Liberals On Here Care To Respond?

[Wonkish1]

It's disturbing that you needed someone to tell you that.

I didn't need someone to tell me that for myself. As I said I expected this thread to be boring and maybe 2 pages. But I was curious if there might be some interesting comments so I posted it. What's so hard to understand?

[Wonkish1]

Someone posted something you didn't like, and you responded ad hominem by assigning him strawman motivations.

Yours is a denial position. You don't have to response to the substance of his post because the "real" issue is him.

Yes, the issue is Wonkish himself. There's no real argument taking place over whether random acts of political violence are bad.

Actually it would seem to me in a ton of cases on here there is. Putting aside the issue of whether this was done because he was a *gay* conservative or not(for the sake of argument), many peoples attitudes on here is gay beating = bad. Political beating = understandable "because Ann Coulter is vile". And Lief actually made a post saying he deserved it.

So the issue here is those that would think that crap, not me for being the messenger. Go ahead and try to attack me it doesn't change the fact that there have been many people on here that have been downright despicable and have no character whatsoever.

[memphis]

Wonkish, get off the cross already. It's not a good look for you.

[Wonkish1]

Wonkish, get off the cross already. It's not a good look for you.

Well maybe you should instead worry yourself about defending people on here that have defended this behavior instead of worrying where I am.

[angus]

It's disturbing that you needed someone to tell you that.

I didn't need someone to tell me that for myself. As I said I expected this thread to be boring and maybe 2 pages. But I was curious if there might be some interesting comments so I posted it. What's so hard to understand?

I entered in media res, so I may be a little uninformed, but looking back at the first page, it is clear what happened.  If I may:

Your initial point about the vandal's behavior being unjustified is correct, and right, but your title is provocative.  You are projecting onto a group of people on this forum the responsibility for something that they had nothing to do with, and something that they cannot be expected to have any knowledge of.

And, as luck would have it, the very first response happened to be from a poster with a quirky sense of humor.  His KKK/Nazi/GOP, while abrasive, is clearly an application of The Triple, or a twist on the Rule of Threes.  Funny, in a sort of politically incorrect sort of way.  You clearly did not take his humor, and it all just went downhill from there.  Now we're all wallowing in misunderstandings and illogic.

That said, I learned here of the LOGO channel.  So the next time I'm staying at a hotel room in Houston or Memphis, I'll know there's something interesting to watch.  So it hasn't been a total waste.  

[Link]

Any Melissa Scott fans out there?

I never performed in a porn movie like her...

Then:

I don't go to church as much as her...

And now:



Hers is my favorite show on the Jesus Channel.  By far.

Which is irrefutable proof that I do not suffer from bipolar disorder.  Why must people be so extreme?

[bgwah]

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)

Throw the conspiracy theory out there. Don't provide any evidence. Give yourself an out in case the conspiracy theory collapses. Use ad hominem abuse to cover your lack of substance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blame the victim.

Oh look. It's another stupid, worthless troll who is ruining this forum. Was wrecking the Political Geography board getting boring?

This person's evidence is as convincing as Ashley Todd's, and the response from conservatives is almost identical (as they are desperate to find an equivalent to their own violent hordes and are willing to seize whatever they can find). If you can't handle my pointing out of that obvious truth, I suggest you put me on ignore.

[Wonkish1]

So the issue here is those that would think that crap, not me for being the messenger. Go ahead and try to attack me it doesn't change the fact that there have been many people on here that have been downright despicable and have no character whatsoever.

One can be despicable and lacking in character and against acts of politically-motivated violence.

Well I'm calling certain people despicable and lacking in character because they are acting like they are not against those acts.

[Wonkish1]

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)

Throw the conspiracy theory out there. Don't provide any evidence. Give yourself an out in case the conspiracy theory collapses. Use ad hominem abuse to cover your lack of substance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blame the victim.

Oh look. It's another stupid, worthless troll who is ruining this forum. Was wrecking the Political Geography board getting boring?

This person's evidence is as convincing as Ashley Todd's, and the response from conservatives is almost identical (as they are desperate to find an equivalent to their own violent hordes and are willing to seize whatever they can find). If you can't handle my pointing out of that obvious truth, I suggest you put me on ignore.

I mean pick at me all you want to, but are people on this thread really going to defend this guy ^^^^(bgwah)?

