The American Spectator

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.09 @ 11:15AM

Mr. Bass
I am very glad I am attracted to women.
Nature or nurture or both, I have never felt anything but sadness for gay people.

I am frustrated that you chose to equate gays with Christians though.
See, sir we Christians are defined by our commitment to try to agape' our fellow mankind, and to try to walk behind Jesus Christ and thank Him for intervening in history on behalf of a loving Creator.
...Certainly an asymmetrical comparison at least, and stupid at most.

Dali Parton| 10.12.09 @ 11:31AM

I'm glad I like bleu cheese. I am very sad for people that go through life thinking bleu cheese is like eating old moldy play-doh. There is no eternal reward for those that take the easy road with cheddar. That's tough, but that's the way it is.

Eric Cartman| 10.12.09 @ 11:52AM

I am very glad I like bleu cheese AND woman! I'm very sad for those who are attracted to both cheddar AND other men. And by the amount of STDs rampant in the gay community, I hope they eat a lot of moldy bleu cheese!

Julia Sugarbaker | 10.12.09 @ 12:20PM

If God was handing out sexually transmitted diseases to people as a punishment for sinning, then we would ALL be at the free clinic ALL THE TIME.

Eric Cartman| 10.12.09 @ 12:37PM

Who brought God into this? I just want gays to eat more cheese!

The Shamwow Guy!| 10.12.09 @ 1:04PM

And if God was going to punish the Gay Community he would create some kind of really bad disease that is incurable and spread by the very act that the Gays define themselves with and . . . . Oh, wait. . . . Never mind.

Mr. Garrison | 10.12.09 @ 12:21PM

STD means "super thick d..." Enjoy your cheese, kiddo.

Mr. Hat| 10.12.09 @ 12:43PM

And Gay means Got Aids Yet?, Mr. Garrison! And you know that, Mr. Garrison! Mr. Garrison is a liar! He thinks he's a women! Just because he had an operation - a chopadickfromme! But he's still a man! Ahhh!

Mr. Hat| 10.12.09 @ 12:46PM

Mr. Hat says; http://sydlexia.com/blogstuff/.....o_hell.png

Daisy| 10.12.09 @ 11:25AM

I'm not real happy about the comparison, either. Thanks a bunch, Mr. Bass.

Mary Louise| 10.12.09 @ 11:43AM

Similarly, the Republican Party establishment knows that it can count on the evangelical Christian vote, provided it pays enough lip service to issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage.

You're absolutely right. Though I'd add that Christians have had an impact on the issue of abortion. Their years of fidelity paid off as best as could be expected based on the ambivalence of the electorate. Several months back I read that the only women who had abortions as frequently as the "Jewess" is/was the Catholic woman. That's not insignificant. And there's no similar dissonance in the gay community.

I lived next door to an elderly gay couple close to 25 years ago. We became friends. I don't think either of those men thought of each other as husband and wife. They weren't gnostics.

At that time I was a Liberal. It was mostly about abortion because I never believed in the Liberal prescription for what ails society. I'm a good old peasant girl, and it was never possible to unload their tripe on me. They weren't the ones I'd been waiting for; their contraband, maybe, but their premises? Please. But challenge their premises, and they flip out.

Anyway, one evening at dinner with these fine fellows I let slip that I didn't think having intercouse with someone compelled me to agree to pregnancy. They laughed right out loud. Not because they were in agreement with me, but because they saw that as extremely gnostic, though they would have chosen a different descriptor.

I'm only one person and my vote means nothing, but I'm going nowhere near the Republican party again until it produces a leader willing to tell the truth, though he/she risks loss.

You just look at Michael Steele, and you tell me, where is this Party headed except for a movement of the pendulum that does nothing for bringing our Country back from the ruin that surely lies ahead.

No Truth, no vote. Count on it!

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.12.09 @ 12:35PM

Mary Louise
I'm going to have to challenge you now. You MUST NOT sit on your prissy cushion.

Where do you live?
Right now...right the heck now... somebody in your local tea party or your local Republican committee is...looking for conservative candidates.
Find out who they are, and roll up your sleeves and get them elected! (HEH then keep their feet to the fire via faxes and short letters.)
Also, you may e-mail me at kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com and give me some candidate names. We can help you get them nominated and elected.

In the mean-time begin thinking about saving up cash to go without a paycheck for a month (no taxes paid either) We are going to ochestrate that across the country at a particular time.

See, so far in this country, no one can force you to go to work and draw a (taxed) paycheck.

