Last week Michigan's state supreme court, upholding lower-court rulings, held that a 2004 constitutional ban on gay marriage means that state employers can't offer health insurance and other partner benefits to gay employees.
You may recall that conservatives insisted that their broadly written amendment was aimed only at same-sex marriage, not at taking away employment benefits. And that, as soon as the amendment passed, they set about taking away employment benefits. "A classic bait and switch."
But to what end? Turns out that Michigan's public universities preemptively circumvented the ruling not by shutting down partner benefits but by extending them even more broadly, to spouses and "other qualified adults"-i.e., financially interdependent cohabitants.
It's one more example of a fact that same-sex marriage opponents will not address, or even acknowledge: The real-world alternative to recognizing gay unions isn't recognizing nothing, it's recognizing everything.
103 Comments for “Switcheroo Times Two”
posted by Rob on
No problem. Those who voted for that amendment can foot the bill for the extra benefits. Maybe a tax on church estates can cover it, right NDXXX?
posted by Amicus on
In profound ways, these “super-doma” law are worse than the criminal sodomy statues …
posted by Truthteller on
So Jonathan, let me make sure I follow you. You accuse backers of the Michigan marriage amendment of a “bait and switch” move because they said (correctly) that the amendment wouldn’t take away benefits, then you admit that the amendment not only didn’t take away any benefits (just as the backers said) and in fact expanded the number of those eligible? Trying to such and blow in the same breath, aren’t you? (No pun intended)
Here’s how the American Family Association of Michigan described the amendment’s legal effect in a news release dated Sept. 28, 2004, five weeks BEFORE the November 2004 election at which the amendment was approved by Michigan voters:
—
“(Amendment co-author and AFA-Michigan President Gary) Glenn said amendment opponents falsely claim it will prevent public employers from offering employee benefits to some employees, a charge routinely parroted by newspaper editorials and media commentators.
‘Only problem is, it’s false,’ Glenn said.
The amendment doesn’t apply at all to private sector employers, he said, and under federal contract and labor law, voter approval of Proposal 2 will have no effect whatsoever on public employee benefits included in existing collective bargaining agreements. Plus, the amendment will not stop any employer in the future from offering benefits to anyone the employer chooses, he said, so long as it’s not on the basis of formally recognizing homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage.
He noted three alternative benefits policies under which all individuals currently receiving public employee benefits could continue to do so after enactment of Proposal 2, each of which he said disproves amendment opponents’ charges as false:
* A government employer could adopt an ‘anything goes’ policy, allowing employees to add anyone they wish to their health care coverage — a sick relative, a neighbor, or even their homosexual partner — so long as the offer is available to all employees and not only to those involved in a homosexual relationship.
‘Which begs the question, if a government employee isn’t allowed to put her sick grandmother on her health insurance plan, why should employees involved in a homosexual relationship be singled out for special treatment as if they’re equal or similar to marriage, when everyone knows as a matter of common sense they’re not?’ Glenn said.
* A government employer could simply provide that all children in an employee’s household are eligible for employee benefits such as health insurance, regardless of their relationship to the employee.
* The simplest and most obvious alternative, Glenn said, would be for a government employer to adopt a policy which states that any individual eligible for benefits as of Nov. 1, 2004 will remain eligible for benefits perpetually thereafter. ‘Under that policy,’ Glenn said, ‘every single person currently receiving any kind of benefit would continue to do so, but it would not be on the basis of a government employer singling out homosexual relationships for the special treatment of being recognized as equal or similar to marriage.'”
—
(END OF QUOTE FROM AFA-MICHIGAN NEWS RELEASE)
Obviously, it was so important for some Michigan public employers to continue to pander to the homosexual lobby that they were willing to incur the additional cost of expanding benefits to other categories of employees, just to make sure homosexual partners continued to receive the benefits.
Regardless, at least have the integrity to be honest. You can’t criticize amendment backers for not telling the truth and then admit that what they said was true all along. And you can’t criticize backers for the expanded benefits eligibility criteria while accusing them of lying when they said that’s what could constitutionally result from the amendment, although nothing about the amendment compelled any public employer to expand the benefits.
The only thing the amendment said was they could no longer single out homosexual govt employees for special treatment as if they are equal or similar to marriage.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Seeing as how this is a Michigan story, I think it’s appropriate to introduce the resident wingnut, Michigan Matt.
Here’s where he rants against liberals and says (his quotation marks) “gay marriage” comes from the far radical Left.
Someone decries attempted murder of four people in a gay bar. Michigan Matt says: put away the victim/pity card.
Michigan Matt spreads the love to the gay community thusly: “? most of our gay friends (not all) are not upwardly mobile, career advancing or flush with disposable cash. Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.” I wonder if M-M?s “friends” know that this is what he thinks of them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No problem. Those who voted for that amendment can foot the bill for the extra benefits. Maybe a tax on church estates can cover it, right NDXXX?
I am endlessly amused that the gay liberals who want to hike taxes on everyone to pay for nationalized health insurance are now suddenly opposed to having to pay higher taxes to provide other unmarried couples with the same benefits as governmental entities were providing to gay and lesbian couples.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I am endlessly amused that the gay liberals who want to hike taxes on everyone to pay for nationalized health insurance are now suddenly opposed to having to pay higher taxes to provide other unmarried couples with the same benefits as governmental entities were providing to gay and lesbian couples.
North Liar Forty forgets to mention that straight couples can get married. Other than in Massachusetts, gay couples can’t get married.
posted by Rob on
I am endlessly amused that the gay liberals who want to hike taxes on everyone to pay for nationalized health insurance are now suddenly opposed to having to pay higher taxes to provide other unmarried couples with the same benefits as governmental entities were providing to gay and lesbian couples.
And I’m endlessly amused of how you’ve once more nonchalantly changed the subject.
Truthteller, the AFA is a Christinist/Dominionist lobby, and therefore not the authority concerning the amendment. It was the sponsors of the legislation that stated as such, as well as Eric Doster, Republican lawyer that crafted the policy. Furthermore, pretty much all of those who voted for the amendment are imbeciles, either they be homophobic and religious ones, or ‘moderates’ who only wanted to ban marriage in name yet didn’t even bother to read what the amendment truly entails. This is main reason why direct democracy does not work, and the US founding fathers knew this well.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Liar Forty forgets to mention that straight couples can get married. Other than in Massachusetts, gay couples can’t get married.
Funny you mention Massachusetts, Charles Wilson, since liberal gays and lesbians like yourself whined and cried that requiring gays and lesbians to marry to receive benefits in Massachusetts was wrong and discriminatory.
So let us be clear; you and your fellow gay liberals believe that straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.
That leads us right into this.
And I’m endlessly amused of how you’ve once more nonchalantly changed the subject.
Or, more precisely, demonstrated how you insist that raising taxes to pay for healthcare is wrong in one instance, but then insist they should be raised to pay for it in others.
Furthermore, pretty much all of those who voted for the amendment are imbeciles
Which would be a large majority of Michigan voters, according to you.
Perhaps they should know that gay and lesbian liberals consider them to be “imbeciles”, especially since, given the way Michigan broke in 2004, a large chunk of them are Democrats.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Interesting about the AFA, because the “moderate” Michigan Matt took their sidein one of their “clean up TV” campaigns.
posted by Charles Wilson on
So let us be clear; you and your fellow gay liberals believe that straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.
North Liar Forty, please find and post the link to any statement I’ve made that “straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.” I never made such a statement, but naturally that doesn’t keep you from claiming that I did.
You lie so effortlessly that you can’t even tell the difference between lies and the truth. You see, North Liar Forty, if I were asked my opinion about domestic partner benefits in Massachusetts (rather than having you impute statements I never made), I’d have exactly the same rules for gay and straight couples there.
Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth, North Liar Forty? Were you dropped on your head as an infant? Was it something they pledged you to do during your secret Republican initiation ceremony? What’s the deal? Come on, child, ‘fess up! Ha!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Liar Forty, please find and post the link to any statement I’ve made that “straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.”
With pleasure.
Unless, of course, you intend to state that your fellow liberal gays and lesbians are wrong, that they are imbeciles, and that gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts should be forced to marry to get healthcare benefits, just as you implied that straight people should be forced to marry to get healthcare benefits.
posted by Truthteller on
Rob, your ridiculous Star Trek Deep Space Nine “Dominionist” labeling aside, the AFA of Michigan’s president, Gary Glenn, is the guy who first proposed Michigan’s amendment, was one of the two authors of its language, was a prominent public spokesmen for the amendment during the 2004 campaign, and the Michigan Supreme Court quoted AFA-Michigan’s amicus brief three times in its decision. If the Michigan Supremes recognize AFA-Michigan’s authority on the subject, I think that’s sufficient testimony.
posted by Truthteller on
“Perhaps they should know that gay and lesbian liberals consider them to be ‘imbeciles,’ especially since, given the way Michigan broke in 2004, a large chunk of them are Democrats.”
Indeed. According to exit polls, 2/3rds of African-Americans and union households voted in favor of Michigan’s marriage amendment. It passed in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, every city with a major African-American population. Only place in Michigan it lost was in the two major university cities: Ann Arbor and Lansing.
posted by Charles Wilson on
North Liar Forty, I didn’t make the statement that you cited as mine. You’re really quite some Republican piece of work, aren’t you? Your motto: When caught in a lie, tell another one. No wonder you love Matt Sanchez as much as you do. Not only does he hate gay people as much as you do, but he and you are equally facile with the lies.
posted by Charles Wilson on
and that gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts should be forced to marry to get healthcare benefits, just as you implied that straight people should be forced to marry to get healthcare benefits
Oh, and I never said that anyone should be “forced to marry to get healthcare benefits.” That, too, North Liar Forty, is another one of your Republican lies.
What I wrote is that, because both gays and straights can get married in Massachusetts, that the rules for spousal and/or partner benefits should be the same for gays and straights in that state.
One of these days, you really ought to give the truth a whirl. Until then, you’ll be North Liar Forty, a Log Cabinette in good standing.
posted by Patrick on
And our resident troll and racist Charles Wilson, writing from his Mother’s basement in the confines of his angry little world, takes the initiative to flame people before they write anything??
The man is a nut case, if we can use the word “man” broadly.
posted by Amicus on
Gary Glenn is a charlatan and Jon has pegged him properly.
