Cynthia Yockey writes in The Advocate:
LGBTs on the left have only about a year to learn the language of conservatism and persuade the conservative movement that we have an unalienable right to equality. That’s because conservatives now control a majority of state legislatures and probably will also control the White House and Congress come 2013.
Hmmm. Sounds like Cynthia has been reading this blog’s discussion of political language.
Meanwhile, GOP House Speaker Boehner’s defense of the Defense of Marriage Act won’t help. But his case seems so weak on the merits I anticipate a positive outcome, eventually, in the courts. Maybe in 2013.
52 Comments for “Anticipating 2013”
posted by JohnInCA on
… well, sounds like we’re [obscenity deleted] then.
I mean seriously… LGBTs on the right have had decades to learn the language of conservatism and persuade the conservative movement that we have an unalienable right to equality. And they still haven’t pulled it off.
So it’s kinda unreasonable to expect LGBTs on the left to do in a year what LGBTs on the right haven’t done in thirty.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, you are, JohnInCA.
You spent decades using homosexuality as an excuse for blindly supporting and endorsing corrupt government behavior like Solyndra and Lightspeed, demanding higher taxes while refusing to pay taxes yourself like Charles Rangel, flat-out racist and antireligious bigotry like Jeremiah Wright, wishing all Republicans dead like Dan Savage, and screaming that anyone who disagreed with the Obama Party was a racist who wanted to put all gays in concentration camps, like all the commenters listed on the Queerty article.
Add to that how you attack and want to punish religious people for teenage suicides with which they had nothing to do while blithely barebacking thousands of gay teenagers per year into sickness, disability, and death.
Granted, you’ve been in the Obama Party for years, where minority status always trumps behavior and skin color is more important than character. But now the bill is coming due for that, and I’m not surprised you’re panicked — you, like the vast majority of Obama Party pet minorities, have no chance in a world where you’re judged based on your character and behavior rather than your sexual orientation.
posted by JohnInCA on
Do you ever *not* make assumptions about people?
posted by Wilberforce on
Tell us about yourself. Are you paid to say these stupid things? Do you have a shred of education? If so, it’s from a backwater school. Tell us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So Wilberforce, will you state that the “self-educated” businessman who trained you was stupid? After all, you insist that the only way anyone can be smart is to get a degree from the right schools — so you were trained by a moron by your own standards.
Of course, a real self-educated businessman would have recognized something that you edumacated college boys didn’t. Care to explain that one?
And don’t forget, if you criticize Obama or the Obama administration, you’re a racist. You said so down below.
posted by Wilberforce on
Really though. Read the gospels and the prophets. Otherwise, educated discourse does not need your bull—-.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….such as your “educated discourse” screaming that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist?
And really, your fellow gays and lesbians like Doug and Houndentenor scream that anyone who reads the Bible is an ignorant and superstitious moron. When you’re ready to call them antireligious bigots, then we’ll talk.
posted by Houndentenor on
Those or your words, not mine. I’ll thank you not to use me as a strawman. You know nothing about me.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, it is possible to swing a handful or Republican votes on gay issues. Moving the entire conservative movement? What planet do you live on?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sounds like Cynthia has been reading this blog’s discussion of political language.
Indeed.
It does seem that the idea that progressive gays and lesbians, rather than conservative gays and lesbians, bear the responsibility for making the conservative argument for “equal means equal” is au courant in Republican circles this year.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Why can’t conservative gays and lesbians make the conservative arguments to conservatives and progressive gays and lesbians make the progressive arguments to progressives?
I think another observation of Yockey’s merits some thought in this context:
I don’t see the “vast support from the right” that Yockey is talking about when I read Republican pronouncements on “equal means equal”. What I see is the opposite. The Republican pronouncements reported in the mainstream press are a lot closer to the views expressed by NorthDallasThirty on this list, who probably represents the Republican mainstream, at least among the “base” of social conservative primary voters in states like Iowa.
So, I wonder, how “vast” is the “vast support from the right”, why do we not hear their voices at all outside of reports of squabbles over CPAC, and what can conservative gays and lesbians do to harness whatever support there is and leverage it to match the voices of the mainstream Republican “base” like NorthDallasThirty?
