.
I never said all Democrats were against the FMA, just a lot more of them then Republicans, hence the religious conservatives wailing that they’ll never get it through now that the legislative bodies are controlled by the Democrats.
Northdallass said “Perhaps that’s because you’re still desperately trying to explain why lesbian Hilary Rosen, gay Andrew Tobias, and their organizations (HRC and the DNC) are giving money to a FMA supporter.”.
Never heard of them or anything about them. If the alternative was an FMA supporting Republican, so what, and if not, then it was wrong but it doesn’t change the fact that more Democrats oppose the FMA then Republicans and in general gays are better off with Democrats. And I certainly wouldn’t call DADT pro-gay, it was less anti-gay and an incremental improvement.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If your buy-bull was true he’s psychotic, angry, and out of control – of course he’d kill me for showing contempt.
You mean, if your reading of it was correct.
But as you’ve already admitted, you ignore anything positive about God and focus only on that which you think confirms your prejudices about Him.
You claimed Jesus raised people from the dead, have at it tonight, say your little prayers and let’s see my father alive and well tomorrow, then I’ll get on my knees and pray and phone you up and thank you for leading me to Jesus.
LOL….please. Plenty before you already tried that (Luke 4: 1 – 13, Matthew 27: 37 – 43), and it didn’t work then, either.
Probably because God knows full well a) that people who keep using the “if you’d do this, I’d” excuse have a habit of changing their condition when actually given what they want and b) there’s a good reason for Him not to do it.
In short, Jesus wasn’t going to waste the effort showing off for the devil, who already knew full well who He was, or for the chief priests, who had already seen several of His miracles — and especially not when the salvation of the whole world was at stake.
And in your specific case, you’ve already denied God’s other miracles (“none of that never happened”), what should make us think you wouldn’t do the same now? If you saw your father alive tomorrow morning, you’d check yourself into the mental institution and claim you were hallucinating. It’s simply not in your programming to acknowledge God in any way, shape, or fashion.
For example:
It’d be all over the news if he had – you got any examples you want to show me? I didn’t think so.
What if it happened 800 years ago?
And finally this:
Never heard of them or anything about them.
Denial suits you, Randi; however, denial doesn’t work when you were clearly given the link. You just aren’t capable of admitting that a lesbian leader of HRC like Hilary Rosen gives money to FMA supporters — and that DNC treasurer Andrew Tobias supports these FMA supporters as “pro-gay” and “advancing gay rights”, because the Democrat Party supports them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you ignore anything positive about God and focus only on that which you think confirms your prejudices about Him.”
In other words Charles Manson and Ted Bundy were really nice to their mothers so we’re unjustifiably harsh when we criticize their murderous rampages. Your god heardened Pharoah’s heart so he wouldn’t let the Jews go and then your god killed all the first born egyptians because pharoah wouldn’t let the jews go – no matter how you twist and spin there’s no justifying your god’s evil acts. Your god punishes children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father – he’s a despicable character.
Northdallass said “Plenty before you already tried that (Luke 4: 1 – 13, Matthew 27: 37 – 43), and it didn’t work then, either.”.
Quoting the buy-bull doesn’t prove anything, any one can write whatever BS he wants on paper, the mere fact that writing says something doesn’t make it true. What makes you think Christianity is the one true religion and not Hinduism? Or the religion of Zeus? Or the flying spagetti monster? They all have the same ‘proof’ of their validity – words on paper.
Northdallass said “In short, Jesus wasn’t going to waste the effort showing off for the devil…”.
LOL, but Jesus is supposed to be god and god DID showoff for the Devil when he bet the Devil that he couldn’t torment Job enough to make him renounce god. If your Jesus/god thought it a waste of time to show off for the devil, his encouraging the torment of Job was pointless and evil.
Northdallass said ” in your specific case, you’ve already denied God’s other miracles (“none of that never happened”), what should make us think you wouldn’t do the same now?”.
What proof have you given me that those supposed miracles took place? Anyone can write fiction. Why should I believe something I’ve never seen to be possible took place over believing that people write fiction which I’ve seen countless times? How do you know it wasn’t all just made up like you christians claim all the other thousands of religions are? That’s the far far more likely explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and stories on paper don’t even remotely cut it.
Northdallass said “It’s simply not in your programming to acknowledge God in any way, shape, or fashion.”.
So in other words you’re claiming I don’t have free will. Bzzzz! Wrong answer! You even claimed yourself that your god put free will in my programming. Show me the evidence instead of whining that I wouldn’t believe anyway – you can’t read minds and see the future, yet you lie and claim to be able to. See the problem here is that you were claiming I had proven that people will refuse to believe regardless of what miracles they see. I haven’t seen any miracles yet, I’m waiting…
Northdallass said “What if it [the cure of amputees] happened 800 years ago?”.
“if” is not proof. Why should anyone believe your baseless assertion anymore than we believe the buy-bull’s story that the stars fell to the ground and people held them in their hands? Why should we believe your fairy tales anymore than in leprechauns, Zeus, and Apollo?
Northdallass said “Denial suits you, Randi; however, denial doesn’t work when you were clearly given the link. You just aren’t capable of admitting that a lesbian leader of HRC like Hilary Rosen gives money to FMA supporters — and that DNC treasurer Andrew Tobias supports these FMA supporters as “pro-gay” and “advancing gay rights”, because the Democrat Party supports them.”.
I have 5 hours of dialup per month, I don’t read all of your links. I haven’t denied anything, I simply don’t know. Regardless, what I said in my last post still stands, if the opponents of those Democrats supported the FMA your point is irrelevant, if they weren’t then it was a bad move to support anti-gay democratic candidates. In general Democrats opppose the FMA and Republicans support it. In general gays are better off with Democrats than republicans although there may be individual exceptions to this.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..you just keep digging yourself in deeper, Randi.