While it would be nice for everyone to put their “sick grandmother” on their health insurance, that’s just such an obvious red herring. This “alternative” is exactly how Jonathan described it – “recognizing everything”.
Employers are going to have an almost impossible time “recognizing everything”, right?
Glenn’s position is a chilling abdication and the propagation of a harmful and ignorant set of assumptions, potentially, that intimate bonds of affection and serious-going life commitments are on par with … an uncle or a cousin, no matter how distant or what gender. As Jon notes, it pushes the fight for relationship rights into an amalgam and simply radicalizes it, needlessly and heedlessly. There ARE better “alternatives”, clearly.
The same shit is going on in California right now. They have used broad language that “looks” innocuous, but from which they can get a conservative bench to rule to exclude, demean, and harm gay relationships.
Gary is certainly not protecting the Truth, and therefore, he can be seen as imposing his oppressive regime, and there is little doubt that these laws are “pro-marriage” precisely by virtue of enforcing anti-gay strictures.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Charles Wilson, the facts are clear; as I cited, liberal gays and lesbians like you whine and complain that it is “discriminatory” to require gay and lesbian couples to marry to receive healthcare benefits in Massachusetts when straight couples are required to marry to obtain such benefits.
Since you refuse to repudiate this statement, it is obvious that you agree with it that gay and lesbian couples should automatically receive benefits, but that straight couples should be forced to marry.
posted by Charles Wilson on
liberal gays and lesbians like you whine and complain that it is “discriminatory” to require gay and lesbian couples to marry to receive healthcare benefits in Massachusetts when straight couples are required to marry to obtain such benefits.
Notice how deftly the North Liar Forty, having been caught in his latest lie, slips in the word “like,” as in gays and lesbians like you? How Republican of you to make it up on the fly, and when caught, try to ooze away from the scene of your sleazy little hit job. Ha!
Since you refuse to repudiate this statement, it is obvious that you agree with it that gay and lesbian couples should automatically receive benefits, but that straight couples should be forced to marry.
I made my views plain, North Liar Forty. You just can’t stop, can you? You’re sort of like, oh, I don’t know, the crackhead of liars? Hopeless addicted, aren’t you? Ha!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Is that the best that you can do, Charles Wilson?
Notice how deftly the North Liar Forty, having been caught in his latest lie, slips in the word “like,” as in gays and lesbians like you?
Perhaps you ought to read the first post I made on the subject.
Funny you mention Massachusetts, Charles Wilson, since liberal gays and lesbians like yourself whined and cried that requiring gays and lesbians to marry to receive benefits in Massachusetts was wrong and discriminatory.
The only thing that has changed repeatedly is your story as you spin, rather than repudiate the clear statement that you and your fellow liberal gay and lesbian people made that straight people should be forced to marry to receive healthcare benefits, but that gay and lesbian people should automatically receive healthcare benefits without marriage.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Earth to North Liar Forty and the Republican Party in general: Merely repeating your lies does not make them true. Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jonathan, just to be accurate, you?ve got it wrong on this issue and IGF has gotten it wrong repeatedly on Michigan?s 2004 Voter Initiative DOMA. I wonder if you?re more interested in just tossing red meat to the crowd rather than getting it right. ?Switcheroo times two? makes a great soundbite or headline, but (with respect) that?s about all I can say for the post. You couldn?t be more wrong if? if? if you tried to be str8.
The truth is that the initiative read: “Article 1, Section 25: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Key phrase here: “…similar union for any purpose.”
Opponents of the initiative (and the earlier HJR U) made claims that it would indeed strip domestic partners of their benefits, make it harder for employers to the do ?the right thing? for gay employees, stop churches from being able to marry people, and drive business and creative talent from Michigan. They also said it would have a chilling effect on the gay community by enshrining discrimination into the Constitution. Guess who said that last point? A farRight wing Republican leader on the floor of the House. Wow, those evil Republicans! Sticking up for us! How dare they!
Proponents said it wouldn?t do any of those alarmist things and, guess what Jonathan, the proponents were right.
Today, domestic partner benefit plans are stronger and better protected in Michigan; they are more liberal ?not less generous- than they were before 2004. Employers haven?t been leaving the state because of the onerous law. The same churches are still blessing domestic unions, if partners want it. Creative talent hasn?t been driven from Michigan because we?ve hung out a ?Gays Not Welcome? sign, as some activists claimed was the message of the 2004 voter initiative.
Aside from those positive developments, the greatest untoward impact of the 2004 initiative is that it will be virtually impossible for gays in Michigan to move forward on other gay civil rights because the opposition has been politically emboldened by their win. Frankly, I fault our national gay leaders for that because the 2004 initiative was a reaction to the harshly aggressive, determined rhetoric from the GayLeft. Eleven states that year entertained DOMAs; 11 passed as in Michigan.
As someone who worked hard to defeat the 2004 initiative, I can tell you that the effort to apply the initiative (which passed 61-49% in a strong Kerry, BigLabor Democrat state) to domestic partner benefits came from one source: State Atty Gen Cox. That was AFTER, the initiative passed. AFTER. Generally, it wasn?t an issue before the vote except at a few editorial boards. The issue was first tangentially raised in legislative debate on a similarly worded HJR U but even the legislators who opposed HJR U (which was broader than the voter approved amendment) didn?t buy into the argument you speciously raise? (ugh, again). Oct 2004 polling showed less than 3% of voters believed the initiative would constitutionally ban domestic partner benefits.
Switcheroo and bait&switch are phantom arguments from our community. They might be a tasty piece of red meat for all gays to gnash their teeth, but it was a non-issue then and it?s just pandering now.
Luckily, the legal proceedings haven?t been marred by asinine conduct from our community, unlike the PR nightmare caused by opponents to the follow-up initiative banning affirmative action. Frankly, that?s because there is now a cadre of moderate and conservative gays who work within Michigan?s gay leadership communities to insure the more visceral rhetoric is tempered. To be blunt, as a natl voice, you ain?t helping.
An earlier post on IGF raised the political question if our leaders were getting out of step with the younger ranks of the community; the so-called political gap. Frankly, on gay marriage advocacy, I think you guys are doing exactly that.
I have to admit, when we were working against the 2004 initiative (when it was a House resolution and later as a voter ballot issue), I thought the impact of the amendment would be far greater on domestic benefits. Many of us did. We use to offer that if Michigan?s population was 10,100,000, LGBTs must account for 10% or 1,010,000 folks. Heck, we should have been able to defeat the initiative just by registering more gays (which we worked hard to see more gays registered).
You can imagine our surprise when, in 2007, the Associated Press did a survey of employers impacted by the initiative and found only 375 couples taking advantage of domestic partner benefits. It wasn?t because of DOMA? three personnel/HR of the most progressive employers said they saw no demonstrable change before/after 2004 in those numbers.
375 couples! Given the anger, the protests, the litigation, the political capital expended, it should have been 10,000 couples at least? not 375. I know, if I had been one of the 375, I?d want those protections and access to benefits; but it seems like a small segment of our community served for all the hassle we?ve engaged. I wonder if it would have been better to move on other gay civil rights issues first, like the tax code, medical partner bill of rights, adoption, etc. Instead, we gave our opponents the political capital to thwart us in advancing real civil rights that might affect ALL gays.
Out nat?l leadership isn?t picking the right issues to battle. Michigan?s DOMA effort seems to bear that point out. Your post, Jonathan, on Switcheroo and bait&switch, only continues to create a phantom issue, muddies the waters where clarity is greatly needed, and impedes healing within our community.
I know you can do better. Being accurate is a start.
posted by Jeff on
I think same-sex marriage is OK. Same-sex couples are just as committed in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, say researchers who have studied the quality of adult relationships and healthy development. I’m the one with same-sex marriage finding my couple from http://www.biloves.com.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob offers: “Furthermore, pretty much all of those who voted for the amendment are imbeciles, either they be homophobic and religious ones, or ‘moderates’ who only wanted to ban marriage in name yet didn’t even bother to read what the amendment truly entails.”
I hope you didn’t mean that, Rob. DOMA in Michigan passed by an overwhelming 61-39% majority. It passed in strongly Democrat precints in Democrat cities like Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Jackson, and Benton Harbor.
Those are liberal bastions of tightly-controled Democrat Party slave voters. I think you’d want to reconsider your false claim in light of reality.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
This is what happens when NO legal option to marry is available to gay couples. They are the only romantic and non related couples who can’t. And crowing about who voted overwhelmingly AGAINST same sex marriage is only logical given such a quality of life issue was on a ballot at all.
And it shouldn’t have been because of predictable animus. A suspect minority in America couldn’t challenge a public vote and that’s why the demand to make it one.
There shouldn’t even be any arguments over the qualities that gays and lesbians can give a MARRIAGE, since heterosexuals don’t have to do that.
And NDT, your crack about heterosexuals being FORCED to marry, never came by what is rational to offer gay couples.
Marriage is an option, even to incarcerated murderers because of the faith in what MARRIAGE will bring, if not necessarily who marries.
Now, that gay members of society here and elsewhere have that faith too, all of a sudden it’s not an institution that gay people are worthy of. Nor THEIR children apparently.
And to what purpose? Precisely what has been said before.
Not for reasons that the fifty percent rate of divorce is something to address, nor that there are children whose parents NEVER have married despite the legal ability to, nor is the reason solely because of respect for marriage ITSELF and it’s life and love affirming properties?
No….all the new laws and bans advancing into state Constitutions won’t change the destruction of marriage by factors that have nothing to do with gay people, but the firm commitment that gay people NEVER participate.
Some of us know spite when we see it. And every last vote against gay people marrying is just that and nothing more.
I don’t see an IMPROVEMENT in marriage for all the bans against gay couples…do you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A suspect minority in America couldn’t challenge a public vote and that’s why the demand to make it one.
Sure they can. After all, the Briggs Initiative was blocked, wasn’t it?
Now, that gay members of society here and elsewhere have that faith too, all of a sudden it’s not an institution that gay people are worthy of.
Probably because liberal gays and lesbians endorse and support exactly that which is causing the most problems relative to marriage — abortion, out-of-wedlock births, no-fault divorce, refusal to be monogamous and committed, and so forth.