Another observation of Yockey’s also caught my eye:
I have no doubt that Yockey is right in observing that right-wingers will reject legislation tied to a planned economy or a nanny state, no matter what merits it may otherwise have. But that leads to a question: How, exactly, were marriage equality and DADT repeal “chained to the stagnation of a planned economy and the tyranny of a nanny state“? Neither seems to be linked to either, and yet there has been little or no support for marriage equality or DADT repeal from conservatives of any stripe, at least publicly.
Another observation of Yockey’s also merits some thought:
Barry Goldwater made this argument about the dangers of turning over the Republican Party to dominionist Christians in the 1990’s. He was taunted as “senile”. When others, including folks on this list, make the argument today, they are taunted as “anti-religious”. I’m glad that Yockey, at least, “gets it”. The far right religious fringe that is so dominant in the Republican primary “base” — the dominionists surrounding Governor Perry and Michele Bachmann, for example, and the “C Street” crowd, pose a danger to religious liberty and individual freedom. Goldwater was right.
posted by Wilberforce on
Why can’t conservativ gays make the ‘equal means equal’ arguments? I think it’s because they don’t want to. I don’t think they really care about gay rights. Arguing with their base would damage their status. Probably many of them also have serious financial resources and don’t need minority protections. It’s far more important to increase those resources with tax cuts and bailouts.
So they spend their time trying to get us to vote republican and demanding that we lobby the GOP. They know we won’t do either, but it distracts attention from their real priorities.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I do so love how the jealous and spiteful socialist gays blow open their own cases with their whining.
Such as:
Probably many of them also have serious financial resources and don’t need minority protections.
Yup. Amazingly enough, despite their being gay and despite “the base” hating them, they’ve had no problem accumulating financial resources, power, status, and capability.
So the main problem here is that successful conservative gays ruin Wilberforce’s excuse that gays are always discriminated against and that all Republicans hate gays — which means poor Wilberforce would have to look at his own decisions and take responsibility for his own actions, rather than blaming all of his problems on Christians and Republicans.
No wonder Wilberforce hates them so much. Wilberforce is a typical Obama socialist — he can’t stand when anyone else has more than he does, and he has to destroy them because they make him look bad. In the twisted world of Wilberforce, successful people are to be punished, and irresponsible and promiscuous gays are to get freebies at their expense.
No wonder Wilberforce likes JMG so much.
posted by Wilberforce on
Rube. It’s fun how you repeat Obama’s name over and over. Looks like you’re obsessed with race.
And I have a ton of capital, and looks, and education. I was raised by a self educated businessman. I’m not jealous of anyone. Especially not you.
Read some books, Mary. Start with Plato and Matthew and Ruth and Aristotle and Tolkien and Durant and Voltaire and Erasmus. Then get back to me.
On second thought, emotionally stunted folk usually need decades to heal themselves. So please. Don’t talk to me, ever. Ever again. I don’t have time for far right hicks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I have a ton of capital, and looks, and education.
Which is why you’re so desperate to tear down anyone who has all of these as selfish and evil.
I was raised by a self educated businessman.
Which, given your insistence above that anyone who doesn’t go to the “right” school is stupid, is a hilarious example of your hypocrisy.
I’m not jealous of anyone. Especially not you.
Which is, of course, why you keep trying to trash other people, including me, who have more and better than you do.
Read some books, Mary.
Given your obvious addiction to and dependence on left-wing talking points and tired old JoeMyGod antireligious bigotry, I wish you’d take your own advice.
I don’t have time for far right hicks.
Yup, like the “self-educated” person who you claim raised you.
Nice story, Wilberforce, but you can’t hold it together. Why not just admit that you’re a left-wing antireligious bigot like your hero Joe Jervis?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When others, including folks on this list, make the argument today, they are taunted as “anti-religious”.
And hypocrites. Don’t forget hypocrites.
The reason why, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach?
Because we know that what you shriek is “dominionist” and “theocratic” in Republicans, you fully embrace in your own Obama Party.
So you look pretty stupid and hypocritical for whining about politicians invoking “God’s will” while blindly and mindlessly endorsing Obama doing it.
So you look even more stupid and hypocritical for whining about politicizing churches and tax exemption abuse when you’re passing out flyers of Obama in a pulpit.