First, Randi, according to you, it is legitimate to murder and retaliate against someone who both threatens and actually does murder members of your family, right?
Read Exodus 1:15 – 22. Pharaoh demanded that EVERY male Israelite, regardless of where they were in the family, be killed at birth.
In contrast, God’s hand fell upon only the firstborn sons — far less than killing all the males.
According to your leftist hate morality, Randi, God would have been justified in killing every male Egyptian. But instead, He showed mercy, even to those who had relentlessly killed and oppressed His people.
Second, as far as punishment, Luke 23: 39 – 43 paints a rather contrasting picture:
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
God forgives, Randi; unfortunately, it requires an intermediate step that you’re incapable of doing, and that would be acknowledging His power and existence.
If your Jesus/god thought it a waste of time to show off for the devil, his encouraging the torment of Job was pointless and evil.
Nope — given what Job realized in Job 42.
And notice what happened next; not only did God bless Job, but He blessed him even more than before.
So in other words you’re claiming I don’t have free will. Bzzzz! Wrong answer! You even claimed yourself that your god put free will in my programming.
Wiring, yes. Programming, no. 🙂
In your case, Randi, you’ve used your free will to lock yourself into denial mode.
I’ve already showed you miracles in the Bible; you simply found an excuse to deny them. Just as you come up with excuses to deny the behavior of gays and lesbians like Hilary Rosen and Andrew Tobias. In both cases, you’ve locked yourself into ideological denial (there is no god, glbts are always right), and you do everything within your power to ignore, deny, and attack anyone who would disagree.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, that was prior to the birth of Moses and the threat was never carried out just as your god supposedly knew it wouldn’t be. When Moses was an adult your god hardened pharoah’s heart so he wouldn’t let the Jews go and then killed all the firstborn as punishment for what he made pharoah do. That’s anything but merciful given that he’s the one that forced pharoah to act that way. If your god hadn’t interfered with pharoah’s free will he may have let the Jews go of his own accord, and if your god was going to take away his free will he could have softened his heart so that he let the jews go instead of your god killing all those innocent people.
Northdallass said “according to you, it is legitimate to murder and retaliate against someone who both threatens and actually does murder members of your family, right?”.
Not quite. Its legitimate to murder in self-defense of murder If your family is already dead its too late to justify self-defense, and a mere threat doesn’t justify self-defense, there has to be a rational belief that murder is being attempted.
Northdallass said “According to your leftist hate morality, Randi, God would have been justified in killing every male Egyptian”.
LOL, I justify killing only in the case of self-defense, you praise a god killing of millions of innocents and mine is a hate morality?! Again you lie. Pharoah’s threat was decades earlier and god had no reason to believe murder was being attempted. Even if it were God would only have been justified in doing the minimum necessary to prevent it and given his supposed omnipotence that wouldn’t have required or justified any murders whatsoever.
Northdallass said “God forgives, Randi; unfortunately, it requires an intermediate step that you’re incapable of doing, and that would be acknowledging His power and existence.”.
Again, why should I acknowledge his power and existence and not the power and existence of Leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Thor, and Apollo? You’ve presented me with the same evidence for the existence of your god that I have for the existence of them.
Norhtdallass said “Nope — given what Job realized in Job 42.”.
What happened to your claim that Jesus/god leaves it up to people to choose whether or not to believe? Why is it valid for him to show Job he can do anything, to convince Job, but not valid for him to show me he can do anything, to convince me? And you said “Jesus wasn’t going to waste the effort showing off for the devil, who already knew full well who He was”, so why did Satan doubt Jesus/god’s claims about Job and Jesus/god feel a need to prove his claim? Surely he could have just demonstrated his power to Job without indulging Satan who you claim already knew the outcome.
Northdallass said “In your case, Randi, you’ve used your free will to lock yourself into denial mode.”.
Then I don’t have free will like you claim your god gave me, do I. And how would you know anyway, do have god’s power? How do you know how I’d react to actually seeing one of the miracles I described?
Northdallass said “I’ve already showed you miracles in the Bible”.
LOL, you haven’t shown me any miracles, you’ve shown me stories on paper like humans have made up for millenium, what reason do you or I have to believe these stories are the truth and not the stories about leprechauns, Thor, Zeus or Appollo?
Northdallass said “you come up with excuses to deny the behavior of gays and lesbians like Hilary Rosen and Andrew Tobias. In both cases, you’ve locked yourself into ideological denial (there is no god, glbts are always right), and you do everything within your power to ignore, deny, and attack anyone who would disagree.
I never heard of those two people so of course I can neither confirm nor deny any behavior on their part. And you lie, I never said LGBTs are always right. And if anyone attacks others it is someone like you who tells lies like this: “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible” and says “that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.“.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL Northdallass, that was prior to the birth of Moses and the threat was never carried out just as your god supposedly knew it wouldn’t be.
And there we see the denial.
Just like how Randi ignores the passage from Luke that clearly shows God’s forgiveness.
Why is it valid for him to show Job he can do anything, to convince Job, but not valid for him to show me he can do anything, to convince me?
Because you have the example of Job before you; you shouldn’t need it.
As far as how you’d react to seeing one of the miracles, I have perfect evidence — how you react to seeing the ones shown you like with Job.
Deny, spin, ignore, lie. Just like Pharaoh.
And just like you do with the clear evidence presented you about Hilary Rosen and Andrew Tobias.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, your god punishes innocent children for the sins of the father unto the fourth generation and you say I’m in denial. Your god hardens pharoah’s heart and then kills thousands if not millions of innocents because pharoah’s heart is hard and you say I’m in denial. As to your god’s forgiveness, he’s like a demented wife beater, kicking the shit out of her one day because he’s in a bad mood, and bringing home flowers the next day, acting all apologetic and promissing not to do it again, but past behavior has shown he will.