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 1:20PM

"Similarly, the Republican Party establishment knows that it can count on the evangelical Christian vote" Ha! The Liberal view of evangelicals is a joke, as usual.~

So not true. There is a huge group of Christians (and non) who will not vote Republican if the candidate isn't perfect. Why do you think the party is losing voters? No one is perfect. They give their vote to the Socialist Democrats by doing that. (By not voting). By being angry due to the candidate not being perfect you give away your vote. It is sheer foolishness. Why would you rather have a Socialist President? Just to cut off your nose to spite your face, because that is what you'll be doing. My Mother was right! ;^)
We will have ObamaII~~ how wonderful! Was it worth it to you (speaking to anyone here) trying to "send the party a message?" Do you think John McCain would have been worse? Sadly it seems no one wants to learn from the past and we are doomed for Obama II. There is a history in this country for third parties failing. It is a fact!
That's being HONEST!

Third parties don't work. So get out and back conservatives in the Republican party, otherwise we sit home crying and moaning while the Democrats win again. They know that that's what we're gonna do too. They're banking on it. Why should we let the "moderates" take over the GOP?

Mary Louise| 10.12.09 @ 2:02PM

Ken,

Our Tea Party was very small because there's no way a Conservative can win here in the City. The suburbs, yes, but not here. We have a Democratic mayor who had been a Republican for many years. He had no choice but to switch parties if he had any chance of winning. That's just a reality.

The Conservative mantra about taxes and liberty has to really flower somehow. We're involved in two wars. The interest on the debt is as much Bush's fault as it is Obama's. We can't be just about war, lower taxes and whatever is meant by liberty.

The morality of low taxes is self-evident, but it needs to be married a vision that tries to bridge the gap between what free-markets are said to be able to do, and what they can actually do. Unless you move the argument here, any win in '10 if it materializes, will be short-lived.

I could easily move to one of the suburbs here, but I like the variety of the City. I live among emigres, single dads, honorably discharged but broke and brokenVets, Section 8 recipients who are in pit of their own making, etc. I gave the Vet an old Crucifix that I really loved, and didn't want to part with when he left for another State. 27 years old, 2 kids, collecting welfare that I didn't begrudge him in the least, because he served. Told me he slept on the floor because he was afraid if his wife made any fast moves, he might "react."

Reagan's passion was liberty. We need that same passion now to address liberty right here at home. I'm not on the same page as the Republican party. You see them as the only vehicle, and you may be right, but that vehicle, as far as I can tell is no safer. The Gerry-rigging might be a bit better, but that can't help the Country really.

Oh, and as long as we're being honest -I know I can be prissy -you really should re-think the haranguing style you often use to entice people to your site. It's a turn-off.

Johnno| 10.13.09 @ 2:18AM

LOL!

Margie| 10.12.09 @ 2:40PM

"Similar to evangelicals, homosexual activists have no other viable third party option. They're stuck. So they make a lot of noise and hope the establishment listens."

~Let me guess. The author is a Libertarian? The Libertarian party will NEVER succeed. The reason it cannot is because it is LIBERAL! It is against going to war, they call themselves "non-interventionalists," they want NO laws regarding Human Behavior, (in other words anything goes), everything is treated as an "economic transaction", where for example if you want to sell your body you should be allowed, or if you want to sell drugs you should be allowed. If you don't believe this go Google it. This is outrageous! Lawlessness=utter chaos. So if you think that Libertarian sounds good, it does but in name only.
The Republicans are only "stuck" as the author says, because of RINO's. (Republicans in name only). We, the voters have allowed them to take over.. because of not voting in the Primaries. Too many people think THEIR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT! Of course it does. But then they don't vote and then somehow get to do all the complaining.
The Republican party is realistically the best party there is because it is closest to what the Founding Fathers intended, and works the best.
I suggest we back conservatives and work toward dumping the RINO'S. Each time you get a survey in the mail from the Repubs, list all the conservatives along with a note, saying "Until you put conservatives on the ticket you will not get any contributions."
Conservatives need not sit things out, but all the more get involved.

flanoggin| 10.12.09 @ 3:43PM

Mr. Bass
I am very glad I am attracted to men.
Nature or nurture or both, I have never felt anything but sadness for Christian people and their belief in an angry sky god.

I am frustrated that you chose to equate gays with Christians though.
See, sir we gays are defined by our commitment to try to agape' our fellow mankind, and make the world an better place for all.
...Certainly an asymmetrical comparison at least, and stupid at most.

Johnno| 10.13.09 @ 2:10AM

Agape; is that what you're calling anal sex now? Talk about denial.

