Posted on 09/05/2010 10:56:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the wake of a dispute between WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah and conservative author Ann Coulter over her decision to headline an event sponsored by GOProud, a gay conservative organization, Farah and GOProud Chairman Christopher Barron will square off in a debate later this month at WND’s convention.
Barron told The Daily Caller that Farah challenged him to debate over whether GOProud can be considered “conservative” after Farah argued on his site that there is no place within conservatism for an organization like GOProud, a group that promotes itself as “the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies.” TheDC is waiting for confirmation from WND about the debate’s details.
Farah dropped Coulter from a speaking engagement at WND’s annual “Taking America Back” convention in Miami for agreeing to speak at GOProud’s “Homocon” party in New York. (Coulter later said that Farah had never actually booked her for a speech, calling him a “swine” and a “publicity whore.”)
Farah contends that groups like GOProud are trying to commit a “coup” to unroot the conservative movement with an “agenda…to take the homosexual agenda inside the conservative tent.”
Barron insists that his group is genuinely conservative and said he looks forward taking on Farah in front of a WND crowd.
“Since we announced that conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter would be headlining our Homocon 2010 in New York City, Farah has attacked GOProud, attacked Ann, and challenged our work almost every single day,” Barron said in a statement to The Daily Caller. “I look forward to standing on the stage with Mr. Farah to defend GOProud, to debunk the misinformation he has spread, and to make the case for GOProud’s conservative mission.”
Barron added that conservatism stands at a major crossroads in its acceptance of gays into the movement. A number of high profile conservatives, including Lisa De Pasquale of the Conservative Political Action Conference, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and former General Counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee Craig Engle, have signed on as official sponsors of GOProud’s event.
The debate will be held on September 17 at 7:30 PM at the Doral Golf and Spa Resort in Miami, Florida.
Email Chris Moody and follow him on Twitter
They had a post on this thread deleted.
Wow. Thanks. I’ve copied it and will save it.
What was the post?
Post 530. My response to it still stands.
It was removed. Post 530.
I didn't have you in mind regarding the "pack of hyenas" comment. Why would you think so? I didn't ping you to that message, or reference you in it. (Where you even involved in that other thread? Maybe you were, but I don't recall it.) But I'm not a coy person. At least I don't intend to be. So I have no problem saying that I think DJ MacWoW and Darksheare are certainly among the leaders of the ban-happy "hyena" pack.
We just say, “Hey, Jim, ban this person” and he does it? Are you out of your mind?
Insult noted.
You sent me some nicey nicey freepmails last night,
Disrespectful indiscretion noted.
Apparent inadvisability of henceforth sharing confidences or convivialities with you noted.
but your tone is quite different on the thread.
Duplicity and double dealing is the hallmark of dishonesty. I can discuss politely with those who have different opinions, but not when people use duplicitous tactics as their SOP.
If my tone subsequently was disrespectful or demeaning, in a message directed to you, or responding to you, or referencing you, I don't recall it, but I apologize. (No sarcasm there, btw. I mean it.)
I have to tell you it seems to me that it is your tone, rather than mine, that has changed abruptly and gratuitously. But this text only method of communication -- being absent facial expressions, intonation and pacing of speech, and many other nonverbal cues and signals -- is very incomplete and prone to fostering faulty assumptions and creating misunderstandings. So usually I just ignore them and move on. I only comment now since you bring it up.
In any case I don't doubt you believe I've been duplicitous. It's just not clear to me how; that is what, exactly, you are referring to.
You claim that “free speech” is what you want; yet yesterday when I requested you to explain how the GOProud’s stated, public Legislative Agenda is in any way conservative, you refused to answer or address this central issue. Then, when your knuckles were rapped, went on and on about how you’d just love to share you opnion, but were prevented by the management.
I'm going to respond to this on two separate grounds.
First: OBVIOUSLY I was playing things up -- with the 1984 references and the like -- to make a point. But it doesn't seem, at least to me, that you perceive the underlying issue which was leading me to make that point.
As I understand the policy laid down by JR, it really does prevent me from responding to your request.
It seems entirely clear, as least to me, that Jim considers arguing that homosexuals can be, or are, conservatives is promoting "the gay agenda". I would have to so argue to satisfactorily address your query.
I happen to think that arguing that homosexuals can be conservatives, and that some are conservatives, undermines "the [leftist] gay agenda". But it's not my site. If I were to answer you question substantively I would run some risk -- granted maybe not a great risk, but the degree thereof being uncertain -- of being banned. Many others have been.
I certainly understand there may be some confusion, and I'm sorry for that, since it went hand in hand with my dramatizing my point about speech codes and political correctness and the like: But when I said, that if you want such issues and questions to be open to debate and discussion, you need to take it up with the management, I MEANT THAT. I still mean it. I wish you would. I really do. I wish any other FReepers who disagree with the policy would do likewise.