I asked Northdallass “Why is it valid for him to show Job he can do anything, to convince Job, but not valid for him to show me he can do anything, to convince me?”
Northdallass responded “Because you have the example of Job before you; you shouldn’t need it.”.
I haven’t witnessed that, I have mere words on paper as “proof” of that just like I have words on paper proving just as well the existence of the Hindu gods Gonesh, Vishnu and all the others What reason do I have to believe your words on paper and not theirs? I have just as much evidence for leprechauns and the tooth fairy as for your god, why should I believe in your god and not them?
“As far as how you’d react to seeing one of the miracles, I have perfect evidence — how you react to seeing the ones shown you like with Job.”.
Once again, I haven’t seen those miracles, all I have is easily forged claims that they happened. You don’t have any evidence as to how I’d react to actually seeing a miracle, you pretend you’re god and can predict the future and read minds.
Northdallass said “Deny, spin, ignore, lie. Just like Pharaoh. And just like you do with the clear evidence presented you about Hilary Rosen and Andrew Tobias.”
I told the truth, you can’t show otherwise. And as far as Rosen and Tobias go I never heard of them, I didn’t read your links, and as I said before therefore I can neither confirm nor deny any behavior of theirs. And for the pinacle of spin and lies no one can match you:
“since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible” and says “that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”. “she and her fellow leftists tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. “she demands to have public sex whenever and wherever”.
You’re a lying, denial, and spin machine Northdallass.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I haven’t witnessed that, I have mere words on paper as “proof” of that just like I have words on paper proving just as well the existence of the Hindu gods Gonesh, Vishnu and all the others
LOL…and there’s your problem, bigot.
Notice how you use the Bible to attempt to prove your bigoted point that God is evil and psychotic…..but spin, deny, and insist that anything that would show otherwise is just “words on paper” and, as you try to claim farther down, “easily forged”.
In short, you use the Bible as proof that God is evil and psychotic — but you denigrate it as a completely-unreliable source of proof.
That’s because you only use the portions of the Bible that you think support your hate-filled viewpoint. You lack the intellectual honesty to read or acknowledge the whole book because you know it exposes your antireligious beliefs as unjustified and based on your own personal issues that you try to blame on your being lgbt.
Meanwhile, your typical tactic of truncating quotes rears its ugly head.
“since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible” and says “that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”.
The real quote:
Since you blabber and whine that attacks on other people are “mitigated” if they are provoked, I would put it this way; since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.
In short, since you were insisting that being provoked “mitigates” any attacks, I simply pointed out that you constantly provoke others; therefore, by your own logic, their attacks on you are “mitigated”.
That’s why you left off the first part of that phrase.
And, since that demonstrates quite nicely again your lack of accuracy and bigoted view of situations, I would simply remind people — that includes the accuracy of your other “quotes”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, what I point out using your buy-bull is that the fictional god CHARACTER is evil. If you choose to believe he’s real and that I’m saying a real character is evil and psychotic that’s your problem. And once again we are left with the unanswered question, why should anyone believe in your god and not Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or leprechauns and the Tooth fairy? You’ve presented just as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for the existence of them.
Northdallass said “You lack the intellectual honesty to read or acknowledge the whole book because you know it exposes your antireligious beliefs as unjustified and based on your own personal issues that you try to blame on your being lgbt.”.
I’ve read over 3/4 of your buy-bull, that’s given me an excellent understanding of what its all about, and it contains example after example of your god character’s evil – as Dawkins said “certainly the most despicable character in all of fiction”. Obviously you’re the one in denial about the evil of your god, you can’t defend even one of the actions I’ve shown you. A god that hardens pharaoh’s heart and then kills thousands or millions because of that IS evil, you’ve tried repeatedly and failed to spin your way out of that because there’s no way you can justify it. And par for the course you lie yet again, I never said I was anti-religious because I’m LGBT, I’m anti-religious because religion is anti-LGBT – you’re still trying to put the cart before the horse and failing miserably and inevitably.
Northdallass said “you were insisting that being provoked “mitigates” any attacks“. Never said that – you lie yet again, just as you lied when you said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.“. I never physically assaulted anyone, and I’ve repeatedly made it clear that mere words never mitigate a physical assault – you are a blatant liar.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ve read over 3/4 of your buy-bull, that’s given me an excellent understanding of what its all about, and it contains example after example of your god character’s evil – as Dawkins said “certainly the most despicable character in all of fiction”.
Ah yes, Richard Dawkins….the man who insists the theory of evolution disproves the existence of God and claims that circumstantial or past evidence is not good enough to demonstrate God’s existence.
Of course, what’s funny is that, when you ask him to produce life, as he SHOULD be able to do, he wildly claims that he doesn’t need to, he can just cite circumstantial evidence that it happened, etc.
And only three-quarters….that’s no surprise. It’s not the first time you’ve commented on something without being informed.
Obviously you’re the one in denial about the evil of your god, you can’t defend even one of the actions I’ve shown you. A god that hardens pharaoh’s heart and then kills thousands or millions because of that IS evil, you’ve tried repeatedly and failed to spin your way out of that because there’s no way you can justify it.
Hmmmmmm…..Pharaoh had enslaved, threatened, and was threatening the lives of thousands, perhaps millions, of Israelites who, being slaves, were unable and incapable of defending themselves against Pharaoh’s armies.
Now, I quote from above:
Not quite. Its legitimate to murder in self-defense of murder.
Note the hypocrisy; the bigot Randi claims her murdering someone else would be justified in the name of “self-defense”, but insists that anyone ELSE who does so is “evil”.