And as far as criticism of spouses, anyone who can google “spirits clean Michelle Obama” can see how quiet you go when it’s someone of the right skin color saying it, versus the full-blown aneurysm you had over that indicating mental illness for Republicans.
So yes, Tom Scharbach, you’re a bigot. And I think more people should know that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and its staffers openly endorse and support antireligious bigotry — and in the most hypocritical fashion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And last but certainly not least, it’s hilarious to see Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach trying to quote Barry Goldwater, especially since the Obama Party that Tom Scharbach supports and endorses did this to Goldwater back in 1964:
Just before the 1964 election, a muckraking magazine called Fact decided to survey members of the American Psychiatric Association for their professional assessment of Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the Republican nominee against President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Ralph Ginzburg, the magazine’s notoriously provocative publisher, had heavily advertised the issue in advance, saying it would call Mr. Goldwater’s character into question.
A.P.A. members were asked whether they thought Mr. Goldwater was fit to be president and what their psychiatric impressions of him were. It was not American psychiatry’s finest hour.
The survey, highly unscientific even by the standards of the time, was sent to 12,356 psychiatrists, of whom 2,417 responded. The results were published as a special issue: “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.”
The psychiatrists’ assessment was brutal. Half of the respondents judged Mr. Goldwater psychologically unfit to be president. They used terms like “megalomaniac,” “paranoid” and “grossly psychotic,” and some even offered specific diagnoses, including schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder.
Only 27 percent of the respondents said Mr. Goldwater was mentally fit, and 23 percent said they didn’t know enough about him to make a judgment.
There were several attempts at a psychodynamic formulation of Mr. Goldwater’s character. One unsigned comment called the candidate “inwardly a frightened person who sees himself as weak and threatened by strong virile power around him,” and added that “his call for aggressiveness and the need for individual strength and prerogatives is an attempt to defend himself against and to deny his feelings of weakness.”
That also demonstrates what Republicans know very well. They know the media lies about Republicans to get Obama Party members elected. They know the members of the APA and the so-called “scientific” community will throw everything out the window to trash Republicans and get Obama Party members elected.
And they know Obama Party staffers like Tom Scharbach, and the LGBT community that they represent, support and endorse every bit of it.
posted by BobN on
You give the authoress far more credit than she is due.
Her assertion is ridiculous. If the country is destined to GOP control, let her and others like her carry the torch of gay equality for a change. It would be novel to see them get something done as conservative gay people in conservative organizations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Why can’t conservative gays and lesbians make the conservative arguments to conservatives and progressive gays and lesbians make the progressive arguments to progressives?
Because, Tom Scharbach, you and your fellow Obama Party staffers have been pushing for years that homosexuality equals being chained to the stagnation of a planned economy and the tyranny of a nanny state because your Obama Party masters told you to do it.
And furthermore, no one believes that you mean “equal means equal” because there are classic examples of how you and your fellow Obama Party staffers support and endorse FMA supporters as being “equal means equal”.
That’s what you don’t understand. Obama and your blind devotion to him have ironically undercut your very platform. People realize that when bigots like you scream “homophobe” and “racist”, it has nothing to do with actual homophobia or racism, but is just an attempt to force them to shut up and do what you want. They realize that your whines about “equal means equal” are just that — whining — and that you don’t really care, you just want to attack people who don’t worship your Obama.
What is being said, were you intelligent enough to realize it, is that people like yourself need to decouple your antireligious bigotry, promiscuity, irresponsibility, addiction to welfare and socialism, hatred of heterosexuals, and blind support of the Obama Party from your homosexuality. You need to grow up and acknowledge that your homosexuality has nothing to do with the fact that you’re a promiscuous, irresponsible, socialist bigot who wishes all Republicans were dead.
As Cynthia put it above, “GOProud is at the forefront of this drive, with leaders Jimmy LaSalvia and Christopher Barron staking a place for gays in the conservative movement by busting the myth that gay equals progressive.”
You are fighting that, Tom, and there’s a reason; you and yours have used your homosexuality for years to avoid intelligent thought. But if GOProud succeeds, you’ll have to answer for your antireligious bigotry, your addiction to socialism and welfare, and your mindless defense of promiscuous and irresponsible gay and lesbian people.