Kind of hard to believe that they have “faith” in the institution when they wholeheartedly are in favor of that which causes the most damage to it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX, fair points. Except in Michigan, while travelling the state in 2004 working for the defeat of the amendment, I didn’t run into anyone voicing that rationale for voting Yes on DOMA-MI; could have been lots of people held that view (eg, gays generally support policies which work against the institution of marriage -but that’s because most gays are Democrats).
What I ran into mostly was the notion that marriage was a religious institution and if we didn’t ban it, gays would get some federal judge to legislate from the bench and create gay marriage “rights” where none exist… and then all the way down the slippery slope to where Catholic bishops would be forced into marrying same sex partners during high mass… or something equally bizzare.
Don’t get me wrong; those concerns may have been well placed given the conduct of some radical gays who despise religion and the free practice of religion -and they way radical gays target Catholic churches on gay marriage, 3rd world debt, anti-war, etc.
Those of us who fought the amendment were coached not to use the divorce rate rationale because it might feed into our opponents talking points.
Renee, on the divorce rate argument, it’s interesting to me that the 50% divorce rate gets tossed around by gay marriage enthusiasts as proof it can’t get much worse so let us have it too… but they don’t usually agree that the rate is misleading, given that most divorced couples have remarried 1-2-3x (I don’t know honestly) and, because of serial divorcers, the rate appears higher than it actually is in practice.
Like I said, our side usually stayed away from that argument line because, just as with biblical quotes, it’s a never-ending circle of posits and counter posits… with little progress at days’ end.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Sorry Regan, that shouldn’t have been Renee, I meant to address you. My error. And apology.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Michigan-Matt, who continually lies about his being a “moderate” when in fact he’s just another common wingnut, conveniently forgot to mention that he has the concept of gay marriage and called it an idea that comes from the “from the far radical Left.”
This might be connected to what Michigan Matt really thinks about gay people: “? most of our gay friends (not all) are not upwardly mobile, career advancing or flush with disposable cash. Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.”
With friends like Michigan Matt, the Log Cabinette, who needs enemies?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Regan, final point. When you wrote “Some of us know spite when we see it” as a way to explain voter sentiment in favor of DOMAs, I think it wasn’t spite… it was fear. Fear instilled by a prevalent and dominant public gay voice that practiced an attitude of “screw-you breeders” and in-your-face politics we’ll get the judges to mandate it… we still have those voices speaking today… some right here on IGF.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
The IGNORE button remains ON.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
MM and NDT…well, well….do you also blame black people for racism and Jews for anti Semitism?
Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.
And it’s as if you support the fear or whatever as a rational response. It’s not, particularly since abortion and infidelity and no fault divorce, etc…is supported by heterosexuals, engaged in by heterosexuals and implemented by heterosexuals.
Liberal heterosexuals set the example and if SOME gay people support it, so what?
Many gay people don’t, as some heterosexuals don’t. So your point is mainly to blame voter sentiment on ‘the radical gay agenda’ instead of sober, family minded gay people who have all the responsibilities of caring for someone and raising children, but without the full rights in which to enhance those responsibilities.
And if faith in marriage and the freedom to, extends to people not even free to walk the streets and who can only marginally care for a spouse and children, then the reason to ban gay people IS irrational and spiteful.
As is blaming gay people for homophobia because they don’t lie around like doormats or children when they are violated or excluded from rights ALL citizens otherwise have.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
MM and NDT…well, well….do you also blame black people for racism and Jews for anti Semitism?
No.
Because black and Jewish people generally do a good job of slapping down the radicals in their midst who claim that their skin color or religious/ethnic heritage requires you to support things unrelated to either.
The simple fact of the matter is, Regan, that liberal gays put out manifestos like this, their national groups state publicly that they support them, and they both proceed to act surprised when the voting public overwhelmingly rejects them.
The American public does not want to give “households with more than one conjugal partner” marriage rights. Matt Foreman has insisted that “gay rights” REQUIRE that you give such households marriage rights.
The American public does not want to give women the unlimited right to commit infanticide and believes that there should be some degree of restriction on abortion. National gay and lesbian groups insist that “gay rights” require unlimited abortion.
The American public is, by a large majority, religious and recognizant of the importance of religious beliefs in peoples’ lives. Gay and lesbian people insist on making religion to be “antigay”.
The American public is, by a VERY large majority, of the belief that teenagers should not be having sex, especially with adults twice their age. Gay and lesbian people insist that such beliefs are “imposing conservative moral values” and argue that it is “common” to have sex with teenagers seventeen years younger.
If you could wean yourself from using sexual orientation as an excuse for unpopular leftist causes, we might get somewhere.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The IGNORE button remains ON.
As it always does with Log Cabinettes, as in “IGNORE the truth.” Ha! Poor Matt. Now Matt, have you told all those gay “friends” of yours what you really think of them?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Gay and lesbian people insist on making religion to be “antigay”.
Thus lies North Liar Forty, ignoring the many gays who are religious, including his alter-ego wingnut Michigan Matt. Come on, NLF, tell the truth about something, will you? Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Regan offers “So your point is mainly to blame voter sentiment on ‘the radical gay agenda’ instead of sober, family minded gay people who have all the responsibilities of caring for someone and raising children, but without the full rights in which to enhance those responsibilities.”
No, as one of a FEW sober, family-minded gay family fathers I will tell you that it was exactly the radicalized far GayLeft agenda and it’s “take no prisoners, we’re the victims” mentality that led to DOMA-MI –a reactionary backlash against those voices. Was affirmative action banned in Michigan because Michiganders are racist? NO. It was banned because preferential treatment based on race is wrong… coming or going. Wrong.
Could we have avoided DOMA-MI if gay conservatives and moderates (like me) had worked to blunt the radical voices in our community and on a natl scale?
Yeah. I think so; it’s working now and building bridges of dialogue and understanding with non-traditional anti-gay constituencies in Michigan will help us in the long run… we just need to keep pointing out that those radical farLeft flamers aren’t speaking for ALL gays.
There’s a lot of work to do… we have to overcome nearly 30 yrs of unchecked radical voices speaking for all of us, 20 yrs of PrideParade shennanagins and coutless stories of gay men propositioning people in parks and rest stops. Those things reverberate and resonate with voters.
But it’s worth it.
posted by Charles Wilson on
You know, I’ve been having fun with Michigan Matt. It’s easy. I mean, just look at the guy. He’s the Joe Izuzu of wingnuts. The man can’t tell a simple truth about anything.
But let’s be a little more serious for a second. Michigan Matt, for starters, thinks he is superior to the rest of the gay community.
“? most of our gay friends (not all) are not upwardly mobile, career advancing or flush with disposable cash,” he writes. “Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.”
I wonder if M-M?s “friends” know that this is what he thinks of them. Now that I know, I say this in return: With friends like Michigan Matt and the Log Cabinettes, we don’t need any enemies.
But make no mistake, underneath all the pious homespun values, there is something else: Matt Sanchez, the never-gay, anti-gay Republican gay whore. When he figured no one was looking, Larry Craig prowled rest rooms. Michigan Matt prowled the Internet, and let it be known that, at $200-$250 an hour, his friend the ex-Marine hustler “was a bargain in any book. Woof. Damn.”
Me, I’m okay with grown adults “prowling” the Internet, as long as everyone’s a grown adult, etc. Even Michigan Matt. Whatever floats yer boat. But don’t turn around and tell us all how superior you are, Matt.
The bottom line is this: The Michigan Matts and North Liar Forties of the world are time travelers. They recently arrived here from 1958, and they are pissed that the wrong people are having their kind of fun, out in the open.
They like the shadows. And you know what? That‘s okay with me, too. Whatever floats yer boat, Matt and NLF. But it’s your boat, and where I sit it’s plenty leaky. So knock it off with the attempts to drag everyone else on board with you.
posted by Rob on
truthteller:
Rob, your ridiculous Star Trek Deep Space Nine “Dominionist” labeling aside, the AFA of Michigan’s president, Gary Glenn, is the guy who first proposed Michigan’s amendment, was one of the two authors of its language, was a prominent public spokesmen for the amendment during the 2004 campaign, and the Michigan Supreme Court quoted AFA-Michigan’s amicus brief three times in its decision. If the Michigan Supremes recognize AFA-Michigan’s authority on the subject, I think that’s sufficient testimony.
First the definition of dominionist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist
Second the argument still stands, since Gary Glenn isn’t the sole speaker concerning the issue, and the voters were deceived that existing benefits would be revoked. Oh well, those voters deserve for footing the bill for those extra benefits for the public employees.
ND30:
Which would be a large majority of Michigan voters, according to you.
That’s correct, although 60% isn’t large. But a majority of them are imbeciles. There’s nothing shocking about that.
Perhaps they should know that gay and lesbian liberals consider them to be “imbeciles”, especially since, given the way Michigan broke in 2004, a large chunk of them are Democrats.
Most of whom are so-called ‘Regan democrats’, which is a few steps closer to stalinism on the political compass. BTW I’m not a fan of the Democrats, I tended to judge candidates on an individual basis, something you lack when you voted for anti-veteran Rick Perry.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Given the tenor of Michigan Matt and North Liar Forty’s postings, I think I’d better head something off at the pass and rephrase to prevent any possible misconstruction of what I wrote above:
” … Whatever floats yer boat, Matt and NLF. But it’s your boat, and from where I sit your boat looks plenty leaky. So knock it off with the attempts to drag everyone else on board with you.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
They recently arrived here from 1958, and they are pissed that the wrong people are having their kind of fun, out in the open.
Let’s see, Charles Wilson; what happened to your partner?
On Sept. 22, 2004, he died of the combined effects of AIDS and chronic alcoholism.
Yup, nothing as fun as having your liver rot away inside you, your body poisoning itself with its own waste, as a disease destroys your immune system and leaves you covered with nasty purple blotches, perpetual fever, and an ongoing dementia, gasping for each breath as the pneumonia overwhelms your lungs.
All of which could have been prevented with a little bit of personal responsibility. But I guess Charles Wilson was too busy having “fun” to care.
But fortunately for him, he and his fellow liberal gays who put “fun” ahead of everyone else are being sure to keep the “fun” spreading; thanks to gay men like him, a whole new generation gets to experience that “fun”.
posted by Joel on
?National gay and lesbian groups insist that “gay rights” require unlimited abortion.?