And furthermore, there was another obvious reason; the plagues made it clear to anyone who would pursue the Israelites that “there’s more from where that came”. Indeed, there are numerous places in the Bible where it is specifically noted that people did NOT attack the Israelites because they knew and had heard of what God was capable of doing and would do to defend them.
Finally, one must always remember that God has His reasons — and, given that He’s omniscient, they have much better knowledge behind them than ours do.
I never said I was anti-religious because I’m LGBT, I’m anti-religious because religion is anti-LGBT – you’re still trying to put the cart before the horse and failing miserably and inevitably..
Ah, so now the bigot Randi is again claiming that all religion and religious people are anti-GLBT. But of course, she’s going to flip-flop and spin when her antireligious hate and bigotry are exposed again.
Never said that – you lie yet again, just as you lied when you said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”. I never physically assaulted anyone, and I’ve repeatedly made it clear that mere words never mitigate a physical assault – you are a blatant liar.
Such transparent spin, Randi, trying to divert from the clear proof of your attacks and hate speech against religious people — namely your posts.
Since you regularly insult and namecall religious people, Randi, admit now, clearly and publicly, that any such assaults they make on you are mitigated. Say it.
Also say that any physical assaults you make on another human being mitigate assaults against you physically. Say it.
And, since you and your fellow leftist gays regularly namecall and insult religious people, and even threaten them physically (like dalea’s plan to urinate and vomit on them), that mitigates any and all such actions they take against you.
posted by Rand Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Ah yes, Richard Dawkins….the man who insists the theory of evolution disproves the existence of God and claims that circumstantial or past evidence is not good enough to demonstrate God’s existence.”
LOL, “past evidence” GUFFAW! Northdallass, you don’t have any evidence, words on paper don’t prove anything. We have exactly the same evidence for the existence of your god as we do for the existence of Leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Thor, Zeus and Apollo. For the umpteenth time, given that, why should anyone believe in your god and not them? What excuse do you have for believing in the buy-bulls words on paper and not the Koran’s words on paper, or Hinduisms holy text? Why accept your “circumstancial evidence” over theirs?
Northdallass said “Note the hypocrisy; the bigot Randi claims her murdering someone else would be justified in the name of “self-defense”, but insists that anyone ELSE who does so is “evil”.”.
LOL, Northdallass, your god didn’t murder in self defense, he murdered in cold blood. Pharaoh’s threat to kill some of the Jews was decades earlier and never carried out. You’re obviously completely ignorant of the justice system. Murder is only self defense if it is NECESSARY to prevent an IMMINENT murder on you. I can just see you in court pleading self defense for killing someone because they threatened you thirty years earlier, snicker, like THAT’D fly.
And even if there were an imminent threat (which there obviously wasn’t) that pharaoh was going to kill some of the Jews your god would only be justfied in taking the MINIMUM action necessary to prevent it, which would be softening pharaoh’s heart in the same way as he hardened it as an excuse to kill all the egyptian first born. You can spin, lie and deny all you want, but there’s no evading that your god character’s actions were unjustified evil.
Northdallass said “Such transparent spin, Randi, trying to divert from the clear proof of your attacks and hate speech against religious people — namely your posts.”
See Northdallass the problem is that you lied, accusing me of physically attacking religious people. You said “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.”.
I pointed out “”Every manner possible” MEANS physical assault, murder, sexaul assault, rape, breaking bones, slashing, cutting, punching, kicking, shooting, etc.”
You admitted (eventually) “Indeed it does “. I never physically assaulted anyone and that was a vicious lie, typical of you and which takes us to this lie of yours:
“since you and your fellow leftist gays regularly namecall and insult religious people, and even threaten them physically (like dalea’s plan to urinate and vomit on them), that mitigates any and all such actions they take against you.”.
I never threatened anyone physically, I bear no responsibility for Dalea’s words. Typical of your lies, you blame innocent LGBTs for the isolated words or actions of one individual. Grow up James Hartline.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pharaoh’s threat to kill some of the Jews was decades earlier and never carried out.
Mhm; that’s why Moses’s mother, as I cited in Exodus 1, had to hide him.
What makes this really funny, bigot Randi, is that you claim someone like Pharaoh, who kept the Israelites in slavery, in inhumane conditions, regularly torturing and killing them, and demanding that all their male children be killed as a means of reducing their numbers and perpetuating them in bondage, was doing nothing wrong.
Furthermore, you notice in Exodus 1 that God already took the passive, non-attacking way of dealing with the Egyptians’ brutality; he made the Israelites more vigorous, increasing their families’ size, and protecting the midwives who disobeyed Pharaoh’s orders.
And, as I pointed out, the fact that God made an example of the Egyptians did a great deal to prevent further bloodshed against the Israelites. Indeed, if one takes the broader historical view, by limiting the power and spread of the Egyptian culture and empire, God may have been allowing other civilizations to arise and flourish.
You admitted (eventually) “Indeed it does “. I never physically assaulted anyone and that was a vicious lie, typical of you
Ah, another of your truncated quotes.
Indeed it does — if it would be possible for you to get away it, I have no doubt you would do those things.
I simply put nothing past you, Randi. We’ve already seen you go to the outer limits of verbal assault on this board, as well as your publishing of thom’s full name and private email message to you, which is a huge breach of trust and privacy on your part.
Like I said, I put nothing past you, physical assault included.
I never threatened anyone physically, I bear no responsibility for Dalea’s words. Typical of your lies, you blame innocent LGBTs for the isolated words or actions of one individual.
I think, ironically, the best way of dealing with that is your own words.
You indiscriminately blamed gays for the individual actions of Dalea when he said that bus driver might be vomitted and urinated on. You lie by ommission when you obsess over and focus on the wrongs of only gays and virtually never mention the numerous wrongs of heterosexuals.