You defend the way he is behaving and you are bigoted and despicable.

Or you can be with Mikado and agree this type of behavior is wrong and that bgwah is pathetic for immediately jumping to calling these types of things fake.

[bgwah]

I call it as I see it.

For example, given the fact that you've spent all day on an internet forum arguing about a cable TV reality show cast member, I'm going to say it's highly likely that no, you don't drive a Mercedes, and no, you don't have some glorious job handling millions of dollars. Because you're a pathetic liar and an attention whore.

[memphis]

Wonkish, get off the cross already. It's not a good look for you.

Well maybe you should instead worry yourself about defending people on here that have defended this behavior instead of worrying where I am.

Your being up on that cross was the entire premise of the thread. Without your cross, you have nothing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

You're really not missing much. Specifically gay programming, at least in this country, tends to be absolutely dire.

[angus]

Which is irrefutable proof that I do not suffer from bipolar disorder.  Why must people be so extreme?

I don't know.

What I do know is that I stumbled across her years ago.  One night long before I was married, maybe ten or twelve years ago, I was drifting off to sleep in my cozy northern California apartment, and I was channel-surfing, trying to find some dribble to fall asleep with.  Bad habit, I know, and I've since overcome the need to have the bright, glowing images on the screen to help me fall asleep.  Anyway, I came across this rather comely lass writing stuff on a whiteboard in Greek.  She was clearly very well educated, able to read Greek and Latin, and talk about the classics.  She was arguing the finer points of the New Testament, to an enthralled crowd, talking about how certain phrases and edicts had been misinterpreted, in no small part due to King James IV of Scotland and his minions.  It was all very academic, and I was very impressed.  Nothing hotter than a well-educated, tall brunette gripping a large felt-tip marker.

I started to watch her show every night--Probably for all the wrong reasons--and developed a rather unhealthy fixation on her person.  She became the subject of my fantasies, and couldn't even watch her walk out onto the stage without stiffening.  Even if I brought some chick home from the bar just down the street, or when my steady girlfriend was spending the night, or if I was in the middle of writing an important document, when it came time for Pastor Melissa Scott and the Hour of Power, the TV screen got all my attention, and anyone and anything else was promptly ousted from the bed.

Eventually I started investigating her on the internet.  It seems that she was an Italian-born woman who grew up in Massachusetts and became an "actress."  She starred in lots of movies as Barbie Bridges, had posed for Penthouse, had won the title Miss Nude CanAm Exotic at a porn festival, and had been in a few commercials as well.  At some point, she met Dr. Gene Scott, television evangelist extraordinaire.  The two were introduced in the mid-90s by a mutual friend.  Of course, Dr. Scott often paid his pony girls to attend his megachurch, and sit in the front row with skimpy skirts and smile for the cameras.  But Melissa was special.  One day Dr. Scott asked her if she had any hobbies.  Stamp collecting, she said.  As it turns out, he collected stamps as well!  As she tells it,  

"He said, 'I'd love to see your collection, and I'd love to show you mine.'  I've never been so embarrassed. He's got these award-winning rarities; he's showed them to the Queen, showed them internationally...  But that was our common thing, and from there things just kind of developed..."

The rest is history.  Dr. Scott married the fetching young Melissa, and though she was 40 years his junior, they had a wonderful relationship.  Of course, when prostate cancer struck him down at the age of 75, only a few short years after their nuptials, the despairing Melissa Scott inherited his empire.  (The church parsonage, for example, was recently listed for $17 million dollars.)  But she didn't take the money and run.  She picked up where he left off.  Not missing a beat she picked up that mic and sang praise to the heavens.  What's more, she took it upon herself to carry out his mission of evangelizing.  

Nowadays she's the subject of a number of books and blogs.  So many websites are dedicated to her.  There seem to be about three camps:  Those who genuinely follow her message of good news and salvation.  Those who see her as a whore and a golddigger.  And those who love to a see tall, intelligent, comely, well-educated brunette who knows how to grip a stiff, red, leather-bound bible, no matter what she has to say or what language she has to say it in.

[Wonkish1]

I call it as I see it.

For example, given the fact that you've spent all day on an internet forum arguing about a cable TV reality show cast member, I'm going to say it's highly likely that no, you don't drive a Mercedes, and no, you don't have some glorious job handling millions of dollars. Because you're a pathetic liar and an attention whore.

