Liberals On Here Care To Respond?

[Holmes]

Ugh, I hate this guy so much. He's all over the gay blogs. Just pull the plug on him, Logo. He's a media whore.

I'm pretty sure these are all self-inflicted, though. Considering all the vandalism the members of GOProud and the LCR get. Oh wait.

[Badger]

I traditionally don't like talking about social issues that much. This was probably my first foray into one since coming to this forum, but I honestly just expected people to pop on say something like "that's a shame when that happens to any liberal or conservative" and move on. Instead the absolutely insane response accusing him of being a liar, not caring, asking meaningless questions, personally attacking me, etc. caught me off guard. You guys seriously failed to rise to even your own principals out of some desire to act like your party is as pure as the driven snow and now you know you made yourselves out to be horrible people and are freaking out because you know it.

Remember, people, when you boldface and underline your post, that means it's very, VERY serious stuff.

But seriously, I insist we all turn it down to a 6 or the infractions are a coming.

[Badger]

Just because someone is black/Jewish/gay doesn't excuse their support of the KKK/Nazis/GOP.

Leif, saying a gay has no excuse for voting GOP, let alone comparing the GOP (even indirectly) to the KKK or Nazis, is hardly fair. Someone could be an economic conservative happily ensconced in a long term relationship in a tolerant local community, for whom the entire debate about marriage rights is quite abtract. It's obviously not the most civic-minded or empathetic world view, but it's still one's right to hold it.

That said, AT FIRST BLUSH, this sounds a bit like the "attack" on the McCain campaign worker (though I could be wrong).

[Oakvale]

Woah, I think I just realised how people get banned in the heat of the moment. Wrote a genuinely vitrolic response, but thought better of posting it. That was close. Suffice to say, I'd be infracted severely for flying off the handle.

*sweating*

EDIT: The only bit I'm willing to commit to now that I've taken a couple of deep breaths is that I'm pretty convinced Wonkish is, in fact, none other than former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Look at the facts - they've got similar temperment and personality, and both fancy themselves as, well, wonks.

[Mechaman]

Wonkish,

the main reason why you're getting such a response is probably because of the whole intent of this thread to lampoon liberals as hypocrites.  As we all should know by now this doesn't work well on a website that is dominated at large by liberals.  On here they can say whatever the hell they like and you can't.
It's just that simple.

[Cincinnatus]

I'm absolutely flabbergasted!

Obviously since the guy wrote "F**k Coulter" on his car he knew who he was. That doesn't take a rocket scientist.


You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Guy, the writing on his car clearly doesn't indicate this was an attack on him because he's gay.  I think it's quite obvious he's a friend of a controversial conservative figure, and that would be the motive.  Not that this is an excuse for any attack, but quite trying to play the gay hate card to reinforce your world view.

If I actually told you what I thought of you for posting that as a response to this article I would be sanctioned by the mods.

Unbelievable. So now every time any gay, black, etc. that gets beaten or has his property damaged because he's a republican or conservative we should just assume they are faking it?

How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Say what you want about me. You're easily one of the dumbest people on this forum, and chances are I'd be amused by whatever pathetic little attack your peanut-sized brain could come up with.

I'm not going to get worked up over some guy getting punched in Texas. Even according to his own (probably fake) story, he was attacked for being a conservative, not for being gay. I don't know why you're talking about gays and blacks. He jumps to ridiculous conclusions about "Democrats" wanting to make him a slave. A reality TV "star" from some garbage show I've never heard of making over the top, grandiose claims? He's obviously an attention whore and a liar. It's exceedingly likely this incident was fabricated (or heavily exaggerated) to acquire more of the attention he so desperately craves. And of course Republicans jump at the opportunity to "prove" that liberals can be violent, too.

If you want to see cruelty against gays, see all of the right-wing hatred directed against gay kids in high school who end up committing suicide.

Is it really just right-wing hatred?  Sure, some right-wing fanatics will gay-bash, which is completely undeniable and awful.  And obviously this has some effect on the situation.  But, have school children not picked on the different kids for decades?  One generation ago, it was four-eyes, another they would pick on you for wearing new white shoes.  It's not about simply blaming one ideology, even if they have an insane moral compass on the issue.  It's an unfortunate part of human nature for one group to pick on the ugly, the fat, or the "Gay".  

And despite Wonkish being totally bat-sh**t crazy, why is it impossible for a right-wing homosexual to be attacked?  This case is obviously twisted, but shouldn't we care about any directed assault on a homosexual, no matter what side of the spectrum?   

[Mechaman]

Wonkish,

the main reason why you're getting such a response is probably because of the whole intent of this thread to lampoon liberals as hypocrites.  As we all should know by now this doesn't work well on a website that is dominated at large by liberals.  On here they can say whatever the hell they like and you can't.
It's just that simple.