Amusingly enough, in the two cases you cited, there was ample evidence, as I pointed out afterwards, that heterosexuals condemned and punished the heterosexual people who committed those wrongs, making it clear that that was NOT typical or acceptable heterosexual behavior.
Instead of doing the same for homosexuals, you blabber and whine that you shouldn’t be held responsible for the action of other gays — even as you were holding heterosexuals responsible for the actions of other heterosexuals.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you claim someone like Pharaoh…was doing nothing wrong.”.
You lie, I never made such a claim.
The trouble is Northdallass, what you are arguing is that if someone threatened to kill you decades earlier and even though you’ve intereacted with him regularly since then, you can claim self defense. Bzzz, wrong answer! It wouldn’t work that way for you in the justice system and it doesn’t work that way for your god. Its only self-defense if the threat is imminent and there is NO OTHER WAY to prevent the murder. That’s obviously not the case with your god and Pharoah. The threat was ancient history and your god killed hordes of innocents because he himself hardened pharoah’s heart. No matter how you spin and how you dance, your god didn’t need to murder thousands or millions of innocents to get what he wanted.
NorthDallass said “the fact that God made an example of the Egyptians did a great deal to prevent further bloodshed against the Israelites. Indeed, if one takes the broader historical view, by limiting the power and spread of the Egyptian culture and empire, God may have been allowing other civilizations to arise and flourish.”.
LOL, “allowing civilizations to flourish”, that’s hilarious given the millions including innocent women, children and babies that he killed in Deteronomy. Your god is supposed to be omnipotent, he doesn’t need to kill anyone to protect anyone! Just as he hardened Pharoah’s heart he could have softened it and any of the peoples the Jews were told to kill. Your hypocrisy is highlighted by the fact that when Afghani tribesmen skinned Christian aid workers alive you claimed it would have been wrong for god to prevent that, that doing so would have taken away people’s free will and turned us into robots. You said “God knows what every smart parent does; you can tell kids everything you want, but sometimes the only way in which they learn is when the worst happens.”.
You can’t argue that god shouldn’t prevent violence in one instance but that he should in another.
And then there’s Hosea 16:13 where your god orders pregnant women be ripped open because he allowed them the free will to believe in other gods for which they have just as much evidence as for him.
Northdallass said “if it would be possible for you to get away it, I have no doubt you would do those things.”.
Most definitely I wouldn’t and unless you’re claiming to be a god you have doubts – do you think you’re a god? Obviously another lie. And speaking of lies, this was a whopper:
“since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible, that “mitigates” any and all attacks they make on you.“. I never physically assaulted anyone, and I’ve repeatedly made it clear that mere words never mitigate a physical assault – you are a blatant liar.
Northdallass said “in the two cases you cited, there was ample evidence, as I pointed out afterwards, that heterosexuals condemned and punished the heterosexual people who committed those wrongs, making it clear that that was NOT typical or acceptable heterosexual behavior.”.
You certainly didn’t have “ample evidence”. The critics of gingrich and Swaggart likely included the same proportion of gays as is reflected in the population at large – you have no evidence to contradict that likelihood. Anecdotes of gay misbehavior doesn’t in anyway prove that such behavior is typical or acceptable amongst gays in general – if it did Swaggart, Gingrich, and the rape of a transexual and beating of gays by heterosexual cops would certainly be evidence that such behavior is typical of heterosexuals. You can’t have it both ways.
Northdallass said “Instead of doing the same for homosexuals, you blabber and whine that you shouldn’t be held responsible for the action of other gays — even as you were holding heterosexuals responsible for the actions of other heterosexuals.”.
Thanks for proving my point – you think there’s something wrong with innocent LGBTs not wanting to be blamed for the isolated behavior of an individual gay. And I most certainly did not hold heterosexuals responsible for the actions of other heterosexuals. Obviously lying is a way of life for you.
And let’s not forget the burning question from which you hide:
We have exactly the same evidence for the existence of your god as we do for the existence of Leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Thor, Zeus and Apollo. For the umpteenth time, given that, why should anyone believe in your god and not them? What excuse do you have for believing in the buy-bull’s words on paper and not the Koran’s words on paper, or Hinduism’s holy text? Why accept your “circumstancial evidence” over theirs?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You lie, I never made such a claim.
Says the bigot who is whining and crying about how unjust it was for God to punish the Egyptians, who were holding the Israelites in unwilling slavery, torturing them, forcing them into inhumane conditions, and ordering that every male child born be killed as a means of reducing their numbers — aka genocide.
Of course, we know the reason for your coverup and cowardice; unless you hide what Pharaoh was doing, your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious.
Your hypocrisy is highlighted by the fact that when Afghani tribesmen skinned Christian aid workers alive you claimed it would have been wrong for god to prevent that, that doing so would have taken away people’s free will and turned us into robots.
not exactly.
First, as I pointed out:
But as for why it happened, telling an omniscient being that they are wrong for allowing it to happen when you are emphatically NOT omniscient is foolish.
Furthermore:
This act brought into stark relief what the Taliban really were — brutal, cold-blooded killers who would torture and maim even the innocent. It also brought global attention to what exactly they were doing and what they believed, and a worldwide outcry to stop it and punish them. Because of that, nations joined together to kick out and hold back the Taliban — and due to that, many, many more people have been spared the fate of these workers.
Next:
Thanks for proving my point – you think there’s something wrong with innocent LGBTs not wanting to be blamed for the isolated behavior of an individual gay.
Actually, no; I’m a big supporter of the fact that I shouldn’t be held responsible because you falsely attribute your antireligious bigotry and hate behavior to your sexual orientation.