At least I assume you disagree with the policy. I assumed you did because you were so insistent about pressing me to respond. Either that or you agree with the policy, and understand it, in which case you might be a "secret hyena," trying to bait me into a violation. Or maybe you agree with the policy, but don't understand it, and don't think I would be violating it by answering you... See, I don't really know which it is, and it will only cause more trouble (and accusations of duplicity) if I ass-u-me this or that, which is why I'm trying to be straight with you. I really am.
Right now I'm visualizing you reading this, and still not quite grasping that I'm completely serious. Well, in case you didn't notice, the hyenas are continuing to threaten and ban-bait me, even after I've stood down from discussing potential homocon compatibility. Look at message #568, posted to me from Darksheare, who is responding to a comment by me about speech codes.
IOW, it's not enough for the hyenas that I've stopped talking about homosexuals. They don't even want me talking about the policy that prevents me from talking, in terms of giving a dissident opinion, about homosexuals. (This is a step that always occurs with speech codeists, btw.)
So, once again, and hopefully finally, if you really do want me to answer you, please, please do take it up with management. Or, at the very least, make some personal contribution to criticizing, shaming or marginalizing the ban bots.
Second: Pardon my bluntness, but who made you God King of FR, such that your posts must be responded to, and your requests must be honored? Speaking for we mere mortals here on FR, many of us spend hours and hours writing posts which are substantive and germane, but ignored or not responded to. This may occur for any number of reasons, not necessary, or even typically, involving "duplicity". To gratuitously ass-u-me "duplicity" is therefore rather rude (at least if you aren't a God King).
Each person has their limited amount of time to spend on FR, and their own individual priorities about what they want to contribute and how, and what they think more and less important.
In my case I regularly work 14 hour days. I devoted a considerable portion of my rare long weekend to FReeping, but I had many other things to attend to as well. You weren't the only person engaging me in this thread. There were other questions and issues I chose to spend my effort on. Maybe I would have gotten to your question, maybe not. In general, I don't consider the official statements of organizations nearly as important as what are their more detailed and specific arguments, and even more important what those organizations and the individuals which comprise them actually do, who they ally with, who and what they oppose and support in practice, and so on. I was giving my attention mostly to those kinds of things.
My priorities apparently didn't align well with yours. But that happens. It happens all the time to any and every contributing FReeper. You kinda need to get used to that.
Not that there is any problem at all with reminding another FReeper that there is an unanswered question, or requesting that something you think is significant be addressed. There isn't. But if you become excessively huffy, or puffed up, or resentful, or accusatory, or combative about it, you ought to realize it's probably going to make most FReepers less, rather than more, inclined to engage you.
If you further accuse your would be correspondents of "duplicity," or attempt to turn friendly private emails into a weapon, most FReepers would blow you off completely. Fortunately, I'm a really nice guy. (No, really!)
Jim Robinson has made his stand very clear. And little jeremiah is correct. None of us have the power to ban anyone. And if we cross a line we could be next. Jim does not play favorites.
Jim also reads posting history. He doesn't usually ban someone without reason. You received a warning. If Jim thinks there needs to be a further explanation, he may give you one.
You danced on this thread. You ignored info. Then you became snarky about the rules that the owner stated. You have no room complain.
I apologize for mentioning any freepmails; although I didn’t disclose any content. Still, it was improper and for this I apologize.
Everything else I said still stands.
You tried to sidestep and outright LIE.
You outright back the gay agenda.
The rules of the forum as decided by the owner of said forum say exactly what about that?
FR is private property, I’m sorry that you do not understand that concept.
If the forum isn’t to your liking because it will not back the homosexual agenda, then perhaps you’re not on the right forum?
I have always tried to be scrupulously honest on FR. If you could please specify my alleged "outright lie," I would appreciate the opportunity to correct myself.
You outright back the gay agenda.
I my view, as explained above, I do not back "the gay agenda" because I do not believe there is any such thing as "the" gay agenda. For the same reasons I do not believe there is any such thing as "the" black agenda, or "the" feminist agenda, or "the" immigrant agenda, or "the" poor/lower middle class agenda, etc, etc.
OTOH, I do believe there is a radical leftist agenda. A key strategy in furthering the leftist agenda is convincing members of such demographic or identity groups that they should all think alike (as leftists dictate) and/or forming leftist led front groups that pretend to speak for group members and advance their interests, but instead simply advance the interests of the radical left.
In all other cases, we conservatives support and applaud members of leftist targeted identity groups who speak out and organize to reject, expose, debunk and fight left-wing co-option. In the special case of homosexuals, however, some conservatives, including yourself and Jim Robinson, take the opposite approach. I sincerely believe this is a mistake. I believe such conservatives are at risk of thereby advancing the leftist agenda.