Actually its an Escalade. And since the firm is holding its positions and holding a lot of cash I have a lot of time on my hands, and we already have enough clients. Our firm doesn't actively trade in any regular intervals. This extra time on my hands probably will very different in the not so distant future.

[Wonkish1]

Wonkish, get off the cross already. It's not a good look for you.

Well maybe you should instead worry yourself about defending people on here that have defended this behavior instead of worrying where I am.

Your being up on that cross was the entire premise of the thread. Without your cross, you have nothing.

LOL, if you think that then I feel sorry for you!

[bgwah]

If you say so, champ.

[Wonkish1]

If you say so, champ.

LOL, don't take it out on me just because you don't have a career that requires really any intelligence.

[Brittain33]

I love that this was triggered by A-List: Dallas. Love it.

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

well, my wife already has the keys to the internet at our house

Seriously? Who made the money for that house and that internet?

Dude, I may have made all the money, but she is legally entitled to half of it, plus she has all the pussy.  So, I’m going to lose if I take that approach.

---

Your life. Not my business, but I'd say you're being raped.

Actually, she owns the password to the internet filter by my design.  I came to her and handed her the keys and asked her to create a password and hide it sometime during the mid 90’s.

---

Also, you never responded regarding the Jimmy Carter clause. Are you not supposed to lust/covet/whatever. And yes, nobody's perfect, but you seem to be rather unapologetic in your sinfulness. Which if I recall correctly, was your major beef with teh gayz.

I think it would be kinda hard to jerk off to Nickelodeon with all those glancing scenes, much less while the kids are in the room, wouldn’t you agree?  Besides, I make good use of PG-13 moments and use them to whisper lines to my wife, “we’re definitely gonna need to leave the lights on tonight.”

Our church is very open about sexual needs, which you’ve already gleaned if you watched the “Stolen Waters are Sweet” sermon.

[Joe Republic]

What does his being gay have to do with anything?  Did the vandal scratch the word "fag" on there too?

How do we even know the vandal was a liberal?  As Coulter is an embarrassment to conservatives anyway, perhaps the vandal was a conservative himself?

1) Conservatives, not you, will decide whom in their movement is "an embarassment," and whom isn't.

2) There is absolutely no reason to take this seriously.

Or perhaps he was suggesting that he literally f**k 'her'?

If you asked a thousand people on the street randomly, I doubt more than a handful would even take this position seriously.

Here's some advice, genius:  take that post of mine as seriously as you should take this entire thread in general.  Even this thread's creator was able to figure that out!  I even left a clue in the same post, which you cropped out and dumped at the end of your post, in that weird style of yours:

You know, as a cure for the gay thing, by starting with shemales first and gradually moving on to genuine women.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aside from the framing (which has apparently taken on a life of its own in this thread...), this really is an interesting and strange story. I'd never heard of Taylor Garrett or LOGOS before but he seems to be a rather unusual man. I mean, he's a gay guy who identifies as a "Christian Conservative" and was assaulted after dining with Ann Coulter? And he says "The Democrats want me to live on their plantation as their slave, because I’m a gay person and I refuse to do that.” It pretty much defies the stereotypes in every way. At least for me, people with unexpected views seem interesting. Most of the time people in the political arena are so bland and scripted that you can predict their responses before they make them.

Of course it's sad someone attacked him.

[memphis]

well, my wife already has the keys to the internet at our house

Seriously? Who made the money for that house and that internet?

Dude, I may have made all the money, but she is legally entitled to half of it, plus she has all the pussy.  So, I’m going to lose if I take that approach.

---

Your life. Not my business, but I'd say you're being raped.

Actually, she owns the password to the internet filter by my design.  I came to her and handed her the keys and asked her to create a password and hide it sometime during the mid 90’s.

---

Also, you never responded regarding the Jimmy Carter clause. Are you not supposed to lust/covet/whatever. And yes, nobody's perfect, but you seem to be rather unapologetic in your sinfulness. Which if I recall correctly, was your major beef with teh gayz.

I think it would be kinda hard to jerk off to Nickelodeon with all those glancing scenes, much less while the kids are in the room, wouldn’t you agree?  Besides, I make good use of PG-13 moments and use them to whisper lines to my wife, “we’re definitely gonna need to leave the lights on tonight.”