But the problem is, Randi, you’re not an “innocent gay”. You support and encourage antireligious bigots like dalea and their assaults. You yourself verbally (and likely physically) assault religious people. You simply are doing what you’ve likely done since the schoolyard and blaming others for your misbehavior when you get caught.
One more thing that I thought was interesting from that particular thread:
Isn’t it again amazing how the antireligious bigot Randi can mouth such pious pronouncements as “two wrongs don’t make a right” or state that retaliation is “wrong” — but then find ways to justify her OWN retaliation and hate-flinging, as well as that of her fellow leftists like dalea, as being right?
Leftist Randi claims that people have a “moral obligation” to prevent “evil acts” if they can do so. But as we see, that doesn’t even apply to her own mouth — or to her fellow gay leftists.
Why accept your “circumstancial evidence” over theirs?
Because, silly bigot Randi, as I cited above, you demand that we accept YOURS:
Ah yes, Richard Dawkins….the man who insists the theory of evolution disproves the existence of God and claims that circumstantial or past evidence is not good enough to demonstrate God’s existence.
Of course, what’s funny is that, when you ask him to produce life, as he SHOULD be able to do, he wildly claims that he doesn’t need to, he can just cite circumstantial evidence that it happened, etc.
That’s why I didn’t get too excited over your Sam Harris link that you sent me in email; militant atheism is just another religion, albeit one in which its followers put Islam to shame in terms of supporting hate speech and actions against “infidels”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Says the bigot who is whining and crying about how unjust it was for God to punish the Egyptians, who were holding the Israelites in unwilling slavery, torturing them, forcing them into inhumane conditions, and ordering that every male child born be killed as a means of reducing their numbers — aka genocide..
You can’t blame and punish the Egyptians for the acts of pharaoh, that is most definitely unjust. Again, contrary to your lie I never said Pharoah was doing nothing wrong. And again, Pharaoh’s threat to kill jews was never carried out, it was ancient history and it was your god who hardened pharaoh’s heart to keep the Jews enslaved and as such your god killed thousands if not millions of innocents for an act he was ultimately responsible for. Your god could have softened pharaoh’s heart, he didn’t need to kill pharoah, let alone any innocent Egyptians. No matter how you twist, spin, and dance you can’t get away from that one.
And you most certainly did claim it would have been wrong for god to prevent the afghani’s from skinning the Christians alive because doing so would have taken away people’s free will and turned us into robots.
I said “If I were omnipotent I can assure you no one would be murdered, harmed, or skinned alive. As a moral being I simply couldn’t allow it. Your god’s inaction can only be justified by his non-existence.” and you responded “Then humanity would be nothing but mere dependent puppets, helpless to reason, think, or do anything.”
Northdallass said “and due to that, many, many more people have been spared the fate of these workers.”.
Poppycock, the violence is ongoing in Afghanistan and even if it weren’t your god is supposed to be omnipotent, he most definitely didn’t need to allow this horror to prevent further violence. If he was willing to take the hugely invasive interference in human affairs of killing all the Egyptian first born he could have taken the far less invasive action of softening people’s hearts to prevent violence altogether. You can’t justify your god’s interfering in one instance and not another and you can’t justfy him supposedly using violence to stop violence when he doesn’t need to.
Northdallass said “Actually, no; I’m a big supporter of the fact that I shouldn’t be held responsible because you falsely attribute your antireligious bigotry and hate behavior to your sexual orientation.”.
You lie, I never attributed my being anti-religious to my sexual orientation. I’m anti-religious because religion in general is anti-LGBT. You keep tryint to put the cart before the horse and failing miserably and inevitably.
No one’s holding your responsible for my actions but you insist I be held responsible for Dalea’s vomit/urinate comment. You said “you blabber and whine that you shouldn’t be held responsible for the action of other gays”. Again your morality is subjective, no one should hold you responsible for the actions of others, but you say there’s something wrong with me not wanting to be held responsible for the actions of others.
Northdallass said “But the problem is, Randi, you’re not an “innocent gay”. You support and encourage antireligious bigots like dalea and their assaults. You yourself verbally (and likely physically) assault religious people.”
I absolutely am innocent of Dalea’s comment and I said that was wrong and you lie when you say I supported his comment. Pointing out the folly of religion is not a verbal assault, its reality and I most certainly do not physically assault people although you lied and said I did: “since you are bigoted and prejudiced against heterosexuals and religious people and repeatedly assault them in every manner possible”
Northdallass said “Randi can mouth such pious pronouncements as “two wrongs don’t make a right” or state that retaliation is “wrong” — but then find ways to justify her OWN retaliation and hate-flinging, as well as that of her fellow leftists like dalea, as being right”
I never said Dalea’s comments were right, you lie. Unlike you my responses are measured truth, its you who responds unjustly with character assassination and lies like “she demands public sex whenever and wherever”, she has “sex partnerS” and “no doubt you would say the afghani tribesmen were justfied in skinning the Christians alive because the ‘attacked them'”.
And laughably, when asked for the umpteenth time why, when given the same evidence, anyone should believe in his god and not the tooth fairy, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus, or Appollo; why anyone should accept his “circumstancial evidence” over the “circumstanial evidence” of the Koran, or Hinduisms’ holy text he pathetically responds:
“Because, silly bigot Randi, as I cited above, you demand that we accept YOURS:”
For starters, I never demanded that you accept my viewpoint, you lie yet again. But of course, even if I did that in no way justifies your belief in the buy-bull over the Koran or Hinduism’s holy text. You still have the same evidence for the existence of god as for the tooth fairy, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus, and Apollo and you still haven’t answered the question: Why believe in your god and not in them?
Why believe in Christianity and not Islam, or Hinduism?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And you most certainly did claim it would have been wrong for god to prevent the afghani’s from skinning the Christians alive because doing so would have taken away people’s free will and turned us into robots.
