Say Anything Blog

Rob - the story so far is that Michael Rogers “helped” this guy come out and that it was voluntary. I don’t believe the “helped” part, unless you count likely threats and intimidation as “help”, but at least he told everyone himself.

The interesting thing is that Rogers essentially admits that the forced outing isn’t necessary and doesn’t achieve anything because Rogers claims he wasn’t going to out him either way he voted on the Minnesota marriage amendment. And the Senator says he is not changing his mind on allowing the voters to make the call.

Steve said, “Every gay rights group in the country is opposed to the people because they know how the people will vote. They would rather rely on judges.”

The left is like this on every topic.  They know that the American people won’t accept their agenda, so they rely on activist judges who will ram their ideas upon the populace.

The outgoing Lawrence, KS, mayor just announced he was gay. I saw it on the news and the reporter said something like the guy didn’t want sexuality to be an issue. So naturally he came out.

I agree with you on the “stay out of our bedrooms” rhetoric. The people that say that sexual orientation shouldn’t matter always have to throw it in your face. The idea that homosexuals have to be Bush-bashing, America hating, pro-abortion, tax raising, hate the rich liberals because Democrats supposedly share their views is stupid. I’m sure there are many gays that think that national security is more important than same-sex marriage so they vote Republican.

This guy is even more of a target because he wants the people to decide on the same-sex marriage issue rather than the courts. Every gay rights group in the country is opposed to the people because they know how the people will vote. They would rather rely on judges.

likwidshoe,

Actually, gay Republicans do appear to have to have to hide; especially the elected variety. 

Why doesn’t the Republican party have a live and let live, individualistic, etc. attitude?

Its a simple question.  It deserves an answer.  Why are Republicans opposed to individualism?  You folks clearly are after all.

This post was about Democrat hypocrisy when it comes to homosexuality.

And my comments are what I want them to be about.  Get used to it.

Republicans are hyprocites when it comes to homosexuality.  You clearly want gay Republicans to stay in the closet and then you get peeved when one of them is outted.  But as we know, around here, Republicans never do any wrong.

Hus asked, “So, the question is, why did the guy need to ‘hide’ in the first place?”

Good question.  Why don’t you direct it to State Sen. Paul Koering?

Why do gay people in the Republican party have to hide their sexuality?

They don’t.

Why doesn’t the Republican party have a live and let live, individualistic, etc. attitude?

Huh?

To be more blunt in my commentary, why Democrats and Republicans both flaming hypocrites on the matter of homosexuality?

This post was about Democrat hypocrisy when it comes to homosexuality.  Maybe you’d serve yourself better if you explained what you meant when you brought up what you see as Republican hypocrisy.  You know, instead of just acting like it’s a given?

That’s right folks, likwidshoe would enact into law a nanny-state provision protecting the word marriage in its usage.

Steve,

Except in Connecticut and New Jersey.

____________________________________

So, the question is, why did the guy need to “hide” in the first place?  Why do gay people in the Republican party have to hide their sexuality?  Why doesn’t the Republican party have a live and let live, individualistic, etc. attitude?

To be more blunt in my commentary, why Democrats and Republicans both flaming hypocrites on the matter of homosexuality?

likwidshoe,

And the basic difference in our attitudes is that I support liberty and freedom in its totality, and you simply don’t.  That’s why you have such a fetish over the word “marriage.” Oh no, people using in ways you don’t like.  *boo hoo*

Don Myers spits out, “Hey likwad—when are you going to start putting YOUR name in paratheses after your odd lil’ handle?”

Hey Don.  Welcome to the party.  I put Gary Gunnels’ name in parenthesis because he used to comment here under that name.  Rob banned him and he just had to show back up to grace us with his ugly presence.

And to answer your question, I’ll never put my name in parenthesis.  I’ve never used it on the Internet.

Next time you want to ask me a question or respond to something I say: spell my nick the right way.  You’re not being cute by spelling it like a brat would.

Hus (Gary Gunnels) said, “And when idiots like likwidshoe claim...”

Gary: fuck off.  You understand that one?  You’re not here to debate on good terms, you’re here to be a total jackass and smarmy prick.  I’m done with you.  Now I’ll wait for you to piss off Rob again and watch you get banned.  Again.  While your stammering on about contracts, you totally ignored the one Rob set out for you, didn’t you?  He banned you.  He doesn’t like you.  And yet you come back.  I guess you can sit there all high and mighty and criticize others for doing the same exact thing that you do.  There’s a word for that Gary: hypocrite.

And a word for you Gary: A lot of libertarians are impossible to please purists.  And that’s precisely why you’re ultimately irrelevant in politics.  You don’t know how to compromise to push through your agenda and you definitely don’t know how to make friends in the political world.  Demonize everybody Hus, I care not.  But don’t be surprised when you remain politically irrelevant.