I fail to see the connection. Why would gay rights(however left they might be) require unlimited abortion?
NDT says,
?Gay and lesbian people insist on making religion to be “antigay”.?
Im starting to wonder if those that appear to be pro-gay marriage are actually(secretly) against it.
Religion made it appear like that FIRST and FOREMOST. Bible quotes come to mind. Religion =/= antigay is NOTHING new? Rather, most of the religions currently in the world, from hindu to islam to Christianity, are conservatively ANTIGAY, and take pride in the fact that they are. It isn?t until now that the more ?progressive? ones are inclusive to gay ppl. But that DOES NOT mean that the current majority(and the farther back you go in history, the more viruntly anti-gay they are) like the largest Christian denominations, like Catholics and Baptists, oppose gay-anything(other than the meer fact of being gay). The pope?s(Benedict) ?gays are an intrinsic moral evil? speech comes to mind. No, they did not need ?far left gay advocates? to be anti-gay. The teachings per se, traditional, literal and even contextual support such notion. So if your going to feed me the ?far left gays made religion anti-gays? statement? plz try again to support it. Religion likes to think of itself as not anti-gay but as anti-gay behavior(u know, like marriage?). I wonder though? in my book that?s still anti-gay, is it on yours?
Even then? WHAT IF religion was opposed by EVERY GAY ON EARTH?… is there not freedom FROM religion? Sure, it is important to the majority, does that mean that gays ALSO have to have some sort of religion in order to obtain ?gay marriage? or even to have ?equal rights? voted for. Can?t atheists marry, or is it since they?re heterosexuals they are exempt from the ?need to have religion??
As for the rest of your ?the far left is dooming gay rights?? it seems to me that you bought into everything they fed you.
I do not believe that ?far-left? are actually upholding a different view of what marriage should be. I always thought that the ?not special, but equal? was intrinsically there. I do not believe the generalization that NDT has concluded as WHATS being overwhelmingly advocated in unison to gay equal rights? that about polygamy, about peadophilia?, about abortion.
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
MM says,
?375 couples! Given the anger, the protests, the litigation, the political capital expended, it should have been 10,000 couples at least? not 375. I know, if I had been one of the 375, I?d want those protections and access to benefits; but it seems like a small segment of our community served for all the hassle we?ve engaged.?
On one hand, im glad that you are fighting for the pro-marriage cause. On the other I wonder if you question the reasons, implications or extent of what your saying. Just because there are X amount of gays does not mean that the X amount will behave exactly like their heterosexual counterparts. Heterosexual couples do not need to be wary or worried of being bashed, being disowned, being killed, losing their job? etc..etc?etc just because of being, well, gay.
I want to ask you a few questions?
1)- Is holding hands, kissing the SS couple, and touching(in the most innocent and romantic way you can imagine) tolerated as a PDA in Michigan?
2)- Did this survey include ALL of the couples?
3)- Are SS relationships considered normal in Michigan? Meaning that parents, friends.. social circles perceive it to be something natural.
Would it really be surprising that their aren?t as many gay couples as one would have hoped? If I was in your position, my hopes would have definitely been high and would have been disappointed equally? but I most likely wouldn?t have regretted having have fought for a just cause. Even if I would have nostalgically embraced a ?should?ve done this or that?.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I met my partner when I was 26 years old. He was 29. Well before the two of us met, when he was in his early 20s, he had had another partner. It was in the late ’70s, in the days before anyone know about AIDS.
The other guy played around. My partner never did. When my partner found out about the infidelity, he broke it off. Tragically, the other guy had contracted AIDS (then known as GRID), and died from it. That’s how my partner got it. Fortunately, I never contracted HIV.
My late partner certainly had his faults, as do I, but promiscuity wasn’t one of them. Unlike North Liar Forty, I don’t consider HIV to be anyone’s judgment on anyone else, nor do I make light of the suffering of those who get it.
I trust that anyone who happens to read this will see, in stark relief, just who and what North Liar Forty is, and what his friends are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….and note the definition change here, how Charles Wilson ADMITS that his partner slept around and had sex with other men, but that his partner “wasn’t promiscuous”.
Unlike North Liar Forty, I don’t consider HIV to be anyone’s judgment on anyone else, nor do I make light of the suffering of those who get it.
Of course not, Charles; you just support and endorse those who spread it as having “fun”, and claim that those who point out the incredible damage that this causes people are homophobic and self-loathing.
If your story is true, your partner contracted AIDS because another gay person took your advice and refused to limit himself sexually, having multiple partners instead of following that “unenlightened” rule about sexual responsibility and monogamous relationships.
THAT is the ultimate irony here; your partner was killed by a behavior pattern that you yourself support and endorse.
And what this post should demonstrate is your utter cluelessness; you defend the behaviors that killed your partner, and you claim that those who oppose those behaviors are “from 1958”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Charles Wilson ADMITS that his partner slept around and had sex with other men
You’re one sick dude, North Liar Forty. If having more than one partner in life is “sleeping around,” then yes, my partner “slept around.” But then, by your standard just about everyone has done so.
you just support and endorse those who spread it as having “fun”, and claim that those who point out the incredible damage that this causes people are homophobic and self-loathing
That’s a bald-faced lie. I’ve never even come close to saying, or implying, any such thing. It’s true that I haven’t gone batshit crazy about promiscuity like you have, but not being crazy doesn’t mean that I somehow recommend promiscuity.
your partner was killed by a behavior pattern that you yourself support and endorse
Again, that’s an out-and-out lie.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…Wilson, you openly mock and bash those who support monogamy and sex within committed relationships, calling them “wingnuts”.
You make it clear that “real gays” like you enjoy multiple sexual relationships and think monogamy is some relic left over from the 1950s.
Now you’re trying to argue that, even though your “partner” repeatedly slept with other men, he “wasn’t promiscuous” — especially hilarious when , as you did above, you tried to argue that Michigan-Matt’s merely remarking on a person’s looks made HIM promiscuous and immoral.
You threw sexual responsibility out the window and encouraged promiscuity, Wilson, and look what it got you; a diseased body, disability thirty years early, and a dead partner.
People should know what the “values” that you support and the behaviors you insist are “normal” for gay people end up producing.
And until the gay community kicks you and your “I couldn’t help it, I’m gay and this is what gays do” to the curb, it DESERVES to be dealt with accordingly.
posted by Charles Wilson on
you openly mock and bash those who support monogamy and sex within committed relationships, calling them “wingnuts”
No, North Liar Forty, a wingnut is a far-right-winger. Plenty of wingnuts are promiscuous, and plenty of lefties are monogamous.
You make it clear that “real gays” like you enjoy multiple sexual relationships and think monogamy is some relic left over from the 1950s.
Never wrote it, never implied it. What drugs are you on?
you tried to argue that Michigan-Matt’s merely remarking on a person’s looks made HIM promiscuous and immoral
Your buddy Matt did more than comment on your mutual friend Matt Sanchez‘s looks. He proclaimed that the Republican man-whore was a “bargain,” implying his approval of gay prostitution. That’s what we might call Larry Craig-style hypocrisy.
You threw sexual responsibility out the window and encouraged promiscuity, Wilson, and look what it got you; a diseased body, disability thirty years early, and a dead partner.
Wow, you’re really a sick puppy of a liar there. I’ve already explained my late partner’s situation; my own disability is not caused by a sexually transmitted disease, and you know it.
the behaviors you insist are “normal” for gay people end up producing
What behaviors did I “insist are ‘normal’ for gay people?” Please provide the citation and link, North Liar Forty.
And until the gay community kicks you and your “I couldn’t help it, I’m gay and this is what gays do” to the curb, it DESERVES to be dealt with accordingly.
Hmm. And what constitutes being “dealt with accordingly,” North Liar Forty? Please tell us exactly what you want done to “the gay community.” This should be interesting, you sick freak.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Plenty of wingnuts are promiscuous, and plenty of lefties are monogamous.
Perhaps we should show how Charles Wilson defines “monogamous” and “normal behavior” when applied to gay people.
Meanwhile, Charles Wilson says merely looking at a picture or stating that someone was a bargain if they were prostituting themselves makes you “promiscuous” when applied to people he doesn’t like.
What drugs are you on?
None. What drugs were you and your partner on, especially since you admit that your partner died partially as a result of alcohol and substance abuse?
I’ve already explained my late partner’s situation
Yup; he died partially because of a sexually-transmitted disease resulting from a) his sleeping around and b) someone else’s sleeping around as well, all of which you encourage and support as normal gay behavior.
Hmm. And what constitutes being “dealt with accordingly,” North Liar Forty? Please tell us exactly what you want done to “the gay community.” This should be interesting, you sick freak.
Well, let’s see.
We have a community that argues it’s “normal” and necessary for their “rights” for adults to have sex with fourteen-year-old boys.
We have a community that coerces teenage boys into sex and leaves them to face the consequences, i.e. HIV.
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
We have a community that openly mocks marriage and monogamy, claiming that sexuality outside of relationships is normal and that polysexual, multiple-conjugal-partner relationships should be recognized and given full benefits.
Straight people who spread HIV, have sex with underage children, and practice polygamy get put in jail.
I think the gay community can either clean up its act or have the same thing happen to it. And since I don’t want to go to jail, I’m going to take out the trash — which happens to be promiscuous, hatemongering leftists like yourself, Charles Wilson, who have been ruining the reputations of other gay people for years so that you could make excuses for your behavior.
posted by Hank on
Let’s see, Charles Wilson; what happened to your partner?
ND you are truly a vile and despicable person.
posted by Patrick on
I posted this on a different thread but it fits even on this one… unfortunately.
North Dallas 30, Charles has a severe problem with social relationships and interacting with adults; that’s clear from the abundant evidence.
He’s been kicked off many blogs, discussion boards, community forums and internet groups for his angry, mean-spirited, petty personal attacks on other commenters at those sites. Just like here with Michigan-Matt, Brian, Bobby, you and others.
If I had been partnered to the guy, I think I would have been an alcoholic just to cope with his manicly self-destructive, obsessive stalking behavior patterns.