In other words, you will be being judged based on the content of your character rather than your minority status.
And you will fail. And you know that. That’s why you’re fighting so hard to destroy gay and lesbian conservatives and Republicans.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Your argument is that conservative gays and lesbians can make the conservative argument for “equal means equal” to Republicans because progressive gays and lesbians are aligned with the Democrats?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Corrected: Your argument is that conservative gays and lesbians cannot make the conservative argument for “equal means equal” to Republicans because progressive gays and lesbians are aligned with the Democrats?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….you see, Tom, that’s the basic problem.
When Republicans see “equal means equal”, that means to them that gays and lesbians have to follow the same sets of rules as everyone else and get the same treatment as everyone else does.
What Obama Party staffers like yourself mean, though, is that you get hiring quotas, replacement of performance evaluations with minority status, using “hate crimes” laws to demand increased penalties while you vandalize churches, using “hate speech” laws to silence anyone with whom you disagree while you slander and attack them, making military decisions based on sexual orientation and your need to cover up any bad decisions by gay people, and public promiscuity and irresponsible behavior.
In short, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, you want “equal” in the context of Animal Farm — as in, you want to be the animals who are more equal than others.
That is how the Obama Party operates. As we’ve already seen, Obama operatives are full-blown racists, blaming Jews for all the problems of society, insisting that civil rights laws don’t apply to discrimination against white people or males, and so forth. Your Obama Party — and the gay and lesbian community it owns — judge on the basis of skin color and minority status, not character.
Until you are willing to acknowledge that your racist, antireligious, welfare-addicted socialist views on the world have to do with your choices and are not inherent to your homosexuality, you and your fellow “progressive” gays are creating that problem.
But again, impasse; you are desperate to avoid being judged on your character rather than your sexual orientation because you will lose. So rather than divorce your sexual orientation from the failure of your ideology that your mindless worship of Barack Obama has created, you insist on dragging down all gays and lesbians with your failures.
posted by Houndentenor on
So many strawmen in one post. It’s not worth the time to take them apart one by one. I’ll pick one at random because it stuck out. Vandalism is a crime. Anyone vandalizing should be prosecuted. Gay, straight, bi, whatever.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Except, of course, when it’s gays and lesbians vandalizing churches. That would be “homophobic” to punish.
This also shows the hilarious hypocrisy of “hate crimes” laws. You’d think an attack on a church would qualify as one, but of course, gays and lesbians didn’t want that.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have never vandalized anything, much less a church. I support prosecution of vandals, gay or otherwise. This is just another strawman argument.
posted by BobN on
I’ve had it with the bullshit.
That “nanny state” kept you housed for how many years, ND? How many?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When Republicans see “equal means equal”, that means to them that gays and lesbians have to follow the same sets of rules as everyone else and get the same treatment as everyone else does.
I can understand why Republicans oppose ENDA and want to repeal similar workplace legislation enacted over the years in an attempt to ensure that people are not summarily fired on the basis of race, gender or religion. And I can understand why Republicans oppose hate crimes legislation.
Then why aren’t Republicans who see that “equal means equal” means “that gays and lesbians have to follow the same sets of rules as everyone else and get the same treatment as everyone else” working for marriage equality?
Marriage inequality imposes legal barriers that prevent gays and lesbian couples from following the same sets of rules and getting the same treatment as everyone else. Marriage equality would put straight and gay/lesbian couples on an equal footing.
And why didn’t Republicans who see that work to repeal DADT?
DADT imposed special rules on gays and lesbians in the armed forces and ensured that gays and lesbians in the armed forces were not treated the same as straights in the armed forces.
So why aren’t the Republicans who see that “equal means equal” means “that gays and lesbians have to follow the same sets of rules as everyone else and get the same treatment as everyone else” working for marriage equality? And why didn’t Republicans who see that work to repeal DADT?
That’s one question.
Your answer — and Stephen’s and Yockley’s — seems to be that Republicans don’t support and won’t support “equal means equal” in areas like marriage equality and DADT repeal so long as Democrats also support ENDA and hate crimes legislation. That’s not much of a reason.