Have a good day.

likwidshoe,

If the truth hurts you, I am sorry.  Tough shit.

likwdishoe the coward,

Coward. You won’t answer the question.  You are a coward.  Why won’t you you do it?  Because you know not a single Republican opposed such an offense to freedom and individual liberty.  Grow the fuck up and face the fucking music.  You are the very definition of a spineless coward.

A lot of libertarians are impossible to please purists.

Yes, liberty of contract.  Takes a lot of ideological purity to support that I tell you!

You don’t want compromise.  Jeez.  You want to protect words via legislation for goodness sake.  How the fuck could anyone with any sense of what limited government means get behind such stupidity as that?  Oh yes, word protection laws!  The next stupid idea coming out of the Republican party!

And Hus (Gary Gunnels), no matter how much you say it, being against “gay marriage” isn’t “anti-gay”.  No matter how much you try to make it so, it just isn’t.

Now I await your inevitable tirade of insults, accusations of “nanny-state”, claims of “homophobia” and whatever else word you want to make up, and how you are so much better than the rest of us because you’re for “freedom”.

likwidshoe,

I’m curious, did the Republican party or any of its members oppose amendments which attack the right and freedom to contract? I sincerely fucking doubt it.

likwidshoe,

People voted for the Nazi party at one time.  Continue your fantasies about the joys of majority rule.

Hus - my mistake.  I thought you were going to be respectful.  You’re a dickhead instead.

Hey likwad---when are you going to start putting YOUR name in paratheses after your odd lil’ handle?

likwidshoe,

Answer the question.  Quit avoiding it coward.

Yes, when the Republican party purposefully supports amendments or bills which outlaw privately created contracts between homosexuals wishing to create marriage-like benefits and obligations for themselves, it has nothing to do with hostility towards homosexuals. I mean, nothing.

And when idiots like likwidshoe claim that they want to create laws which protect the meaning of words, that has nothing to do with hostility towards those who want to use the word differently.  I mean, after all, when the French government tries to “protect” its language, that doesn’t connote hostility towards another language does it?  No!  Its not possible!

And Hus,..you said, “Oh no, people using in ways you don’t like. *boo hoo*”

You’re the one crying.  Heh.  We voted against the idea of “gay marriage” and who’s doing the crying?  “*boo hoo*” is right.  Continue your crying Gary.

Here is likwidshoe’s version of “compromise” in light of his unwillingness to answer a simple and rather basic question.  Gay people can’t create even on their own terms via a private contract anything which resembles marriage.  What sort of “compromise” can be brokered from that I wonder?  None.  likwidshoe’s claim of compromise is horseshit, and is the modus operandi of Republicans as a rule.

likwidshoe,

I’m curious, did the Republican party or any of its members oppose amendments which attack the right and freedom to contract? I sincerely fucking doubt it.

When Republicans starting talking about liberty and freedom I start rolling my eyes because I know they are about invade my life with some silly law regarding either my sexual habits or my thoughts on religion.

When Democrats starting about liberty and freedom I start rolling my eyes because I know they are just about to pass a law which effects either my diet or gun ownership.

Both of them want to inhibit who I can give money to vis a vis political contributions.  Both of them don’t mind transfering my money to someone else they are friends with.  Etc.

likwidshoe,

My mistake, I thought you were going to grow a brain.

Let me repeat my question for the dense:

I’m curious, did the Republican party or any of its members oppose amendments which attack the right and freedom to contract? I sincerely fucking doubt it.

Thanks for proving my point Hus.  It’s no wonder that nobody likes you here.

likwidshoe,

BTW, its always fun to corner a cowardly rat such as yourself.  Make you come out into the sunshine and demonstrate your true colors.  Its pretty funny.

likwidshoe,

I’m curious, did the Republican party or any of its members oppose amendments which attack the right and freedom to contract? I sincerely fucking doubt it.

Text of Ohio’s anti-gay amendment:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

North Dakota’s:

Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.

Virginia:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

Note that since the state is the enforcer of contracts that the language in each of these now “on the books” provisions would outlaw state recognition of private contracts which create the “qualities” of or are “substantially equivalent” to or “bestow the privileges or obligations” of marriage. 

I’m curious, did the Republican party or any of its members oppose amendments which attack the right and freedom to contract?  I sincerely fucking doubt it.

likwidshoe,

What names, pray reveal, did I call you prior to you calling me a dickhead?  Here’s your chance.  Show me up!

To aid you in your efforts, here is exactly what I wrote up to the point of the dickhead statement:

Steve,

Except in Connecticut and New Jersey.