How manic is the behavior today? Probably just as bad as it’s always been. After all, this is the guy who was so vicious and petulant to other commenters that even the Democrat Underground blogmasters (a site well known for particularly drawing angry, frustrated people to its fold) had to delete his personal attacks on fellow left-wingers and ban him for a while from their site. SO even among people just like him, who value pettiness and personal attacks, Charles was too severe.
That is breath-taking!
On one of the travel blogs he’s frequented, his reputation as a pain-in-the-ass and vindictive, mean-spirited commenter has brought many commenters to ask others who engage in a caustic comment if they are willysnout… under a different name. He’s become the very definition of people who wantonly engage in petty personal attacks. That is so lame on so many levels.
North Dallas 30, you are also correct in the claim that Charles tries to eliminate websites and entries to cover his tracks as willysnout, wet willy, ww, willnsnout2, Charles Wilson, CW and more. In one gay blog’s thread on Charles?s most intense obsession, journalist Matt Sanchez, Charles adopted up to 7 different personalities just so he could debate with himself.
Charles makes James Carville look tame, polite and well-mannered by comparison.
The problem is, he keeps spoiling and fouling the threads to a point where rational inquiry is abused and he drives people away with his personal attacks.
What’s his pattern after someone finally bans him from yet another site? He goes to other sites to scream about how fascistic the old site was, then he uses the site he just demeaned for references, and completes the loop as Resident Hypocrite. It’s amazingly anti-social behavior. Charles did it again just this week here on I.G.F.
Yes, I think I would have been an alcoholic if I had had a Charles in my life. I?m sorry for his loss but that can?t be used as an excuse to continue his anti-social, pathological personal attacks.
posted by Patrick on
Hank, maybe your outrage at North Dallas 30 would be better employed and more credible if you tried once in a while to address the excessively petty and personal attacks of your accomplice Charles. You’ve had lots and lots of opportunties to do so; you haven’t. Ever.
It rings hollow, Hank. Donggggggg.
posted by Patrick on
Charles keeps on lying and flaming.
“Your buddy Matt did more than comment on your mutual friend Matt Sanchez’s looks. He proclaimed that the Republican man-whore was a “bargain,” implying his approval of gay prostitution. That’s what we might call Larry Craig-style hypocrisy.”
Actually, I checked that reference; not the silly one you keep drawing people to your site with by the way.
On Gay Patriot, M-M appears to be joking with his fellow Republicans about Sanchez, Charles. He mentions earlier that Republicans ought to be happy they have a real stud for a gay poster boy, all the Democrats have is the reputed lesbian Hillary Clinton.
M-M appears to be joking. You’ve make a career out of being a joke, you should know.
You, Charles, are lying and fabricating. Again. And now we need to play catch-up on all those other lies of yours, if Michigan-Matt won’t stoop to your level.
Shall we, Mr Psycho?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey guys, thanks for taking CharlesWilson, our resident racist troll, to the cleaners and proving him to be the unrepentant liar he accuses everyone else of being.
Unfortunately, it won’t be good enough. He’ll keep on spewing and ranting and lying until the blogmasters here ban him and add one more site to the internet that is “CharlesWilson Free”.
Patrick, I think you’ve earned a knighthood of the Keyboard Cross for your work exposing the rotten, fetid lies of CW.
I wish we could return to the topic at hand and not have anyone stoop to debating (or feeding) the troll.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Let’s see, Charles Wilson; what happened to your partner?
Hank, my late partner and I were together for 18 years. He had contracted HIV from his very first partner, as a consequence of that guy’s promiscuity. After his long and ultimately tragic struggle with the bottle, he passed away in 2004.
When you’ve seen people die of AIDS, part of you wants to run around and scream your head off like North Liar Forty does. He seems to think that anyone who doesn’t go batshit crazy somehow approves of promiscuity. In my own case, NLF knows I don’t approve of it, because we’ve had that discussion on-line. But he keeps saying I do approve of promiscuity.
All of this is even more curious, given that NLF and his friends have been all over the Internet speaking on behalf of Matt Sanchez, who embodies everything they purport to condemn. It’s odd, to say the least.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Michigan Matt, I thought you were “ignoring” me. You can’t even tell the truth about that. Ha!
posted by Charles Wilson on
Let’s see, Charles Wilson; what happened to your partner?
Hank, something occurred to me. I’m sure these nutcases will now try to say that I keep shifting between alcoholism and AIDS when talking about my partner. Actually, at the end it was impossible to tell them apart. It’s an ugly way to go.
When I read about the so-called circuit parties where people are on drugs, I shake my head in amazement. Distilled cold medicine and bareback sex. North Liar Forty’s buddy, Matt Sanchez, is into that whole scene along with the whoring.
And they’re on his side, which I find just astonishing given what they’ve been throwing at me and at others. It’s very weird.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Unfortunately, it won’t be good enough. He’ll keep on spewing and ranting and lying until the blogmasters here ban him and add one more site to the internet that is “CharlesWilson Free”.
Wow, did I call that one or what.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND you are truly a vile and despicable person.
Really, Hank?
Perhaps I should be more like your friend ColoradoPatriot; despite the fact that he tells people to put a gun to their head and kill themselves because it would be “doing us all a favor”, you make it clear that you “like his style”.
I’m surprised you didn’t try to finger-wag at me for not “being Christian” like you invariably do. Maybe you’ve given up on that, given your endorsements of the rants of antireligious bigot gays like Priya Lynn, who, aside from railing against Christians as follows:
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
also claims that those with whom she disagrees have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest — all of which you of course encourage with “keep up the good work”.
You’re an enabler, Hank. You’re no different than the spouse that allows sexual abuse of a couple’s children and others to continue because he or she doesn’t want to make a scene. And what you’re doing now is the equivalent of standing in the doorway screaming at and namecalling the people who have the temerity to point out that your spouse is a sexual predator.
posted by RIchard on
This entire thread proves something that I have said time and time again. When the cultural war is involved people seem to think its an excuse to abandon civics and civility…
posted by Charles Wilson on
You have a point there, Richard. I’d have a different take on it, though. The battling is okay, but when people do battle they ought to respect facts. I think it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
That’s what gets to me with the North Liar Forties and Michigan Matts of the world. Their opinions are bad enough, but when they pump out lie after lie after lie after lie, someone’s got to go after them for it.
posted by Richard on
In other news….
Ezekiel may be explict about some type of sexual sin, but it certainly is not explict about it being about homosexuality.
Also, many heterosexual people do ‘parade’ their sexual orientation in public, and I don’t just mean Mardi Gras or spring break parties.
Paul was certainly not clear about homosexuality.
In fact I recall reading somewhere in the Bible an explicit requirement that God did not even recognize gender, which would make it pretty hard for him to oppose homosexuality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, and Hank, want to see what your favorite “poor me, you can’t correct me because my promiscuous alcoholic partner died” is going around doing?
He’s blasting mothers of teenagers with multiple sclerosis as “irresponsible” and asking “how they can sleep at night”.
Worse, he makes it clear that he thinks his status as gay gives him the right to namecall and spew hate at other people — and when he’s booted, as he invariably is, he goes screaming to other websites about how these people are “homophobic”.
North Liar Forty’s buddy, Matt Sanchez, is into that whole scene along with the whoring.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, and Hank, want to see what your favorite “poor me, you can’t correct me because my promiscuous alcoholic partner died” is going around doing?
He’s blasting mothers of teenagers with multiple sclerosis as “irresponsible” and asking “how they can sleep at night”.
Worse, he makes it clear that he thinks his status as gay gives him the right to namecall and spew hate at other people — and when he’s booted, as he invariably is, he goes screaming to other websites about how these people are “homophobic”.
That does wonders for their attitudes towards gay people, I wager.
North Liar Forty’s buddy, Matt Sanchez, is into that whole scene along with the whoring.
Which is why, I suppose, Matt Sanchez has such glowing words for it.
Meanwhile, Charles Wilson, you claim to be against promiscuity, but you gleefully talk about how wonderful and “enlightened” it is that people have sexual relationships outside marriage and committed relationships, and you bash those who oppose promiscuity as being “from 1958” and resentful of the “fun” that promiscuous gays like you and your late partner were having. In fact, you blast Matt Sanchez for speaking out against this.
What makes you particularly sick, Charles Wilson, is that you try to get sympathy by recounting how awful your partner’s death was — but repeatedly support and endorse the very gay culture and behaviors that caused his death and namecall the very people like myself, Patrick, and Michigan-Matt who are trying to make sure another generation of gays isn’t preyed on by people like you and dies early of the same thing that killed your partner.
posted by Charles Wilson on
He’s blasting mothers of teenagers with multiple sclerosis as “irresponsible” and asking “how they can sleep at night”
North Liar Forty refers to my comment on a website that peddles a quack MS cure. There is a whole lot of quackery on the chronic disease front. A woman had taken her child off of the approved MS meds in favor of the quack “medicine.” I don’t regret telling her off.
Charles Wilson, you claim to be against promiscuity, but you gleefully talk about how wonderful and “enlightened” it is that people have sexual relationships outside marriage and committed relationships
Please provide the link, North Liar Forty. You won’t be able to, because I never did what you claim I did.
What makes you particularly sick, Charles Wilson, is that you try to get sympathy by recounting how awful your partner’s death was — but repeatedly support and endorse the very gay culture and behaviors that caused his death and namecall the very people like myself, Patrick, and Michigan-Matt who are trying to make sure another generation of gays isn’t preyed on by people like you and dies early of the same thing that killed your partner.
Wow. You’re a sad man, North Liar Forty.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard offers: “This entire thread proves something that I have said time and time again. When the cultural war is involved people seem to think its an excuse to abandon civics and civility…”
Richard, you’re right. I think that whole uncivil conduct was first created in the farLeft wing world of blogs like DailyKos, DemocratUnderground and gayLeft political blogs like BlogActive and BlogAmerica.
Skip the trends or their origin, if you look more closely at this and others threads at IGF lately, you’ll find that CharlesWilson has started namecalling, uncivil conduct and petty personal attacks and my response has usually been “I’m going to ignore you Charles”… which then brings forth a classic “ha” from him and “see, you can’t ignore me”… like he revels in baiting people into conflict. He has vitrually started the uncivil conduct in every single thread… just like he did over at Malcontent until they banned him last week after a long litany of personal attacks on people and then threats of legal action to press the intimidation home. Just like at UndergroundDemocrats. Just like at the military blogs. Just like at medical dicussion forums, food groupie forums, etc.