But the question I asked was somewhat different. The question I asked was “Why can’t conservative gays and lesbians make the conservative arguments to conservatives and progressive gays and lesbians make the progressive arguments to progressives?”
And, again, your answer — and Stephen’s and Yockey’s — seems to be that conservative gays and lesbians cannot make the conservative argument for “equal means equal” to Republicans because progressive gays and lesbians are aligned with the Democrats
That just doesn’t make sense.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can understand why Republicans oppose ENDA and want to repeal similar workplace legislation enacted over the years in an attempt to ensure that people are not summarily fired on the basis of race, gender or religion.
No, you can’t, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach.
You merely project onto Republicans the bigotry of your own Obama Party, who states, for example, that civil rights laws don’t apply to white people.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that your own Obama Party endorses and supports hiring and academic admission quotas based, not on performance, but on skin color, gender, and sexual orientation.
See, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach? You whine about “equal means equal”, but you support patently UNEQUAL treatment based on skin color, religious beliefs, gender, and sexual orientation.
Next up:
Then why aren’t Republicans who see that “equal means equal” means “that gays and lesbians have to follow the same sets of rules as everyone else and get the same treatment as everyone else” working for marriage equality?
Because the rules are not and have never been, “I can marry to whatever I am sexually attracted.”
Furthermore, the rules that are in place are designed to benefit society in exchange for granting privileges and benefits.
Gay and lesbian marriage does not in any way benefit or provide benefits to society. No one seriously believes that it will make gays and lesbians less promiscuous, the individual welfare argument has been blown apart by gay and lesbian peoples’ screaming and constant demands for more government handouts and welfare, and the pure hypocrisy of gays and lesbians whining about having to pay taxes while simultaneously demanding higher taxes on everyone else has been duly noted.
And finally:
And why didn’t Republicans who see that work to repeal DADT?
Why on earth would Republicans support people like you, Tom Scharbach, who have stated on this very blog that you would cover up and not report bad behavior on the part of other gays in the military to avoid giving cover to the haters?
The military cannot survive that way. You would have to put military honor ahead of group identity, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, and you don’t have that capability.
And that brings us to the final point.
And, again, your answer — and Stephen’s and Yockey’s — seems to be that conservative gays and lesbians cannot make the conservative argument for “equal means equal” to Republicans because progressive gays and lesbians are aligned with the Democrats
Nope. It is the fact that you and your fellow “progressive” gays and lesbians have used your homosexuality as an excuse for your racist, antireligious, welfare-addicted socialist views on the world.
And we have literally DECADES of you and your fellow “progressive” gays and lesbians screaming and crying that any person who espoused conservative views wasn’t really gay, was a race traitor, was an “Uncle Tom”, a “Jewish Nazi”, and all these other things.
Not to mention your LGBT community leader Dan Savage stating on national television that he wanted all Republicans dead.
So what you and your fellow “progressive” gays need to do, Obama Party staffer Tom Scharbach, is start stating that your racist, antireligious, welfare-addicted socialist views on the world are yours and yours alone, and have nothing to do with your homosexuality. You have to open yourself up to being judged on your character instead of demanding special treatment because you’re gay.
But again, as discussed above, impasse; you are desperate to avoid being judged on your character rather than your sexual orientation because you will lose. So rather than divorce your sexual orientation from the failure of your ideology that your mindless worship of Barack Obama has created, you insist on dragging down all gays and lesbians with your failures.
posted by Doug on
So why haven’t you convinced your conservative friends and politicians NDF?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To do what? I think hate crimes laws are unconstitutional, I could care less about gay-sex marriage, and I see no reason to have hiring quotas, special set-asides, or other welfare giveaways for gays.
What I want is a strong country with a vibrant economy and the opportunity for people to educate themselves, work hard, and keep what they earn. In short, I think gay people have the same concerns as the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans.
You don’t understand that, Doug, because you don’t care about anything other than being treated differently because of your sexual orientation — and using that to take revenge on anyone who works harder, has more, or believes differently than you do.
posted by Doug on
Pull your head out of your ass. You know nothing about me. All of your name calling just shows how immature and infantile you really are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I know plenty about you, Doug. I know you hate religious people, I know you hate Republicans, I know you hate businesses and corporations, and I know you hate “the rich” — defined as anyone who makes more money than you do.