I want to clarify something real quickly:

I'm not saying I approve of the tactic that Wonkish is using here.  I believe that it is still pretty dishonest to conclude that the guy was attacked for being gay based on the evidence I've seen.  It is fair to conclude he might've been attacked for being associated with Ann Coulter since the car said "F*** Coulter".  Or he might've been attacked by a completely different group of people who like beating up people for the hell of it.  Hell, the other day I got into trouble with some bikers at a paddy bar just because they thought I looked like a "pretty college boy".  However, I take punches pretty good and the guys were throwing them around like goddamn fairies so I didn't press charges.

So pretty much what I'm trying to say is "f*** all of you guys.  You're lazy, you suck, and you have nothing better to do in your spare time except wank off to transsexual porn and post on a f***ing political forum.  F*** you guys."

[Zarn]

The majority of posters in this thread are being quite juvenile. How can you decry the average American voter for not engaging in what you deem intelligent conversations about issues and events, if you cannot do it yourselves?

[Wonkish1]

Wonkish,

the main reason why you're getting such a response is probably because of the whole intent of this thread to lampoon liberals as hypocrites.  As we all should know by now this doesn't work well on a website that is dominated at large by liberals.  On here they can say whatever the hell they like and you can't.
It's just that simple.

Well I would be lying if I didn't say that I at least learned a lesson on here when it comes to posting something something like this. I think from here on out I'll just avoid the social issues from here on out which is fine by me.

The intent of the thread wasn't to lampoon liberals as hypocrites. It was to get a reaction from liberals. When I came across this article I thought to myself that if I posted it Dems would just respond that it was sad and the story would fall off the top very soon, but some small part of me thought that it could be interesting so I posted it. And when the first 2 responses were kind of a surprise and a lot of views with no answers I posted a comment that I probably shouldn't have chiding other Dem posters on here.


I'll keep on saying it, I thought the average Dem would just give some tiny comment of sympathy and then leave.

[Wonkish1]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to lambast liberals as hypocrites nor blanket all of them as being bigoted or hypocrites.

My first comment after the two first responses may have not been best, but I never intended to attack Democrats on this thread.

And my responses on here were directed at those that I feel responded distastefully and aren't directed at the many Democrats on here that didn't make those kinds of responses.

[Oakvale]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to lambast liberals as hypocrites nor blanket all of them as being bigoted or hypocrites.

My first comment after the two first responses may have not been best, but I never intended to attack Democrats on this thread.

And my responses on here were directed at those that I feel responded distastefully and aren't directed at the many Democrats on here that didn't make those kinds of responses.

...

The thread's titled "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?". Don't pretend you didn't know the implications.

[Wonkish1]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to lambast liberals as hypocrites nor blanket all of them as being bigoted or hypocrites.

My first comment after the two first responses may have not been best, but I never intended to attack Democrats on this thread.

And my responses on here were directed at those that I feel responded distastefully and aren't directed at the many Democrats on here that didn't make those kinds of responses.

...

The thread's titled "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?". Don't pretend you didn't know the implications.

What's your point? I gave it that title because I wanted to see the reaction. It doesn't mean I didn't have in my head a completely different way of this thread playing out, one substantially more bland and boring than how this played out.

[Link]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to lambast liberals as hypocrites nor blanket all of them as being bigoted or hypocrites.

My first comment after the two first responses may have not been best, but I never intended to attack Democrats on this thread.

And my responses on here were directed at those that I feel responded distastefully and aren't directed at the many Democrats on here that didn't make those kinds of responses.

...

The thread's titled "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?". Don't pretend you didn't know the implications.

What's your point? I gave it that title because I wanted to see the reaction. It doesn't mean I didn't have in my head a completely different way of this thread playing out, one substantially more bland and boring than how this played out.

Well Wonkish1 it's not very nice when someone else dictates to you what you are thinking and then calls you a liar is it?

The point is that you thought I posted the austerity package of Greece not Italy, and now your lying to cover it up just like you always do. You are a liar and a hack and every time you post on here without admitting that you mistakenly thought that package was Greece's you dig yourself into a bigger and bigger hole and make yourself out to a bigger and bigger liar and hack.

[memphis]

This whole thread is actually a nice metaphor/allegory/whatever for why Gingrich can't win a general election against Obama.

[Wonkish1]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to lambast liberals as hypocrites nor blanket all of them as being bigoted or hypocrites.

My first comment after the two first responses may have not been best, but I never intended to attack Democrats on this thread.

And my responses on here were directed at those that I feel responded distastefully and aren't directed at the many Democrats on here that didn't make those kinds of responses.