So, the question is, why did the guy need to “hide� in the first place? Why do gay people in the Republican party have to hide their sexuality? Why doesn’t the Republican party have a live and let live, individualistic, etc. attitude?

No name calling here.  Just telling the truth.

To be more blunt in my commentary, why Democrats and Republicans both flaming hypocrites on the matter of homosexuality?

Well, I suppose I am insulting all Democrats and Republicans in this post, but since insulting Democrats as a group here is par for the course here, why you leave out an equally reprenesible party is beyond me. 

Actually, gay Republicans do appear to have to have to hide; especially the elected variety.

Republicans are hyprocites when it comes to homosexuality. You clearly want gay Republicans to stay in the closet and then you get peeved when one of them is outted. But as we know, around here, Republicans never do any wrong.

Just more general comments about Republicans that differ in no way in their level of discourse from the general run of the mill comments about Democrats and leftists here.  Oh, I see, that’s the problem!  Its criticizing Republicans at all that is the issue!  Wow, if you had only told me you want to live in a echo chamber I would have realized my mistake!

likwidshoe,

And the basic difference in our attitudes is that I support liberty and freedom in its totality, and you simply don’t. That’s why you have such a fetish over the word “marriage.� Oh no, people using in ways you don’t like. *boo hoo*

Yes, this is all true.  The truth sometimes stings I am afraid.

That’s right folks, likwidshoe would enact into law a nanny-state provision protecting the word marriage in its usage.

More stinging.

Text of Ohio’s anti-gay amendment:

I’m curious, did the Republican party or any of its members oppose amendments which attack the right and freedom to contract? I sincerely fucking doubt it.

More criticism of the Republican party as a whole.  Yes, I know, an echo chamber is perferred here.

_____________________________________

Now, where is the “name-calling” again?

Don Myers said, “Actually, I see you calling me and all the other people on this blog who are smarter than you all kinds of names.”

No you don’t.

Well, likwidshoe bitches about civility, but let us note that he started the name-calling here.

Hus must have short term memory loss.  Not surprising really.  If you read above you’ll see who brought the poison to the table.

likwidshoe’s basic problem is that he wants an echo chamber here.  No criticism of the Republican party can be tolerated here.  And that’s why he argues so non-sensically that Republican dislike of gay people has nothing to do with hostility.  In essence, likwidshoe has adopted an extreme anti-reality, post-modernist viewpoint.  Welcome to the world of Derrida likwidshoe!

The great thing about Republican hypocrisy regarding liberty and homosexuality is that in a generation or two we libertarians will be able to laugh our asses off the their primitive prejudices because being gay won’t be an issue then.

Don Myers,

Well, likwidshoe bitches about civility, but let us note that he started the name-calling here.

First to Don:

Take the cock out of your mouth before you type. It makes it easier for me to understand you.

and to Hus:

from now on, please use the word Jadegold when calling someone a coward. Coward is not an accurate enough discription for someone who is so dispicably gutless that they would rather run and hide than stand up like a man.

And speaking of men, you two bitches need to chill the fuck out and get back to the meat of the debate.

Hus, your goalpost-moving question to LWS, is irrelevant when considering what this thread is about. The left’s campaign to ‘out’ Republicans is not about anything else but trying to shame them into towing the line for the left’s pro-marrige idea. Liberals like these hope that, once it is known that a prominent Republican who happened to vote against the gay marriage amendments is known to be in fact gay themselves, then said Republican will suddenly have a change of heart and swich sides on the issue, or that other Republicans, in following whith your idiotic idea that we are all homophobes, will suddenly turn their backs on their fellow politicians

It goes without saying that this witch hunt is a cowardly move by dispicible people. However, what strikes me as funny is that Democrats, who claim to be pro-gay, are demonizing these men who are also gay, simply because they do not agree with leftist politics. The real reason that liberals started this witch hunt in the first place is to prove how hypocritical they think gay republican politicans are. Their failure to sway these outed politicans from their stance can only mean one thing:

Being anti-gay marriage doesn’t mean your anti-gay. I mean, come on, how can this be made any clearer than when a GAY MAN votes agains GAY MARRIAGE?

Jesus, Son---your latent homosexuality is so close to the surface I can see its periscope.

Hus said, “likwidshoe’s basic problem is that he wants an echo chamber here. No criticism of the Republican party can be tolerated here.”