Your sexual orientation is just the convenient smokescreen you use for covering all of these.
posted by Doug on
Wrong on all counts NDF, not only are you immature and infantile you are ignorant too.
posted by Jorge on
To do what? I think hate crimes laws are unconstitutional, I could care less about gay-sex marriage, and I see no reason to have hiring quotas, special set-asides, or other welfare giveaways for gays.
I don’t agree but I think I’ll use this line sometime. I like the attitude behind it.
posted by Houndentenor on
Hate crimes laws are unconstitutional? Please. Everyone knows that there’s a difference between spraypainting Houndie loves Jorge on the side of a bridge and painting a swastika on a synagogue door. The law has to acknowledge that difference.
posted by Jorge on
The Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church won their Supreme Court cases. The law draws a line. Hate crimes laws are probably only legal because they legislate aggravating circumstances rather than create new crimes, so there’s more leeway there.
posted by Houndentenor on
They won because people have the right to free speech. Even ugly speech. Honestly the more people like that talk in public the more unpopular they become. There’s nothing to be afraid of. Anyone see masses of people joining Westboro? No. Speech is not a hate crime. A hate crime has to already be a crime to begin with.
To be honest I think these laws are about 25 years too late. There was a time when local authorities didn’t prosecute people who gay bashed. Now they do. Matthew Shepherd’s killers were prosecuted without a hate crimes law. But I think there are instances where groups use violence to threaten and intimidate a minority group where these laws are important.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, even I don’t think “Equality will come from the right.” I do think winning over the right leads to victory.
But otherwise I mostly agree with the article. Very interesting discussion of the need to understand and the different groups on the right who are or are not friendly to our causes.
“In contrast, outer-directed social conservatives are the permanent and implacable foes of LGBT equality. They are immune to our stories of devotion and lead lives according to the dictates of their religious leaders. LGBT activists should shoo them out of government and back to their proper place in the realm of persuasion, where religions reside in America thanks to the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.”
It took me two tries (it’s a rather short explanation) but I think I get it! I think I get it! Don’t forget the bible-thumpers–the leaders have to get their fanaticism from somewhere. I learned something! “Inner-directed social conservatives.” I like that!
Anyway, they know how to talk to liberals, they know how to talk to moderates. Talking to conservatives isn’t that much of a stretch, but really, why not just look the other way and let the gay rightists do it?
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree there’s a problem here. There are Republicans who can be swayed if someone will sit down and talk with them. It just happened this year in New York state. It happened because individual gay people in their district took the time to do so. HRC wrote them off. But then HRC has never accomplished anything for gay people in spite of spending a lot of money and patting themselves on the back constantly.
I’ll say this again, if conservative gay people want someone to talk to conservatives about gay issues, they should do it themselves. I don’t say that as an excuse for our incompetent gay rights organizations. It’s just the reality. Honest, moderate gays have to do the same thing. African American gays, etc. Sometimes if you want something done right you have to do it yourself. Waiting for someone else to come along on a white horse to fix it is an exercise in futility. It’s not going to happen.
posted by Wilberforce on
It makes me sad.
I was trained by educated, old money folk, taught noblesse oblige, and ‘from whom much is given, much is ecpected.’
Now I have to listen to low class, selfish hicks pretending to be conservatives. Please. They don’t know the meaning of the word.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Wilberforce, you claimed above that you were trained by “self-educated” folks who started out poor. Please try to keep your stories straight, although your spin does have some amusing entertainment value.
Meanwhile, how are all them edumacated Obamabots like yourself doing in the business world, hm? You think that’s conservative? Of course you do, because anyone who would disagree with or criticize Obama is a racist. You said so right in this here thread.
posted by Houndentenor on
I spent over a decade working for the major investment banks and I came across as many liberals as conservatives there. Just because someone is left of center doesn’t mean they are Marxist. You seem intelligent enough to be able to see the word as more complicated than black and white.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, when you look at what Wilberforce and his fellow gays and lesbians consider good use of government funds, what we realize very quickly is that THEY don’t want to work or give a damn dime; they want to lay in bed in their diapers all day, whine that those who work should pay more, and threaten to kill themselves if they don’t get their way.