What would we think of conservatives who joined the left in, for instance, branding black conservatives as "race traitors" or "uncle toms," or otherwise discouraging and delegitimizing their dissent against leftism? We would never actively help the left keep blacks on the liberal plantation, but some conservatives do assist the left in keeping homosexuals in the liberal bathhouse.
The rules of the forum as decided by the owner of said forum say exactly what about that?
If you've followed my exchanges with little jeremiah, then you already know I understand the policy. It effectively holds that promotion of any self-identified homosexual individual or organization is ipso facto promotion of "the homosexual agenda," even if they also self-identify as conservative, because it is impossible for homosexuals to be genuine conservatives.
little jeremiah was goading me defend the conservative bona-fides of GOProud. But where I to attempt to do so I would, in legitimizing them as conservative, be legitimizing them in general, therefore supporting a homosexual organization, therefore backing "the gay agenda".
Although I do not accept this policy in terms of agreeing with it, I have complied with it since Jim Robinson replied to me in this thread.
The truth is, being a self appointed speech code enforcer, you don't like the fact that I'm following the rules.
They have written their agenda quite clearly and have reached some of their stated goals. Those have been posted on this thread.
If you don't believe in their agenda then why were you on the thread? To disrupt? You did. And received the attention of the owner.
Don't you think it's time to drop it?
Yes, you lied.
And lied, and lied, and lied.
You got caught repeatedly.
GOProud is a homosexual group that backs the homosexual agenda, it has been listed here repeatedly which you WILLFULLY IGNORED LIKE A TROLL.
You back GOProud, which backs the hmoosexual agenda, therefor you back the homosexual agenda.
And since you scream like a spanked child because FR does not support it, I’m guessing you have an agenda yourself.
“I do not back “the gay agenda” because I do not believe there is any such thing as “the” gay agenda.”
That has got to be one of the most moronic things I have read in years, and I’ve seen some winners.
That’s like saying you don’t believe in gravity or there is no wind.
Their agenda has been posted, repeatedly.
Again, at this point the only conclusion I can come to is that you are in fact a troll.
You never answered, even before your knuckles were rapped, my question to you concerning the GOProud’s agenda. My query was - is this agenda put forward by the GOProud organization conservative or not?
Crickets.....
You sidestepped that question. Ignored it.
If you think there is no such thing as the homosexual agenda in truth, then you are not only lying to others, you are lying to yourself.
The GOProud people themselves state and admit they are pushing the homosexual agenda; or as they say, “gay issues”. They admit that is all they are interested in. What, pray tell, are “gay issues”? It’s another way of saying “homosexual agenda”. The homosexual agenda is part of the general leftist agenda.
Your duplicity is so clearly apparent that it is laughable.
What obvious nonsense.
I asked you to explain how the GOProud's stated Legislative Agenda was in any way conservative (with their admitted nod to the 2nd Amendment), since you said they were a conservative organization, or words to that effect. I was not "goading" you, I was asking in all honesty.
I believe you were asking in honesty. I'm just not all that interested, generally, in aspirational statements, mission statements, high level agenda items, bullet points, and all that sort of thing. So, I haven't even looked at that legislative agenda thingy yet.
I'm more interested in, and think it far more significant, how individuals within a group or organization behave, who they oppose and expose, and how they argue more specific issues. So that's what I was focusing on until JR rapped my knuckles. In that light I was spending my limited time doing things like reading through the archives at The Gay Patriot (a blog run by some of the founders of GOProud) and looking, for instance, at how they had been increasingly critical over the years of The Log Cabin Republicans' liberalism, and that organization's failure to challenge or criticize the agendas of leftist homosexual organizations.
I might have got to your query eventually, or I might not have. I'm not sure. But as I keep telling you, since I've been chastised into abiding by JR's policy, however nonsensical I may personally believe it to be, I am now prohibited from answering your question.
Unless -- come to think of it -- I agreed with you that the legislative agenda statement thing is NOT conservative, which I might do. So, I tell you what. Some time this weekend I will get around to looking at it. If I agree it is NOT conservative, JR's guidelines allow me to say so, and I will say so.
But, OTOH, if (or to the extent) I believe that agenda is conservative, I am not permitted to so argue, since I would be thereby legitimating, and thereby promoting, GOProud, a homosexual organization, and thereby "advancing the homosexual agenda," as I understand JR's view of the matter.
You know what... Now that I actually type that out and read it, the absurdity of being asked to evaluate a matter where I am only allowed to argue one side of the issue, and prohibited from arguing the other side, strikes me all over again.