And then he’s got the unmitigated gall to write: “Their opinions are bad enough, but when they pump out lie after lie after lie after lie, someone’s got to go after them for it”. He’s doing exactly that as the stalker who puruses posters from site to site and flames them with relish… not he pickle kind, the I love it kind of relish.
How civil, how fair; no, how intellectually dishonest.
I’m going to keep the IGNORE button on but it’s being adjusted now to IGNORE/SNORE.
Will it work? I doubt it because the guy has proven over and over, site after site, that uncivil conduct gets him noticed.
I appreciate that Jonathan Rauch, this thread’s author, is reminding all readers (including me) that “Reminder: comments that consists of personal insults will be deleted”. I only hope that it can bring CharlesWilson to heel and mend his ways.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, the line above should have read: “He’s doing exactly that as the stalker who puruses posters from site to site and flames them with relish -not (t)he green pickle kind, the I-love-it kind of relish.
Sorry.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Michigan Matt, ordinarily I’d say you’re cute when you’re mad, but I don’t want you taking it the wrong way. You might want to look up the definition of ignore. Oh, hell, I’ll just give it: “To refuse to take notice of.”
Ha!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How typical; when Charles Wilson gets caught making an ass of himself, he tries to smear the website in question rather than admit that his behavior was wrong.
North Liar Forty refers to my comment on a website that peddles a quack MS cure.
Seems kind of odd, then, that they’re giving full coverage to multiple treatments instead of trying to sell just one, doesn’t it?
Next:
I don’t regret telling her off.
That’s odd, Wilson, since you whined on that very thread in the post immediately following that you had apologized to this person and that your behaviors were wrong.
Kim, you’re certainly within your rights to reject my apologies, but I’m sorry that you chose to do so. They were heartfelt and sincere, and the harshness of your response was wounding.
She nailed you, though.
I received your apologies, Willy, each and every one of them. Under normal circumstances, I would have accepted the apology and moved on, but after reading through your history of postings on this board, I do not accept your apology. You have a long history of this type behaviour on this board, and you have gotten away with it way too many times.
You tried to get out of the penalty for your behavior by pretending you were “sorry” and plead your disease, just as you try to spin your way out of your behavior here by pretending to be against the very promiscuity and substance abuse you promote and champion as “fun” elsewhere and plead your “dead partner” for some sort of sympathy.
posted by Patrick on
North Dallas 30, nice job… concise, pointed.
Charles, I guess your lying is unstoppable. You were hoping that no one could catch you on your racist remarks about tropical disasters being just “asian stir fry”… and then, when it didn’t happen immediately, you got emboldened and thought you were in the clear… moving into usual attack mode.
You asked for it: on May 8th at 10:56, using the self-admitted pseudonym of willysnout, you wrote
“So why don’t you call yours typhoons and let the Asians call theirs stir fry?”
When a few commenters took exception to the racially motivated remark and challenged you for making it, you threatened them with “legal actions” if they persisted. You then got your buddies (who are blogmasters of the site) to strike the critical comments and what remains is a shell of the original diatribe.
Now, May8th was just LAST WEEK. Care to explain to all of us why you continued to deny making that comment? You’ve done it in these various IGF threads 6 times now.
Comment made on May 8th but denials from you repeatedly since?? Hmmm? even if you use some lame excuse like it was a joke (which the language and resulting interaction clearly shows it wasn’t for some), you can’t claim to have forgotten making a statement like “asian stir fry”. You have repeatedly said you didn’t say them, they were creations, imaginary notions from wingnut liars. Well?
Why lie about these things, willysnout or Charles Wilson or wet willy or CW?
BTW, at that site, commenters run a thread called “Most Outrageous Commenter of the Week” and you’ve won by a landslide. People seem to dislike you there as much as they do at Malcontent, Columbia University’s Blue & White blog, Mudville Gazette, Patterico’s Pontifications, Towleroad, DemocratUnderground, GruntDocs, brawnylads (hmmm), BoiFromTroy, Black5, One Marine’s View and dicussion boards on single malt scotch, segway, and microsoft.
The best advice to you, which you have elected to ignore, comes from the segway community discussion board FIVE YEARS AGO… 5 years ago in 2003,
“willysnout, unhook your questions and opinions from your unveiled hostility and personal attacks and cheap shots and you might get your questions answered and your opinions considered. Just a suggestion.”
And, true to form, you replied with anger and stalked the guy and the fouled the Board for months.
Now, what was that about your claim to Michigan-Matt “that I never made that (remark)” about natural disasters in the Pacific being just “asian stir fry”?
And it was only last week!!
I hope somewhere in your character you still have the capacity for bearing shame… because your conduct is shameful, even if you hide behind the smug exterior of someone on a mission of truth.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Seems kind of odd, then, that they’re giving full coverage to multiple treatments instead of trying to sell just one, doesn’t it?
Today they are. Back then, they were the mouthpiece for something called LDN, which is pure quackery.
Kim, you’re certainly within your rights to reject my apologies, but I’m sorry that you chose to do so. They were heartfelt and sincere, and the harshness of your response was wounding.
Because the woman was clearly upset and had a real problem on her hands, at the time I felt that a private apology and attempt to ratchet down the rhetoric was in order. Unfortunately, she spurned those attempts.
Quackery is a real issue for people with chronic diseases. The quacks are all over the place, and their quackery can do real damage. I don’t regret going after the quacks who prey on people with MS.
posted by Charles Wilson on
A bit more on quackery. The people who fall prey to quacks often are quite fervent about it. They tend to go a little crazy when someone points out that “Substance X” is snake oil. In such cases, the person who tells the truth is their personal dream-killer. I have a thick enough skin to be able to withstand the attacks, so I tend to stick right in there. In that case, though, I had some second thoughts because of the woman’s distress. I hope that, since then, her child has returned to the approved treatments.
MS varies quite a bit. For some people it can be a very tough road. I’m somewhere in the middle, and prefer to see the glass a lot more full than empty. But if someone is desperate and nothing else has worked, I can understand the appeal of quackery.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, when Charles Wilson gets caught, he tries to spin out of his statements.
Today they are. Back then, they were the mouthpiece for something called LDN, which is pure quackery.
Funny, there’s no “then and now” in your blanket statement about them.
North Liar Forty refers to my comment on a website that peddles a quack MS cure.
In fact, your statement makes it obvious that you were accusing them of doing the same today — until, of course, you were confronted with facts, at which point irresponsible Charles Wilson tries to spin away.
Then when Charles Wilson gets caught again, he tries to change his target.
I don’t regret going after the quacks who prey on people with MS.
Funny, that’s not who you “didn’t regret” attacking before.
I don’t regret telling her off.
That would be the mother of the sixteen-year-old, who you accused of being irresponsible and being an unfit parent.
Of course, she also put you right in your place again.
I feel as if I cannot get enough information, and my research has become somewhat of an obsession with me. I can empathize with those of you who have MS, as well as see it from a “caregivers” point of view as a mother of a young man with MS. We all make tough decisions every day, and these decisions aren’t any easier when you are forced to make them for someone else. I felt I had alot to offer this board for several reasons. I have a different perspective on this disease as a mother to a teen with MS. I can’t really say it’s from the “outside looking in”, because this has all been really personal for me, and I’ve suffered through every relapse and every spinal tap and every injection / reaction right along with my son, but my perspective must be different from those of you who live with this disease inside your own bodies every single day of your life. In my heart, it feels the same, though. I’ve cried more tears than my son ever thought about crying. I have an extensive medical background, unfortunately not in neurology, but my research obsession has brought me up to speed, and there isn’t much you can throw my way that I don’t have knowledge of.
I saw this message board as a support group, as well as a fountain of information, so I joined. And on one of my very first postings, I was blasted by a member here and deemed irresponsible for decisions regarding my son. This member was willysnout1. He also went on to question how I could sleep at night. That is not “support”.
Next, your excuse for that:
Because the woman was clearly upset and had a real problem on her hands, at the time I felt that a private apology and attempt to ratchet down the rhetoric was in order.
For a PUBLIC INSULT? You insult this woman publicly, call her an unfit mother when you know nothing about her, and you expect a PRIVATE apology to mean anything?
Furthermore, as you make clear here with your statement, you didn’t mean a word of your apologies. You stated clearly here that you did nothing wrong and that you in no way regret your namecalling and attacks on this woman. In fact, you wouldn’t even apologize publicly until she shamed you, and even then it was a desperate attempt to avoid being banned.
And if you care so much about peoples’ lives, Wilson, you wouldn’t be encouraging so many gays to engage in the behaviors that killed your partner. Why do you support gay promiscuity as “fun in the open”, Wilson, and why do you namecall and fling hate at the people who oppose it and make it clear that it’s not good for gay people?
posted by Charles Wilson on
People seem to dislike you there as much as they do at Malcontent, Columbia University’s Blue & White blog, Mudville Gazette, Patterico’s Pontifications, Towleroad, DemocratUnderground, GruntDocs, brawnylads (hmmm), BoiFromTroy, Black5, One Marine’s View and dicussion boards on single malt scotch, segway, and microsoft.
Let’s take those one by one. Mudville, GruntDoc, OneMarine’s View, and Blackfive are so-called “milblogs” run by wingnuts. I gave them unremitting shit about their Liar-in-Chief and they banned me. They’re cowards. I regret nothing at all. When wingnuts ban me, I consider it a badge of honor.
Patterico’s Pontifications? Sorry, I flat don’t remember them. DemocratUnderground is actually DemocraticUnderground. I got banned for posting that Democrats took dirty money from the Indian casinos same as the Republicans. They banned me. When lefties ban me for telling the truth, I consider it a badge of honor too.
Malcontent is a wingnut blog that banned me because I told the truth about Michigan Matt, North Liar Forty, and Matt Sanchez. They’re cowards, too.
I never posted on an Columbia Blue & White Blog, but I have posted on their “Bwog” when Matt Sanchez was mentioned. I’ve never been banned there. Similarly, Towleroad never banned me. I posted there about Matt Sanchez, too.
I’ve posted about single malt scotch. Didn’t get banned there, and in fact I don’t even recall arguing with anyone there. What’s to argue about? I love single malt scotch. And no, I am not an alcoholic.