Which makes the parable Wilberforce attempted to quote all the more ironic.
And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful steward, the wise man whom his master will set over those in his household service to supply them their allowance of food at the appointed time?
Blessed (happy and to be envied) is that servant whom his master finds so doing when he arrives.
Truly I tell you, he will set him in charge over all his possessions.
But if that servant says in his heart, My master is late in coming, and begins to strike the menservants and the maids and to eat and drink and get drunk,
The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour of which he does not know, and will punish him and cut him off and assign his lot with the unfaithful.
And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act as he would wish him to act shall be beaten with many [lashes].
Luke 12:42-47
It always amuses me when lazy moocher gays like Wilberforce try to quote that verse, because one realizes very quickly that lazy moocher gays like Wilberforce are just using it to try to force other people to do their work for them and pay their bills.
If lazy moocher gay Wilberforce actually knew the Bible, he would also be very familiar with 2 Thessalonians 3:10b: “If any will not work, neither let him eat.”
posted by Houndentenor on
ROFLOL
don’t you work in HR? That’s moocherville and parasite town in every organization.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And yet, it’s the first place you come running to complain about your pay, working conditions, etc.
And the people who do the diversity training you so often demand.
And the people who manage the hiring and firing processes that you don’t want to discriminate.
Which creates one heck of a problem when you abolish it.
posted by Houndentenor on
You are so full of crap.
1) I have NEVER complained to HR about anything.
2) I have never demanded diversity training.
3) HR are the people who eff up the hiring process. It’s a mess these days. I have yet to meet anyone in an HR dept who wasn’t a self-important time-wasting paper-pushing freeloader. You seem to be Exhibit A from your attitudes here.
Oh and if it weren’t for all those things you hate so much, you’d be out of a job.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, goodness! I don’t check his links often, but boy was that one a payoff!
A 30-year old adult baby! He ****s on himself and has tantrums whenever you threaten to hold him accountable. A regular Anthony Weiner, this one.
And speaking of holding people accountable, ND30, you need to be holding “Wilberforce and his fellow gays and lesbians” accountable for exactly what they are doing, and cornering them to condemn extremism and affirm common sense, not linking to utterly irrelevant trash.
By the way, how do you do that in-text hyperlinking?
posted by Houndentenor on
I never click on any of nd30’s hyperlinks so if it went to some adult baby thing, I’m very glad I didn’t go. So was that to David Vitter’s webpage or something? (LOL)
posted by Jorge on
Really? Your comment fit.
Convince yourself your life is uninteresting anyway and you won’t miss the next five minutes–because you’re never going to get them back.
posted by Doug on
North Dallas Thirty is the Michele Bachmann of IGF
posted by Jorge on
I just thought of something.
This distinction between “inner-” vs. “outer-” directed social conservatives is an important one. But the article provides very little in the way of examples, and it is well that it does not provide them, because there isn’t going to be much agreement on the distinction.
I mean for goodness sakes, most people would put Ann Coulter in the latter category. She’s against hate crimes laws, gay-sex marriage, hiring quotas, special set-asides, and other welfare giveaways for gays, too.
Be careful about this. Social conservatives overall have become very good at crafting arguments that can appeal to moderates–those fears about the effects gay marriage will have on society. That “gay pride parade sets gay rights back decades” satirical spiel is accurate in the sense that these people will zero in on the racidals among us. It’s a double-edged sword in the sense that we have faith that gay marriage and gay families will not cause society to implode. At the same time it’s dangerous and counterproductive to dismiss people without testing them both personally and politically.
I love to talk of positive the example set by the Bush administration and Attorney General Ashcroft during the first Bush term, but now those days are numbered. A new example is being set, one whose meaning will continue to divide us.
posted by BobN on
If equality “will come from the right”, what form will it take?
posted by Mary on
Doug, I’m disappointed. I was hoping it was me who could be the Michele Bachmann of IGF! Although I doubt that even Michele would be taking the strident tone of ND40. I actually agree with a lot of his points, but he really overdoes it – and on a regular basis. I believe I’ve seen his posts on Pajamas Media, and I remember them being notable, but not nearly so confrontational.