Mhm. That’s why I put so much effort into linking to the actual statement.
Of course, when you were cornered on that, you tried another one, again without links.
And again, bigot Randi, you try to argue that any action against Pharaoh was unjustified because — you claim — he only “threatened” to kill all Israelite male babies.
Let me remind you of your previous statement:
Absolutely, if someone threatened me with murder I would do my best to kill them first. That is perfectly moral.
Again, the hypocrisy typical of Randi; she calls her own actions “moral”, but insists that others who do the same thing are “evil”.
You can’t justify your god’s interfering in one instance and not another and you can’t justfy him supposedly using violence to stop violence when he doesn’t need to.
Of course I can. He’s omniscient, which means He knows far better what to do than I do.
Again your morality is subjective, no one should hold you responsible for the actions of others, but you say there’s something wrong with me not wanting to be held responsible for the actions of others.
LOL….the difference is that I don’t want to be held responsible for the behaviors of people whose behaviors I have condemned. You don’t want to be held accountable for the behaviors of people whose behaviors you have supported.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, your first two links have NOTHING to do with the fact that you claimed god couldn’t intervene because that would take away free will. Your idea of having “cornered” someone is hilarious. I’ll bet when you hang around in straight bars and get your ass kicked you think you’re a hero too.
When I suggested to you that your god prevent violence you said “Then humanity would be nothing but mere dependent puppets, helpless to reason, think, or do anything.” – I dare you to deny it.
You can’t say your god should act to prevent violence in one instance and not another.
And as to my statement that I would kill in self-defense that means if my life was in immediate danger and there was no other alternative to saving my life. That’s the way the justice sytem works and that’s the way justice works for your god too. The jews were not in immediate danger from a decades old threat that was never carried out and in any event your god certainly didn’t need to kill anyone especially when he himself hardened Pharaoh’s heart so Pharoah wouldn’t let the Jews go. Your god character was directly responsible for Pharaoh refusing to free the Jews, his murder of thousands or millions of innocents was totally unjustified. You don’t need to be omniscient to know that no deaths are better than many deaths and that if your god truly was omnipotent that he could have favoured the Jews without killing anyone.
And of course your helpless to defend the actions of your god when he brags about punishing children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father, or Hosea 16:13 where your god orders pregnant women be ripped open because he allowed them the free will to believe in other gods for which they have just as much evidence as for him.
Northdallass said “He’s omniscient, which means He knows far better what to do than I do.”.
LOL, obviously he doesn’t know better than most of us! The crusades, two world wars, the former Yugoslavia, the Holocaust, the world threatening itself with self-destruction as nuclear weapons and other WMDs proliferate, supposedly the vast majority of humanity that ever lived being eternally tortured, and your god knows better?! Give me a break! If your god is responsible for this its time he was fired for gross and indecent mismangement.
Northdallass said “the difference is that I don’t want to be held responsible for the behaviors of people whose behaviors I have condemned. You don’t want to be held accountable for the behaviors of people whose behaviors you have supported.”.
Thanks for proving what a hypocrite you are. You lied saying “you and your fellow leftist gays regularly namecall and insult religious people, and even threaten them physically (like dalea’s plan to urinate and vomit on them).
I said Dalea was wrong to make that comment and you repeatedly try to blame me for it. Once again, no one should blame you for what you haven’t done and have condemned, but you don’t hesitate to blame me for what I haven’t done and have condemned. Once again, your morality is subjective, its wrong if someone does it to you, but its right if you do the same thing to me.
Once again, there is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus and Apollo as there is for your god. What reason do you have to believe in your god and not them? Islam, Hinduism have the exact same “proof” of their being true as Christianity (words on paper), what reason do you have to choose Christianity over them? And please, no pathetic “you told me not to believe in any of them so that means Christianity must be true”. Go on, admit it, you have no reason to believe in your god over any of the aforementioned.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You don’t need to be omniscient to know that no deaths are better than many deaths and that if your god truly was omnipotent that he could have favoured the Jews without killing anyone.
LOL….being omniscient means that you know what the best outcome is regardless of the situation.
Once again, though, the bigot Randi is insisting that SHE always knows best — which is what I think the real problem is here.
For example:
And of course your helpless to defend the actions of your god when he brags about punishing children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father, or Hosea 16:13 where your god orders pregnant women be ripped open because he allowed them the free will to believe in other gods for which they have just as much evidence as for him.
That’s a neat trick, considering the Book of Hosea has only 14 chapters.
We already know that the bigot Randi ignores the sections of the Bible that don’t fit her prejudices.
Now, it seems, she’s making up new ones to justify them.
I think the lesson here is clear; the bigot Randi sees what she wants to see, all in an attempt to make the Bible prove her prejudices and bigotry.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “LOL….being omniscient means that you know what the best outcome is regardless of the situation.”.
LOL, Northdallass, you don’t need to be omnisicent to know that 2+2=4 and no murders are better than many murders and that if your god hardened Pharoah’s heart so pharaoh wouldn’t let the Jews go that it was evil of your god to kill millions of innocents because pharaoh wouldn’t let the Jews go. You don’t need to be omniscient to know that an omnipotent god doesn’t need to let Afghani tribesmen skin anyone alive to prevent future violence, which in any event he hasn’t prevented anyway.
Northdallass said “That’s a neat trick, considering the Book of Hosea has only 14 chapters….Now, it seems, she’s making up new ones to justify them.”
LOL, Northdallass, a mere typo on my part. But of course knowing the buy-bull as well as I knew it contains no end of horros like in Hosea 13:16 where your god orders pregnant women be ripped open because he allowed them the free will to believe in other gods for which they have just as much evidence as for him. Not to mention your god punishing innocent children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father.