On the contrary.  I want intelligent back and forth debate.  We used to have a couple of thoughtful left leaning commentators who gave us their presence.  Mark (from somewhere in Europe) and gluskape come to mind.  They were different because they could present their views with respect and intelligence.  And while we almost never agreed, they were a welcome presence because they added a dissenting voice and a different viewpoint. They were respectable political adversaries (if you want to call them that). They don’t show up as much anymore since Jadegold and you started spilling your hateful little rants here.  I wonder why…

You, on the other hand, tend to insult first and then tell us why you’re right.  That doesn’t come across to well to many anybody.  And nobody likes you because of your behavior.  Rob banned you and yet you felt the need to come back. So spare us the BS about contractual agreements and how you’re unflinching for “liberty and freedom in its totality” when you can’t even respect personal property rights. This is Rob’s blog, not yours, if I have to remind you.

I will note Hus, that I responded to you in a respectful manner.  You then proceeded to give us four comments in a row (this is considered extremely rude) attacking me.  You erroneously said that I’m against “individuality”. You took my constructive criticism and said, “And my comments are what I want them to be about. Get used to it. ” You accused me of, “clearly want gay Republicans to stay in the closet and then you get peeved when one of them is outted” (not true).  You said that I don’t support “liberty and freedom” and that I have a “fetish over the word ‘marriage’” and then proceeded to little kid rant, “Oh no, people using in ways you don’t like. *boo hoo*” And on you went with two more comments.

By the time I commented, I looked at your four rants, looked at what was true and what was false, and then looked for anything of substance.  Seeing as how you like to flood message boards with your insults and your condescending attitude, I called you a dickhead.  Perhaps I shouldn’t have used that language and shouldn’t have called you a name, but I was fed up with you at that point.

You might have good points at times and your views are sometimes admirable Hus.  But your delivery all but turns off the most ardent trolls.  Since I am not a troll who’s doing this for sport, I can’t continue to go on with you.  You don’t argue fairly.  You flood the board and give people no time to respond.  You think this gives you license to call that person a “coward” and claim that they are avoiding you; but when you look at the time stamps you’ll notice that you’re commenting five times in the space of three minutes. Grow up.

I now fully expect you to proceed insulting me.  I expect no less then three or four comments in a row in quick succession telling us about how you are for freedom and I am for “nanny-state” and whatnot.  This is what you normally do and I won’t be surprised if you continue in this way.  But know one thing: I’m done with you.

My son will have to carry six felonies for the rest of his life in order for the State of Oregon to
bury this dirty little incident. On August 15, 2001 the World newspaper in Coos Bay, Oregon, ran
a front page article, Bus Driver goes undercover to aid police in meth bust .  The school bus
driver was lauded as a citizen who decided to do something about the drug problem in Coos
County, Oregon. The headline is misleading though, many of the arrest were for marijuana and
marijuana only. In one of law enforcements most tightly controlled operations, two of the twenty
four people got off . One man who was blind, and charged with delivery of a controlled substance,
marijuana, was acquitted . His wife who was pregnant, and facing the same charges was found not
guilty . The next and last case in Coos County was my son’s trial, he was a non-violent first time
offender facing six felony counts , all concerning marijuana . The public defenders office had to
withdraw from my son’s case stating they had confidential information that could be used to
impeach the credibility of the States witness .

My son’s case then went to the consortium, and another attorney was appointed, who also had to
withdraw, and stated he had information that can be used to impeach the credibility of the states
confidential informant and he gives the case number. My son’s next attorney did not investigate
the states confidential informant and we asked for a new attorney four times on the record. My
son was convicted and given the maximum sentence for his charges, sixteen months in prison and
three years parole. I began to investigate the states confidential informant one day after my son’s
conviction in the belief that the court had made mistake and in the hope we could get a retrial. I
soon learned just how difficult that would be .

I discovered the states credible witness, who became the states confidential informant when the
trials started, had made twenty three court appearances of her own before becoming an agent for
the South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team on June 4, 1999. On November 13, 2000 S.C.I.N.T.
gave their agent the money to pay for her commercial drivers license although they did not know
she had been diagnosed Bi-Polar or Manic Depressive. Ms. Maver also had a well documented
history of alcohol abuse and testified she had a problem with drugs in the past . The body wire she
wore was excluded making her the only eye witness in all these cases . I purchased the transcripts
to the trial our second attorney had mentioned and discovered she had lied through out the trial.
The judge in that trial stated, Ms. Maver’s memory is selective or she simply distorts matters. This
trial takes place before she was diagnosed Bi-Polar and it is also a matter of record that she had
attempted suicide, attempted to kill her husband and was arrested, filed false sworn statements,
committed disorderly conduct, and committed perjury and false swearing before judge Walberg
and judge Downer . I have discovered much more and have started several blogs to get the
information out . I am posting court documents and transcripts at my web-site, The Great Coos
County Hoax . I believe the civil rights of twenty four people were violated in Coos County,
Oregon. lowell.sulekha.com or http://www.scint-stinks.com