...

The thread's titled "Liberals On Here Care To Respond?". Don't pretend you didn't know the implications.

What's your point? I gave it that title because I wanted to see the reaction. It doesn't mean I didn't have in my head a completely different way of this thread playing out, one substantially more bland and boring than how this played out.

Well Wonkish1 it's not very nice when someone else dictates to you what you are thinking and then calls you a liar is it?

The point is that you thought I posted the austerity package of Greece not Italy, and now your lying to cover it up just like you always do. You are a liar and a hack and every time you post on here without admitting that you mistakenly thought that package was Greece's you dig yourself into a bigger and bigger hole and make yourself out to a bigger and bigger liar and hack.

LOL well you did address it as Greece in an Italy thread. I posted an article in my own thread. People are adding additional motives to that. Some key differences.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV

we have the LOGO channel blocked at our home

[Link]

I'll keep on saying it, I thought the average Dem would just give some tiny comment of sympathy and then leave.

Ann Coulter
              +


I think 99.9% of the members of this forum regardless of party could have told you that would not result in an outpouring of "sympathy" from Democrats.

[angus]

Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV

we have the LOGO channel blocked at our home

hahaha.  I didn't even know such a channel existed till I clicked on this thread. 

[Wonkish1]

I'll keep on saying it, I thought the average Dem would just give some tiny comment of sympathy and then leave.

Ann Coulter
              +


I think 99.9% of the members of this forum regardless of party could have told you that would not result in an outpouring of "sympathy" from Democrats.

Yeah saying something in that way probably didn't do himself any favors. But you're acting like I agree with everything put in the article or even like the guy.

Both are immaterial to the discussion though as well.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV

we have the LOGO channel blocked at our home

hahaha.  I didn't even know such a channel existed till I clicked on this thread. 

kind of hard to miss when you bring up the guide and one of the choices is a show with a title like "5 gays and a girl"

[memphis]

Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV

we have the LOGO channel blocked at our home

hahaha.  I didn't even know such a channel existed till I clicked on this thread. 

I think I had vaguely heard of it. Wonder if it's included with cable here in Memphis. Prolly not. People would crap their pants. Because I'm a supreme cheapskate I opt for Netflix streaming ($9/month) over cable (I think it's pushing $100 these days with all the goodies and fees). Sometimes it's hard to be a cheapskate, weighing the pros and cons of alternative options. This one very much wasn't a difficult decision.

[fezzyfestoon]

Yeah saying something in that way probably didn't do himself any favors. But you're acting like I agree with everything put in the article or even like the guy.

And you're acting like all liberals agree with everything done to this dude, whatever it was. Pointless prompts breed pointless discussions. I'd delete this crap thread if I were you, to be honest.

[Wonkish1]

Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV

we have the LOGO channel blocked at our home

hahaha.  I didn't even know such a channel existed till I clicked on this thread. 

I had heard of the network and I think I've actually seen an advertisement for this show at one point. Never have any intention to put the network on. I'm actually surprised that many people know who this guy is I can't imagine that many watch the show.

[Zarn]

The majority of posters in this thread are being quite juvenile. How can you decry the average American voter for not engaging in what you deem intelligent conversations about issues and events, if you cannot do it yourselves?

Simply put, the premise of this thread is too ridiculous and dishonest to encourage sincere and productive discourse.

A few minutes ago, I posted another response to Wonkish1 that was nothing more than blatant trolling. That was before I'd read through every post in the thread. The tone of the discussion is, as you say juvenile. I decided that more sarcasm would be out of line, and I deleted my post.

But Wonkish could not have expected anything more productive. Posting a thread that starts with the assumption that every left-leaning, liberal, or Democratic poster supports violence is either an extremely dishonest act of provocation or a consequence of total obliviousness. (Wonkish uses these terms interchangeably, so I have to assume that his accusation extends to posters who fall in any of these three groups.)

The suggestion that any large or influential group of posters on this forum supports hateful acts of violence is both insulting and ignorant.

Nothing good should be expected from a topic that follows this formula: "Bad thing [X] happened, posters who are [Y] please condemn." This holds especially when posters who are [Y] don't respond and you say this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's all that I have to say about that.

While you are right that the OP opened up rather poorly, does it really require trolling? You can be disappointed in both the actions Wonkish described and Wonkish's behavior in the thread.

[Wonkish1]

Yeah saying something in that way probably didn't do himself any favors. But you're acting like I agree with everything put in the article or even like the guy.

And you're acting like all liberals agree with everything done to this dude, whatever it was. Pointless prompts breed pointless discussions. I'd delete this crap thread if I were you, to be honest.

No I'm not! I don't know how I could make it more clear because I've said the opposite in multiple posts now.