Mary Louise| 10.12.09 @ 4:07PM

I'm not sure if McCain would have been worse or not, but Beck makes a very good point about our somnolence continuing under him.

Without a majority, and with McCain wanting to show bipartisanship I'm not sure we'd be in a much different place, legislatively, than we are now. Obama has awakened us in a way McCain couldn't. As soon as he would have come under fire we would have circled the wagons around him too, just like we did Bush. At least w/Bush we had the trauma of 9/11 to remind us of his precarious position.

I thought at first that McCain might have been worse for us in foreign policy, but I think I was wrong. Who the hell knows though? Ralph Peters is saying that Biden's strategy is what has worked for the last 3,000 years, and that while our military has great tacticians 'we haven't had a good strategist in 50 years.' He's not someone I dismiss easily.

It can't be about Party anymore. It really has to be about the Country. About telling the truth about where we are and how we need (however slowly) to move away from this path that will bankrupt us and leave us unable to defend ourselves when we most need to.

Mary Louise| 10.12.09 @ 4:31PM

Poor God, having to take hits from the penis gallery.

Let's leave Him "in the sky" for a minute.

Two photos or videos, the photos extremely well done in that they convey sensation. Both photos showing the basics. One, showing a couple, man and woman beginning to make love. Straight, no misuse of faculties, love.

The other photo shows two men 'making love.' It shows its viewers sodomy, in the making. I leave lesbians out of this because I'm not sure how to fit them in. Lesbians seem in a much a different camp than gay men.

The two photos would likely have these effects on 99 out of 100 viewers: Man and woman say to one another, let's turn in (Young Frankenstein). Viewing the second photo or vid they run to loo so they can hurl. Perhaps that desire to hurl is genetic. Haven't you seen Ace Ventura, Pet Dectective?

Homosexuality, even if 'oganic' is likely a physiological mishap. And while such a mishap may call for no punishment, it certainly doesn't call for elevating it to parity w/heterosexuality.

The only reason gays want anything to do with marriage is because it can be temporary. If it meant what it used to mean, if it retained its sacrosanctity, gays would want nothing to do with it.

The only reason they pretend homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality is because human sexuality and marriage has been degraded so that they can catch what has been cast off.

The two gay men I knew would even want to be married because, again, they weren't gnostics. They never needed my approval. They were secure.

Daisy| 10.13.09 @ 2:17AM

"Hits from the penis gallery." Ha ha, Mary.

Don't worry, though; the 'Angry Sky God' can take it. (I'm so happy that my God is a loving God).

Nothing new under the sun for our Lord; Sodom and Gomorrah, and all.

Mark| 10.13.09 @ 12:36PM

"So, in many ways, the homosexual rights coalition is becoming the evangelical Christian community of the left — a reliabe voting pool that the Democrats can take for granted. Could it backfire? Maybe, but I doubt it. Similar to evangelicals, homosexual activists have no other viable third party option. "

The only thing is...Gay people - particularly Gay White Men, which all studies show are the most prosperous subgroup - are not reliable Democratic voters. Exit polling put the gay vote for McCain around 30%. Split that by sex and race and adjust for the unwillingness of some people to identify themselves as gay to a random pollster, and I don't think GWM were much more likely to vote for Obama than white men in general.

reddog| 10.13.09 @ 5:11PM

Maybe my experience is atypical but most Gay men I know are very fiscally conservative and here in secular California vote Republican. Ronald Reagan and George Murphy were members of their club. The most successful conservative politicians in California have been Gay for decades.

Nobama| 10.15.09 @ 1:30AM

Stupid shit. Prove your stupid accusation.

pammy| 10.16.09 @ 4:40PM

Mr Bass is facing 20 years in prison as a terrorist?It's on Politico.The airline claims he disrupted the flight,and made an ugly face ! Oh dear !
Well you can sit here and pretend all the left right crazy talk gets you anywhere,but David Bass is facing 20 yrs for nothing.The whole "gay"issue is merely petty divisive nonsense.There are FAR more important,real things that need addressing but no one can get past the polarized left right looney frey.Do you people REALLY believe the Left Right spew you blabber? Gays have been doing fine,it's not like they are having any real problems.After the gay issue the next thing will be the age of consent laws so old strangers can zoom your children.That's where your screwball left right polarized stupidity leads while David Bass face 20 years.You left right nuts are the reaal problem here.

Karl Marx| 10.19.09 @ 8:54AM

Aren't we about due for a Gay, Socialist President?

Put down your haterade and embrace your inner broke back!

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 3:37AM

Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.