Our church is very open about sexual needs, which you’ve already gleaned if you watched the “Stolen Waters are Sweet” sermon.

Was that pic from Nick? If so, I missed half the battle. Chock it up to my lack of cable. Now that I have my facts straight, I must say I find your watching a kids show for some sex appeal both offensive and very sad. And do you really have to jerk off to violate the Jimmy Carter clause? I thought desire was enough. And you seem VERY unremorseful about the desire.
And if you're happy with the wife in control of the media content that you pay for, that's your business. I don't believe in telling people how their families should operate. But I would NEVER marry a woman who would make me choose between the internet and her. I think it's a generation gap issue, but most girls my age have come to terms with the internet. They want penis and babies more than anything, and they're never going to get either if they're looking for Mr. no internet. All they would be left with is chocolate. And maybe that's a big reason why so many girls today are fat and not bejeweled.

[Reluctant Republican]

As  a gay conservative, I give my approval to anyone who assaults reality  "stars".  It's really our civic duty.

Besides,the only things worth watching on LOGO are Daria(Even though they've horribly butchered it) and Absolutely Fabulous.

[memphis]

Aside from the framing (which has apparently taken on a life of its own in this thread...), this really is an interesting and strange story. I'd never heard of Taylor Garrett or LOGOS before but he seems to be a rather unusual man. I mean, he's a gay guy who identifies as a "Christian Conservative" and was assaulted after dining with Ann Coulter? And he says "The Democrats want me to live on their plantation as their slave, because I’m a gay person and I refuse to do that.” It pretty much defies the stereotypes in every way. At least for me, people with unexpected views seem interesting. Most of the time people in the political arena are so bland and scripted that you can predict their responses before they make them.

Of course it's sad someone attacked him.

On the last sentence, I agree 100% With some extreme exceptions for a-hole dictators and such, nobody or their property should be physically attacked. Ever. And it's amazing how much easier it is to get agreement on such a consensus building, self-evident statement when one doesn't frame things outrageously. Wonkish's/Newtie's framing/style is what gets people to revert to the reptilian brain and start forgetting that. Thank you, TJ.
As for gay conservatives, it's an interesting topic. Current conservative ideology (no marriage/encouragement to for monogamy/fianancial benefits) is HUGELY detrimental to the life of every gay. Period. If you want to be an ex-gay and abstain or try to pray the gay away, good for you, but you are hurting people when you deny them rights others have. Clearly, not even close to the extent that Hitler denied rights to the Jews, but FWIW, it is the same fundamental principle. And the gays have a right to be pissed off about it. And when that person who is denying rights is one of the victims as well, that's just a clusterfudge of emotions that can boil over. And that's why we have laws. And I hope whoever is behind this attack is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well. As I suspect everybody else does when we're not being baited by Newtie trolls.

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

Was that pic from Nick?

Yes, the pic from the show Victorious and the girl's character name is Cat (for obvious reasons – I think hot girls are purposely picked)

---

I must say I find your watching a kids show for some sex appeal both offensive and very sad.

In all honesty, I’m not above occasionally flipping through Nickelodeon for a quick peek at the eye candy on my way to anther channel (instead of going directly to the channel), but 99.9% of my Nick viewing is done with the kids.  (I attempt to check out all shows that they watch and spend time watching TV with them)

---

And do you really have to jerk off to violate the Jimmy Carter clause? I thought desire was enough. And you seem VERY unremorseful about the desire.

Couple of clarifications:

1)   There is nothing wrong with the desire to look.
2)   It’s the intent of looking that is a sin (e.g. me purposely flipping through channels for the chance to sneak a peak is a sin)
James 1: 14 …”but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
So, desire has to conceive (you have to be carried away by desire and enticed into action) BEFORE it gives birth to sin.  Therefore, my purposeful flipping through channels looking for skin is a sin, but innocently watching a show with my kids is not a sin, esp when I refocus any temptation back towards my wife before it carries me away.

And you’re talking to someone who purposely picks the grocery store line that doesn’t include magazines (though I do tend to find myself willing to wait in a longer line if the cashier is a hot babe).

---

And if you're happy with the wife in control of the media content that you pay for, that's your business. I don't believe in telling people how their families should operate. But I would NEVER marry a woman who would make me choose between the internet

Somehow you missed the point that I came to her and asked her to set a password.