The Segway people didn’t like me. I called it the SUV of the sidewalk and lampooned their shilling of that unstable and dangerous machine as a means of conveyance for the disabled. You’ll note that the Segway has been a commercial flop.
Microsoft? Hell, if you haven’t been pissed off at Microsoft then you either use a Mac or you live on another planet. But they never banned me. brawnylads? I think I went there because I found some kids talking about coming-out issues and had a few things to say along those lines. Which were not, by the way, “hold a gay pride parade in the corporate lunch room.” No one ever banned me from there, and in fact I recall my perspective being appreciated.
posted by Charles Wilson on
That would be the mother of the sixteen-year-old, who you accused of being irresponsible and being an unfit parent.
If someone takes their 16-year-old off of an approved therapy and puts him onto a quack therapy, then it certainly raises questions about that person’s fitness and responsibility.
posted by Charles Wilson on
And if you care so much about peoples’ lives, Wilson, you wouldn’t be encouraging so many gays to engage in the behaviors that killed your partner. Why do you support gay promiscuity as “fun in the open”
I’m not encouraging anything, North Liar Forty, and you know it.
posted by Patrick on
Let’s see, Charles response to the lie he was spreading about never having said tropical storm disasters are just “asian stir fry” was silence.
So we’ll score that one as, “Yes, Charles was lying about not having said that”. Trouble was, he said it last week and denied it on threads here 4-5 times this week and tried to impeach the integrity of those commenting upon his racist remark as “making things up”.
Charles admits to freely exhibiting anti-social behavior at more than 1/2 a dozen websites and then claims when he gets banned for outrageous conduct, it’s a badge of honor. KingCharles rides again but no one can tell the King he’s just on an ass, without clothes and there’s no royal attendants awaiting him.
Charles baits mothers who children suffer from MS and then he gloats about the superiority of his conduct? Wow, that’s a new low even for KingCharles.
Charles contends he is NOW telling the truth.
We shouldn’t believe that lie anymore than the truthfulness of his hectoring others with his trademark “liar” lunacies.
Charles, there is no badge of honor big enough to cover the deceptions you play out. You’ll never learn how anti-social your petty personal attacks have become.
No need to keep talking; you have no credibility. And as a stalker, you stink.
posted by Patrick on
North Dallas 30 asks our resident racist and anti-social phenom: “For a PUBLIC INSULT? You insult this woman publicly, call her an unfit mother when you know nothing about her, and you expect a PRIVATE apology to mean anything?”
Thanks for calling this out and holding KingCharles a tiny bit responsible for the hate-filled spews he dishes out to others.
Of course, when he’s getting it, his first reaction is to create sockpuppets and then ask the blogmaster for mercy at stopping all these mean-spirited people hurting his feelings.
Then it’s on to intimidation, threats of legal action, et cetera.
It’s all so tired. It’s all so insincere. And it continues to foul the threads and destroy the opportunity of others for true debate and discussion.
Thanks for nailing it, North Dallas. It’s beyond reason to think KingCharles listened.
posted by Patrick on
Didn’t KingCharles opine in this thread a smear on your good name, North Dallas 30, when he stated: “(you were) the crackhead of liars? Hopeless addicted, aren’t you?”
It seems that, once again, KingCharles has described himself to perfection with that very line.
Hoisted, yet again, on his own petard.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Patrick, you and Michigan Matt are cute when you’re mad. You should think about getting cute together. Woof. Damn. Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, with all the people that Charles Wilson has ticked-off on yet this site too… he’s going to soon need a special url cite just to list all his offenders and his offenses.
You’re right. No character to shame in that one.
I didn’t get that you were “mad”? I don’t read that in your fair, balanced and honest posts… must be those twisted glasses our racist resident foaming gayLefter uses to view the world, eh?
Back on topic… I asked on another thread what was meant by the comment that someone was smearing kids with MS and their Moms… I thought it was another condescending liberal moment of one of the presidential candidates… I see it wasn’t.
No need to respond; I get it.
posted by RIchard on
The lack of respect for civility and civics seems to be a problem of just about everyone; irrespective of their race, color, creed, class, sex, sexuality or politics.
When it comes to the culture wars, people just seem to think that tthere is no incentive to be civil or care much about civics.
This is a problem that has existed LONG before bloggers existed or most people were even aware of the world wide web.
This is not a problem that started with either party. Suggesting that it started with the Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives is a detachment from reality.
Oddly enough, the sole reply to my honest observation did that, and seemed to ignore the question of civics. Pity.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, I heartily disagree with your notion that a lack of civics is a problem just about for everyone or everywhere, for that matter. In my sons’ school, civics and proper respect in the public square are taught, they are values instilled in the students, and parents practice them at home.
In the Midwest, in the South, in the Plains states, decency and civic discourse are the norm. It’s only when you get to large population centers where the politics of identity is used to draw certain classes of like-minded people together.
I think we can judge that education elites, the MSM, the LeftBlog world and other institutions have helped coarsen and irritate America’s natural inclination toward good civic conduct.
You may not want to acknowledge that truism, but that’s because I think you have a dog in the fight, as it were.
Eliminate obxious people from NY, NJ and California from our world and civics will return in a flash. Who was who said, “Our society’s demeanor isn’t established by the elites, it set by the loudest, most radical voice at the lowest rung”? it was the same guy who said Democracy is a shelter organization for minority interests…
Anyway, thanks for being civil.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I love it when Michigan Matt is being “civil.” Someone complains about the attempted murder of four people in a gay bar, and he tells them to put away the victim/pity card.
He sees a website he doesn’t like and he Michigan Matt throws the terrorist card at it. His gay “friends?” Well they’re inferior to him: “Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.”
Not to mention his lying about my so-called “racism,” and his incredibly vicious lying about my late partner. Spares us your “civility,” you self-righteous, lying phony of a wingnut. It’s a joke, and anyone who’s been looking in on these threads knows it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass liar said ” Priya claims that those with whom she disagrees have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest”.
That’s a lie. I never claimed anyone had an eight year old child chained up in the basement to molest. I stated the fact that I wouldn’t be surprised if Northdallass liar did after he attacked me for opposing pedophilia:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
At June 19, 2007, 4:02pm he said “all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
Northdallass is the one falsely accusing others of things he has no proof for. He accused me of having public sex, multiple partners and of “repeatedly assaulting religious people in every possible manner”.
This is the same bigot who claimed “most gays are deviant” and that said of slavery “I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?”.
He makes it clear he thinks blacks should be grateful for slavery although he later tried to backtrack and claim he hadn’t suggested that very thing.
He’s repeatedly lied on this thread, Charles Wilson made it clear his partner’s first partner played around but Charle’s partner never did yet Northdallass continuously lies and claims Charles said his partner was promiscuous.
Northdallass said to Charles “So let us be clear; YOU and your fellow gay liberals believe that straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.”
Charles responded “North Liar Forty, please find and post the link to any statement I’ve made that “straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.””.
Northdallass replied “With pleasure” and then prodeded to link to someone OTHER than Charles making such a statement – this is so typical of his ongoing dishonesty, what a despicable liar.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Priya, here’s their wingnut style:
1. Lie, and when challenged, repeat the lie.
2. If cornered, change the subject.
3. Cast the failure to denounce in the same terms as you do as approval
4. If none of that works, lash out in the most vicious manner possible
The Republican Party has been doing this, and getting away with it, for the past 25 years. They are so accustomed to this behavior that it is become their norm.
posted by Patrick on
Charles, we love it when you’re being “civil” too… and disingenuous and a racist and a foaming, spittle spewing tyrant and egotistical bore… honest, we love it when you and BarryO are so condescending to we little wee people of the common land.
Pray tell us KingCharles, have you apologized to that poor Mother suffering with a daughter in the terrible clutches of MS? You were brtually mean-spirited to her without provocation.
No, didn’t think so.
Have you changed your ways and abrasively arrogant uncivil tone toward most of the commenters here?
No, didn’t think so.
Have you, by chance, taken some time to reflect on your error in judgment of the suffering and devasting plight of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian families who lost loved ones and homes to those “asian stir fry” typhoons you like to kid them about?
No, didn’t think so.
And have you taken the time to return to those dozens of sites and blogs where your uncivil, inhumane and caustic comments have ruined, fouled and spoiled thread after thread after thread of discussions… which had otherwise been productive, useful and constructive for those so engaged?
No, didn’t think so.
A racist will always be a racist, KingCharles. And you’re the last one to be able to understand your racial bigotry because, like the fundamentalist Christians you hate, you think your insights come from God… well, with a lower case “g”, the god of KingCharles… his aging, bitter lonely face in the mirror.
Now, go back upstairs and ask your Mom if you can have friends over to play tomorrow afternoon. Ok?
posted by Patrick on
KingCharles, the racist, offers: “It’s a joke, and anyone who’s been looking in on these threads knows it”
Well, as the church lady would say, Isn’t that special. Projecting there a little KingCharles since you’re the one who brags about driving people off websites, blogs, discussion baords and forums from MS Patient Awareness Help boards to boards that help support the families of troops injured in war, to Segway customer boards, to political blogs of every single scope.
And then, when pushed or banned or barred, you resort to legal threats and intimidation as you exit. Kind of demented… could it be related to nascent diseases you haven’t had the courage to check out since your partner died?
Kind of funny, in a sickly socio-pathological way, that you like to project all the terrible traits onto your opponents and after you practice them with even greater flourish and abandon on them… sick and pathetic.
And what does that say about Richard and Michigan-matt discussing something and you consistently inject yourself like a spolied 2 yr old brat… “Look at KingCharles now. I want attention! Look at me NOW!”
Insecure? Lonely in that basement apartment? Or just immature?
I’m betting all three.
posted by Patrick on
Priya Lynn, I don’t see how there’s anything materially different in you suggesting that disgusting and coarse conduct and North Dallas 30 claiming that you did exactly that… I mean that if someone says “I wouldn’t be surprised” it’s like the dishonest ploy of “When did you stop beating your wife, Mr Mayor?”
A ploy isn’t intellectually honest, Priya Lynn. And I think North Dallas 30 has tried to be honest with you in most discussion threads I’ve read. You just haven’t done a very good job of making the convincing argument.
