They both would feel and I agree with them that their positions strenthen everyone including men and women no matter what your sexual orientation or race.

You call Mike Rogers a “scumbag” and I’m the incendiary one? And do you “seriously” believe that what Senator Craig does with his legislation does NOT hurt gay people? REALLY?

While you addressed this to Sis, I’d agree that Mr Rogers is a scumbag: his methodology is to attempt to find closeted homosexuals among politicians with whose positions he disagrees, and them expose them. I call that blackmail.

And no, I don’t believe that the positions of Senator Craig’s that have been mentioned (opposition to same-sex marriage, not wanting to expand the odious hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, and not wishing to expand the anti-discrimination laws) are harmful to homosexuals.

Now, they certainly don’t grant the homosexual community in general, or its members individually, and particular advantages they do not now have, but that’s not the same as hurting them. Of course, I also happen to agree with Mr Craig’s votes on those issues.

This really isn’t about not wanting liberal visitors, and not wanting to visit liberal blogs. It’s about whether or not the comments posted are worthy of a rational response. I don’t think Joe’s were, and it doesn’t sound like PCD did either, and I can’t say as I blame him. Joe’s welcome to post here, but he’s not entitled to be taken seriously unless he acts serious.

I’d say whether people take Joe, or anyone else, seriously depends upon each comment that they make. Hey, if Joe comments, and people don’t think he is saying anything rationally, then Joe is hurting his own cause!

I know ol’ Joe has already said bye, but he does keep coming back.

I am curious ST, before the ‘outting’ was there contact with the person they out before they do this, threatening to reveal or out them?

If so, wouldn’t that be blackmail?

On a separate note, I find what they do detestable also, and seems to me a bit too close to blackmail of a public official.

Besides which, what does it matter if your straight or homosexual, they should be voting and making laws on what is best for Amercia and not just for one specific group or race.

It is like accusing a black representative or voting against blacks, and they are going to “out” him…oops…that is a bit obvious, can’t do that….

It is like a woman not voting or “toeing” the womens rights line, so they are going to out her as a woman….errr…again to obvious….

Hmmm, who else can the “out”, what other kind of descrimination can throw out there. Maybe not “descriminiation”, but sure smacks of it when a group is attacking someone based on their sexuality….

Hmm who else can they out?

The deaf or hearing impaired?
The blind or vision impaired?

How about someone how lost a limb?
Or served in the military?

Should these things be used as something to judge someone by? I thought that was descrimination in itself, using something like this to judge another by.

Is it any different than calling a Black Republican a Uncle Tom? or a Slave to the Republican Party?

Essentially they are saying the same thing, that they are hypocrites because they don’t toe the line for their special group that they figure that outting will place them in.

Right. That’s why you returned after saying “bye” the last time.

“My advice was offered sincerely,”

No it wasn’t.

“as it appeared that you didn’t know how to handle a dissenter among your sycophants.”

I don’t have sycophants at this blog anymore than you do at your own, and I know damn well how to handle dissenters, and that’s by arguing passionately for what I believe – unfortunately, in turn some of the dissenters who visit here don’t know how to handle being challenged. Case in point.

“Continue preachin’ to that choir, Jesse.”

You too, Rev. Al.

No.

“The post was about Mike Rogers. I took a contrary position to yours. Is that just not allowed at all here, “seriously”?”

Continue to build the strawman all you want to, but your belief that I censor comments here simply because I disagree with them is simply untrue. Perhaps you should read around a little more rather than making assumptions about a blog you’ve only just started visiting today.

“You call Mike Rogers a “scumbag” and I’m the incendiary one?’

Yes, you are. It’s contemptable that anyone would support outing a supposedly gay politician simply because that politician didn’t toe the official line on gay issues. And you want to accuse ME of not tolerating different viewpoints? What a freaking laugh.

“And do you “seriously” believe that what Senator Craig does with his legislation does NOT hurt gay people? REALLY?”

Correct, I “REALLY” don’t believe he hurts gay people with his legislation anymore than other Republicans who vote along the same lines.

“I do not engage in ad hominem attacks against my fellow commenters, so I can’t see what vigorous defense of my positions do to harm the discourse here.”

I didn’t accuse you of ad hominem attacks against my readers.

“I see by your Sitemeter that my site enjoys about 5 times the traffic as yours, Sister.”

And Daily Kos has megatons more traffic than my site too. Popularity does not necessarily = good or worth reading.

“And as I gently suggested to you in my unrequited email, fostering a healthy debate amongst your readers is the best route to growing your audience.”

Your email will remain unrequited because I simply don’t need advice from you on how to grow the audience here. I find your condescending tone on how I run my blog insulting. If you want to find fault with my positions on the issues, do it, but don’t tell me how to run my own blog. When I need advice on blogging, I know who to go to, and it is not you.

You call Mike Rogers a “scumbag” and I’m the incendiary one? And do you “seriously” believe that what Senator Craig does with his legislation does NOT hurt gay people? REALLY?

I do not engage in ad hominem attacks against my fellow commenters, so I can’t see what vigorous defense of my positions do to harm the discourse here. I see by your Sitemeter that my site enjoys about 5 times the traffic as yours, Sister. And as I gently suggested to you in my unrequited email, fostering a healthy debate amongst your readers is the best route to growing your audience.

I’m pleased to see people like Joe visit sites where his position is in the minority, just as I visit lib sites occasionally. If we never talked to each other, even in this fashion, things would be a lot worse.

Dana, I don’t think anyone here has a problem visiting liberal sites for other view points or conversing with liberals who visit this site who offer rational viewpoints. Joe, though, has defended that scumbag Mark Rogers, called Larry Craig a “two-faced traitor” who “works to destroy gay lives”, thinks it’s ok to “out” a politician simply because that politician doesn’t vote the way he wants them to, etc. Essentially, he has no problem whatsoever with what Mark Rogers did. If you find his comments to be worthy of a rational response and discussion, perhaps Joe will consider it an invitation to visit your blog as well and post the same type of incendiary commentary he did here. Good luck with the rational dialogue.

I’d like to think that the things I write are not entirely preaching to the choir!

This really isn’t about not wanting liberal visitors, and not wanting to visit liberal blogs. It’s about whether or not the comments posted are worthy of a rational response. I don’t think Joe’s were, and it doesn’t sound like PCD did either, and I can’t say as I blame him. Joe’s welcome to post here, but he’s not entitled to be taken seriously unless he acts serious.

No, thanks, joe. I’m not bumping your miniscule hit rate

Well, at least to judge by the fact his site attracts more reader comments than mine, I can’t call his hit rate “miniscule.”

I’m pleased to see people like Joe visit sites where his position is in the minority, just as I visit lib sites occasionally. If we never talked to each other, even in this fashion, things would be a lot worse.

I’d like to think that the things I write are not entirely preaching to the choir!

Excellent point that Common Sense Political Thought makes in his/her trackback above!

Congratulations, Severian! You have won a free subscription to Common Sense Political Thought! It’s made fresh, and free, every day!

(PS – The check’s in the mail.)

Since when is it acceptable behavior for someone to go around and out people of the opposing political party for their sexual preferences? Is this even relevant to the matters of the day? And why should Senators have to go around denying these rumors…