So, sorry, but I take it back. I cannot in good conscious address your request. What's more, it seems to me, that as an honest questioner, you should not want me to do so. You should not want someone to answer a question when the rules of discourse permit them to answer in one, and only one, officially approved fashion; because this is an intellectual sham.
So I ask you again the question which I have repeatedly asked, and you have repeatedly ignored: Have you protested this policy yet? (I haven't noticed you doing so publicly, at least within this thread.) Will you join me in advocating that the principles outlined by Jim Robinson, or their application, be revised to the extent that homosexual orgs or individuals need not be considered anti-conservative a priori, but FReepers (who, of course, are not disruptive, trollish or otherwise in violation of rules) are instead allowed to argue and present evidence on either side of the case as their honest evaluations may dictate?
Thanks for the reply. If I may renew my request, however, I did ask you to specify how I lied, not to simply repeat the bald assertion. Should you find the time to respond more responsively, thanks in advance!
Just to clarify, on the off chance that it affects your response: My definition if "lie" is, "to knowingly assert or imply an untruth, especially with the intent that it be accepted as true." I do not accept, "disagreeing with Darksheare," as a valid definition of lying.
How did you lie?
You can’t be serious.
GOProud is no more conservative than John Murtha or Barney Frank is.
Then you were apologetic to another poster, then turned around and said things 180 degrees the opposite.
You got caught.
I believe the words were “That’s not what you said in FReepmail”.
So puttting two and two together, what you said in FReepmail was very different from what you said in that post.
I.E. YOU LIED.
You keep pushing the homosexual agenda yet claim there is no agenda.
You are a liar.
You keep pushing a group the pushes the homosexual agenda and yet CLAIM they are conservative.
You are a liar, proof that they are not has been shown yet you willfully ignored it.
You are trolling.
Then you were apologetic to another poster, then turned around and said things 180 degrees the opposite.
You got caught.
I believe the words were “That’s not what you said in FReepmail”.
Here's what happened about the emails...
(Thanks, btw, little jeremiah, for the apology in that regard. Accepted.)
...little jeremiah kept pressing me, here in the thread, to read and comment on some "legislative agenda" page (I believe it was) over at the GOProud website, which lj believes disproves GOProud's claims to be conservative.
I kept telling little jeremiah, still here in the public thread, to take it up with the management, i.e. Jim Robinson, because JR's rules prevent me from commenting honestly, at least to the extent I might be inclined to defend GOProud.
lj kept goading me (lj doesn't seem to like that word, but pressing, insisting, tweaking, however you want to put it) and I, in turn, goaded-pressed-tweaked back: why are you so insistent, why so frustrated; if you want to discuss it why not join me in protesting the policy so it can be discussed; why keep bothering me, why won't you take it up with the management; etc.
As this was escalating, I sent lj an email saying something like: Look, I'm trying to make a point in these exchanges about the policy here on FR. That policy, not you, little jeremiah, is my target. If I'm going over the top on occasion, I wanted you to know that this is what it's about for me, and hopefully not take it too personally.
My bad. I really should have just posted that same proviso publicly.
I suppose I was having a bit too much fun playing with, and playing up, the irony that little jeremiah, and others here, want to debate me in the context of a speech code that doesn't allow me to take a contrary position. You want debate, seemingly, but won't oppose or criticize the rules that prevent it.
Basically, I was wanting to keep up my protest over the rules here in the public thread, while privately defusing with little jeremiah (who, although I disagree with, didn't seem to me to fall into the same, as I've put it, "ban-happy hyena pack" as you, Darksheare, and DJ MacWoW).
It would appear that little jeremiah found this duplicitous. I don't agree, and I didn't expect or anticipate that reaction, but on reflection it's easy to understand. I was indeed adopting one pose in the public thread, and another (at least in seeking to defuse some effects of the former) in private email.
I don't think there's a contradiction there. I think public debate and personal exchange are different forms of communication, in which different tones are likely to be adopted. But, in that respect, or some related respect, little jeremiah disagrees, and has a right to. All I can do is remind you again that disagreeing is not the same as lying, at least in any non-Darksheare definition of "lie" which I am aware of.
So, that was the emails pretty much. There was a bit of brief, mostly friendly, chit chat over just two or three exchanges, and that was about it.
Except for the part where we talked about you behind your back and agreed that, although you sucked, we both enjoyed banging your mom.
(Sorry. Channeling Greg Gutfeld there for a minute. Now I suppose we'll have to delve into the definition of a "joke". LOL.)
You are trolling.
For ten years? It would appear I have more faith in the efficacy and aim of FR's troll stompers than you do.
To them, Free Republic is their little online clubhouse. They do NOT want debate.
There are Freepers from 97, 98 and 99 that get banned for trolling. People change.
Darksheare and little jeremiah. I suggest we ignore anymore of his posts and let him talk to the wind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.