Let’s take this game you play where you lay your best points (ugh) out and try to make them appear logical. I don’t know what you’re trying to create in all that, but is sure isn’t logic.
I know… you’d like to create a fiction and hide behind it.
And for the other examples you think make your case, it appears to be nothing more than added fiction.
Why do you and fellow gayLeft flamer KingCharles take these ego-centric boastful positions, apply some faux veneer of logic and then think you can fool readers here with that nonsense?
Oh, I know. I get it.
It’s because you guys fool YOURSELVES first before proceeding on.
Ahhhh, it gets much clearer now. Thanks Priya Lynn.
posted by Patrick on
hey KingCharles, I know you like to toss out those same, old tired worn points about Michigan-Matt, but if anyone looks at the citations, they read the truth first hand and then know you’re a liar.
You should have realized by now that the points of reference need to reflect what you claim they say… like the tired one you use about the Bedford Mass gay bar shooting in 2006… Michigan-Matt isn’t doing what you claim… he’s telling a whining angry flamer (the blog authors term, not MM’s) that playing the victim in the shootings isn’t what’s needed… justice is what’s needed. Community coalitions to fight the hate is what’s needed.
Wow, you really do make this stuff up as you go, don’t you KingCharles?
A life of lies makes for a shallow grave, buddie. I’m warning you for your own good there, KingCharles the racist.
posted by Patrick on
Oh wait… that’s right, we’ve established you and Priya Lynn like to hide behind a self-created fiction.
Forgot. My bad.
posted by Richard on
MM;
I have seen people on this very message board be incredible uncivil. Some appear to be Democrats, some Republicans and others are Independents.
Your partisan notion that civility is only a problem for liberals or Democrats or Independents is rather intellectual dishonest.
If people are not willing to admit that a problem exists, little is going to be done about it.
Frankly, you seem to be the fellow with a ‘dog’ (or elephant) to fight in it. While I make no claim to support any political party.
The fact that you support the mass murder of people, certainly does not seem to have promote a more civil tone. Pity that you blinders seem to suggest that, “Civility is only a problem for Democrats, liberals and big city folk.”
Naturally, the entire issue of civics seems to have been abandonded.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Patrick said “I think North Dallas 30 has tried to be honest with you in most discussion threads I’ve read.”.
Either you haven’t read too many threads I’ve been in or you’re not being honest. Do you think Northdallass was being honest when he said I have multiple sex partners, when he said I demand to have public sex, when he claimed I regularly assault religious people in all possible manners, when he said I tear down normal and married couples as “stepford wives”?
You criticize me for wondering if he’s a pedophile after he defended pedophelia, where’s your criticisim of him for lying and saying I assault religious people in all possible manners?!
I haven’t seen much of you on these threads to judge your integrity, but either you’re terribly unfamiliar with Northdallass or you’re almost as big a liar as he is. Right from the beginning on this thread he told a lie. When Charles asked him to show where he said “”straight people should have to marry, but that gay and lesbian people should not.”
Northdallass said “With Pleasure” and proceded to link to someone else saying that, NOT Charles.
I’m not familiar with Charles Wilson either so I’m not able to comment on the allegations made against him here, but when no one who isn’t a Northdallass supporter is making those allegations it casts doubt upon them. What I can see is that in the few threads I’ve read where Charles has commented he hasn’t told any lies, unlike the nortorious Northdallass liar.
You may be a perfectly decent person patrick, but intentionally or not you’re wayyyy off the mark about the “honesty” of Northdallass Liar.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, “The fact that you support the mass murder of people, certainly does not seem to have promote a more civil tone.”
Please, oh please, don’t tell me you mean the WOT in Afghanistan and Iraq?
And yeah, the radicalized farLeft does need a long, hard lesson in civics… do we need to recall the faked pictures of Bush and Rove kissing during the 04 race or the General Betray Us ad from the very queen of farLeft Democrat racicals?
I imagine a few moments spent in BlogActive, BlogAmerica, JoeMyGod, DailyKos, DemocratUnderground or dozens of other sites will deliver enough uncivil and undemocratic tendencies to warrant disposal at its own toxic waste site.
No, Richard, the origin of the politics of personal destruction began with ActUp and other farLeft groups… it was their consummate way of gaining attention.
It’s why CharlesManson is so typical in his petulant personal attacks here. And commenters like Priya Lynn can’t find the decency to stand against that kind of pettiness and incivility?
Of course not; she’d approve if North Dallas 30 is the target.
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Priya Lynn, not that you would listen because your ear mufflers are set to “monopoly” and you don’t like or tolerate opposing viewpoints, but I’ve participated in discussion boards with Patrick and I can vouch, he’s a fair minded, moderate, engaging person.
We’ve disagreed on issues like the death penalty, immigration reform, the wall, Nato, the UN, welfare reform, civil unions and whether or not males raising young sons deny the sons the knowledge of womenly perspectives.
And yet, in a thread where you contend you don’t haven’t read much of his comments, you contend he’s either dishonest or as big a liar as NDXXX.
Real nice, there, lady. I think you made up your mind about Patrick BEFORE you played keyboard cop and defender of CharlesWilson, a racist, a 5x proven liar, a blog reprobate and a sociopath.
Real, real nice there lady.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Wrong Michigan Matt, I said Patrick is either unfamiliar with Northdallass liar or he’s a liar as well. Next time read what I actually said instead of flying off the handle about what you’d like to think I said.
And I’m not defending Charles wilson, I’m saying you haven’t proven your allegations and if you don’t have someone who shares your viewpoint on charles who isn’t a defender of Northdallass, that that casts doubt on the credibility of those allegations.
posted by Pat on
And I’m not defending Charles wilson, I’m saying you haven’t proven your allegations and if you don’t have someone who shares your viewpoint on charles who isn’t a defender of Northdallass
Okay, I’ll bite. Priya Lynn, Charles Wilson’s behavior on this board has been atrocious.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Maybe this explains Michigan Matt: “My uncle served 57 yrs in Alcatraz for multiple prison breaks, robbery, pistol whipping and killing a guard, and countless crimes in the 9 adult yrs he wasn’t in prison.”
posted by MIchigan-Matt on
Priya Lynn, right you aren’t defending Charles Wilson but you didn’t take even a split second to types in the decent, civil words of “…but I condemn his petty, personal attacks on many here” or words to that effect. No one’s proven the case? Are you asleep?
In a way, you do defend Charles by your silence… and in this specific instance, by not acting in a decent, civil manner when called to account.
In most therapy groups, that’s labeled being the “enabler”… it’s as bad as the person who performs the transgression.
Now, as to whether or not NDXXX is quite the lying character you portray him as -especially with the North DallASS designation- you think Patrick or I or others are flying off the handle accusing you of being unreasonable?
I think you do fly off the handle and accuse people of sentiments that are clearly not warranted in the text… it’s baggage you bring to thread from other engagements. Yeah, it’s a problem.
Sorry to be so blunt and I’m sure that will now win me the “liar” designation that you cast on some folks here, but so be it.
NDXXX is certainly not a ped villan. You know that in your heart if your hate can be set aside for a moment of reason.
I’m sorry you can’t find it in you to say you condemn the neighborhood bully, but as I tell my sons, sometimes people are NOT as courageous and righteous at the moment they need to… but they’ll get there when they reflect on the lack of proper conduct at some later point… and find their spine.
Pat, as you can readily observe, has the decency to enter the fray -maybe at risk of becoming the new stalking target of Charles Wilson- just Patrick and others.
I’m sorry you couldn’t find your moral compass to direct you in the decent course. Pat, thank you.
And for my part where my conduct has erred on the side of uncivil, I apologize heartily. I tried to do the ignore thing with Charles taunts but that simply brought forward deeper research and stalking by Charles, even more outrageous accusations and, finally, outright lies and deception from him.
With Pat’s kindness and acknowledgement, I’ll try to be better about this.
Again, thanks Pat.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
for clarity, the sentences above should have read
Pat, as you can readily observe, has the decency to enter the fray -maybe at risk of becoming the new stalking target of Charles Wilson- just Patrick and others.
I’m sorry PRIYA LYNN THAT you couldn’t find your moral compass to direct you in the decent course.
Pat, thank you.
Sorry for any offense.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Poor Michigan Matt, reduced to a sputtering Republican robot, able to to nothing more than repeat his lies. What do you do for a living, anyway? I’m curious. What productive enterprise would ever have any use for you? Are you in one of those ex-gay ministries, by any chance?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles Wilson the racist, now eaxctly what part of
“…Charles Wilson’s behavior on this board has been atrocious.”
didn’t you get?
You can’t use your time-honored dodge that this commenter is a sockpuppet… she was here long before I ever got here.
And you can’t use your normal smear paractices against her because she isn’t a wingnut, isn’t a GOPer, isn’t a conservative.
Hmmmm. I guess you’ll have to accept her judgement that your behavior has been, well, atrocious. And the judgements of others here that you’re the “village idiot”, the “town fool”, “childish”, “boorish and abusive” and well, “unhinged”.
We know it hurts you when you’re character is exposed to fair, balanced and honest judgement of your peers -but you’ll never be able to redeem your worthless, miserable soul until you can admit your errors, Charles Wilson.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Charles Wilson the racist, now eaxctly what part of
“…Charles Wilson’s behavior on this board has been atrocious.”
didn’t you get?
Wow, Michigan Matt, now you’re quoting your sockpuppet/squire. Priya didn’t make the statement. “Patrick” did. Can you ever tell the truth about anything? Ha!
posted by Pat on
Charles, that was stated by me. I am not the “Patrick” who also has been posting here.
I’m not anyone’s sockpuppet here. And if you have read my comments in the past month, you’d see many of my opinions differ from MichiganMatt and Patrick.
Usually, I stay out of it when people don’t play nice, but your behavior has gone well over the line.
Anyway, why not just cut the bad behavior and try being a civil contributor here. Okay?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles, I would think you could get at least this little bit correct.
Priya Lynn didn’t say that, it was Pat -as noted above. Pat is no one’s sockpuppet… independent, thoughtful and balanced would better describe Pat; not sockpuppet in any way, shape or form. And, I’d add, decent and civil.
On top of all that, I didn’t say Priya Lynn made that comment… where you read that is a certainly a mystery to us all.
But you go gurl… incorrect, shooting blanks… it’s all about you, Charles.