And of course Northdallass never acknowledges his double standard of insisting he shouldn’t be held responsible for the wrongs of others he condemns but then tries to hold me responsible for Dalea’s vomit/urinate comment which I condemned – you slimy hypocrite.
And like the sniveling weasel you are you continue to hide from the fact that there is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus and Apollo as there is for your god. What reason do you have to believe in your god and not them? Islam, Hinduism have the exact same “proof” of their being true as Christianity (words on paper), what reason do you have to choose Christianity over them? And don’t give me that laughable excuse of “I believe in “A” instead of “B” or “C” because you told me to believe in “D””. Admit it, you have no reason to believe in your god over any of the aforementioned.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A “mere typo”, repeated multiple times.
But now the bigot Randi shows her hypocrisy even more with the correct quote:
But of course knowing the buy-bull as well as I knew it contains no end of horros like in Hosea 13:16 where your god orders pregnant women be ripped open because he allowed them the free will to believe in other gods for which they have just as much evidence as for him.
Actually, what God is saying in that quote is, “You chose to reject me and believe in other gods; let them protect you now.” And he accurately states what will happen to them.
What we have here is equivalent to you, Randi, rejecting God, spitting in God’s face, and turning your back on him. What makes it even funnier is that you hypocritically demand that He is “evil” for not protecting you when you specifically rejected and disavowed his protection.
In short, why should God protect those who choose not to believe in Him? Like He says in verses 4 – 6, He brought them out of Egypt, He took care of them in the wilderness, and He gave them their lands — yet they choose not to believe. He even sent Hosea to tell them, “Look, unless you turn back to the Lord, this is what will happen.” But they, like the bigot Randi, are too consumed with worshiping themselves and are too convinced that they know everything — and, it seems, they paid for it.
And like the sniveling weasel you are you continue to hide from the fact that there is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy, leprechauns, Thor, Zeus and Apollo as there is for your god.
And yet the bigot Randi refuses to produce life from random chemical mixtures, which is her proof that there is no god.
Isn’t it amusing how she denigrates everyone else’s religious beliefs based on her own — but refuses to provide the proof she demands from others?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Actually, what God is saying in that quote is, “You chose to reject me and believe in other gods; let them protect you now.””.
And of course you lie yet again. Nowhere in Hosea 13 does it say that. What your god says is “I will come upon you like a lion, or a leopard lurking along the road. I will rip you to pieces like a bear whose cubs have been taken away and like a lion I will devour you.” and “O Death, bring forthyour terrors for his tasting! O brave, demonstrate your plagues because I (repeat) I will not relent…Samaria must bear her guilt for she has rebelled against her god”. Obviously your god is taking responsibility for for what happens to the pregnant women and you are once again reading in what isn’t there and ignoring what is.
Northdallass said “you hypocritically demand that He is “evil” for not protecting you when you specifically rejected and disavowed his protection”.
LOL, I know religious delusions are commonly correlated with mental illness, but you demonstrate it so well. I never complained about an imaginary character not protecting me and obviously I can’t have “rejected” or “disavowed” that which an imaginary character is incapable of offering.
Northdallass said “And yet the bigot Randi refuses to produce life from random chemical mixtures, which is her proof that there is no god.”.
No, I don’t claim to have proof that there is no god of some sort, but by the same token you have no proof that my boyfriend doesn’t have an invisible magic dragon in his garage who created life. What reason do you have to believe in your god and not my boyfriend’s invisible magic dragon?
What I can tell you for sure is that there is no such god as described in Christianity. A loving and just god that allows belief in him and his religion of preference to be doubtful and then eternally tortures people for innocently believing otherwise simply cannot exist. Ditto for a loving and just god who hardens pharoah’s heart and then kills millions of innocents because pharaoh’s heart is hard. Or who allows the skinning alive of people. Or who punishes innocent children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father. Or who has armies slash open pregnant women because they innocently chose the wrong religion to believe in. I could go on…and on… and on…
Nevertheless the question remains, what rational reason do you have to believe in Christianity and not Islam, Hinduism, or Zeus or Leprechauns?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..what Chapter 13 foretells, bigot Randi, is the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians when they have rejected God’s protection.
And what you leave out is Chapter 14 — not surprisingly, because it states the exact opposite for those who accept God.
LOL, I know religious delusions are commonly correlated with mental illness, but you demonstrate it so well.
Translation: You can’t explain why you call God “evil” for not protecting people who have specifically rejected Him, told Him not to do so, and who are worshiping idols.
And yet you claim they “innocently” chose it.
Nevertheless the question remains, what rational reason do you have to believe in Christianity and not Islam, Hinduism, or Zeus or Leprechauns?
The Bible. It’s just that simple. 🙂
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, the New International Version buy-bull will makes it much clearer:
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
Your god clearly and undeniably says that pregnant women will be ripped open because they innocently believed in another religion after your god let belief in him and his religion of choice be doubtful. And according to Christian doctrine of original sin now those women’s innocent children will be eternally tortured because they weren’t baptised. Nice fellow you worship there. Gotta love how he hardens pharoah’s heart and then kills millions of innocents because pharoah’s heart is hard. And people like you teach this filth to children.
Northdallass said “You can’t explain why you call God “evil” for not protecting people who have specifically rejected Him, told Him not to do so, and who are worshiping idols.
LOL, he’s evil for killing and torturing innocents period. Any god that punishes innocent children unto the fourth generation for the sins of the father is evil.
Northdallass said “The Bible. It’s just that simple.”.
Mere words on paper Northdallass, mere words on paper – easily forged words. Again, what reason do you have to believe those words on paper and not the Koran, or Hinduism’s words on paper, or the Sihk’s words on paper? They’re just as certain their’s is the one true religion as you, why should any objective person believe you and not them?