Dishing out Santorum? Ew!

This cartoon about sums it up: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=quit+squi… ://www.equalityloudoun.org/%253Fp%253D836&docid=bG872JlLAhjN5M&w=505&h=390&ei=fttFTpCTH8SLsgKM1qjXBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=376&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=197&start=0&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=92&ty=37

Conservatism is based on two things: being a victim, and being a bully. That's why it's so attractive to middle-aged white men who have not succeeded in life, and certain kinds of damaged women: When you buy into it, nothing is ever your fault - it's those homos, or those minorities, or those man-hating Feminists.

And since they are incapable of taking personal responsibility for their choices, they are masters of projecting their motives onto others.

They're just dreadful people.

Don't forget the claim that Hitler couldn't get the straight Nazis to be mean enough, but he could get the gay ones to be as monstrous as he wanted because gay people have no moral sense at all.

Clayton- your link is broken. And I'm curious what it is. I loves me some comics. Repost!

Also Dan, you got it. These people are spineless jackwads.

@6: I found it with my Internet wizardry.
http://www.equalityloudoun.org/images/qu…

Hey, if you're suppressing open discussion about how we, as a society, should be oppressing gay people, that's a fucking win. "Free speech" is a legal concept: we can't (even if we actually do) pass any laws restricting free speech. It isn't a social mandate that we must consider any and all discussion acceptable and not shame anyone for spouting hateful or otherwise idiotic statements. It's perfectly fine, in fact, it's a good thing, for Dan to be mocking bigots, especially in ways they fine disgusting and unacceptable, as it wouldn't really be effective otherwise. Even if they *were* actually being victimized, that would be good, as unrepentant bigots are legitimate targets for victimization. Fuck you, Right Wing: not all speech is equally-acceptable and not all ideas are equally valid.

@4- Catalina, you describe conservatives perfectly!

Thank you Venomlash! And yes- that cartoon sums it up perfectly. And it is well drawn too.

It's funny and infuriates me at the same time.

@7
Thanks, venomlash!

@ 5 - When he wasn't busy gassing them in concentration camps for being gay, of course.

@5 Is anyone really as stupid as you appear to be?
You're kidding, right? Because you couldn't believe a lie that stupid unless you were brain damaged.

This is the exact same position Republicans take on every issue. Call the other side names and poke at them until they respond, and then run away crying that they're being abused. When we start answering by hanging them from the rafters, I'm there.

@13 Read #5 it again, and then kick yourself in the nuts.

"His very Name made to be a Perversion" needs to find its way onto the spreadingsantorum main page.

@12 & 13- @5 is referring to a popular belief of the 50s and 60s, which was perpetrated in part by the author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It was one of several ways people attempted to explain away the holocaust as caused by deviants (the faulty national character of the Germans was another). It's comforting to say something like "See, the German army was evil because it was run by teh gays. This could never happen in America." Pretty much every high ranking member of the Nazi Party was accused of being gay by the British and the Americans.

@19 My mistake. Sorry.

@4, I think you nailed it. It basically is just a system of beliefs that encourages their worst inclinations.

@4 Beautifully put.

I would add, however, that they use Dan quite effectively as the gay bogeymen to mask the REAL reason they cannot be open in public about their actual views. They could not win a national election if they were honest--their bigoted hyper-victimized base is at most, what, 20 to 30% of the electorate?

I'd also add that these people who claim that liberalism is evil incarnate take advantage of liberal graciousness by bastardizing it, i.e. by making it about their "freedom of speech." You'll see this nonsense in the manufactured "war on Christmas" crap too--to disagree with them, even simply to have a different perspective or faith, is to silence and attack them.

Also of note, once again, is false equivalence, as if a person saying that gay people are walking abominations who destroy society--and using that as justification to terrorize queer folks--is "equivalent" to mocking the prudery and hypocrisy of these people.

@ 19 - Irony fail (as far as my comment is concerned, anyway)

If I was Perspective I would not like Dan putting sanctorum on me.

@ 25 And even less IN you, I presume.

I think the real perspective here is that this rabidly anti gay segment of the population is becoming so small that even these fucktards are realizing that it's counterproductive to play to them. Whichever pile of crap in a suit does get nominated will tone down the hysteria in the hopes that they can legislate all their bigotry once elected by the rubes who think that the GOP is not really going to slash social security, not really going to give their money to the billionaires, not really going to end women's right to choose, etc.

The real tipping point in any movement is the point at which your detractors' views start to get shunned.

Almost there.

Catalina @ 4 -- you always have such spot-on contributions. Very well stated.

Kathryn Lopez: My fantasy version of that conversation would move forward with the interviewee responding early: "David, people are free to live as they will, but when they insist that apples are oranges and that we must all agree to pretend that’s fact and teach our children that and operate our businesses as if it were true, that is where we have a problem."

And my fantasy version would have David Gregory responding:

But people in favor of same sex marriage aren't insisting that "apples are oranges." People in favor of same-sex marriage aren't arguing that homosexuals are heterosexuals, just like people who were in favor of interracial marriage weren't arguing that black people are white people. What we should be teaching our children is: just because people are different, it doesn't mean they should not have the same rights and opportunities in society.

Lopez again: We’re never going to have a sensible conversation about same-sex marriage without having a much more fundamental one about marriage itself, about the purpose of sex, and about what love really is.

Looks like she's a member of the marriage-is-all-about-having-babies club. One would think that, on this basis, conservatives like her would not just be arguing against same-sex marriage, but also be arguing that straight people who do not plan on having children should not be allowed to marry.

grow up

@19: Thank you so much for explaining that! We had that book at home when I was a kid... now I understand where my parents got their views of gays and Germans.

Lopez should admit that her and those of her ilk are just simply "never going to have a sensible conversation about same-sex marriage," period.

I don't understand how these people think we are fighting for marriage "equality" or for "equal rights".

I don't know the logical progression by which Rush Limbaugh, that knuckled-dragging, mouth-breathing, troglodytic three time divorced drug addict bigots convinces himself that he's MY equal. He has to look WAY up to see the soles of my feet, as well as the soles of all of my sweet, kind friends.

I don't know what annoys me more about "the Right": the hate, or the stupidity. While there is some linkage, especially in the followers/voters, their leaders display a calculated malevolence which seems to have a life of its own.

Idle musing: How come no one ever caps the bad guys? These great social battles are an uneven fight. We use reason, humor and patience, and they use hate and violence.

@4 I love you.

@7 Keep on wizarding.

@28 From your lips to God's ears.

I had to Google Santorum 5 or 6 more times just to remind myself what all the fuss was about.

P.S. @4 -- I love you too. Still & always.

@26 - Actualy as a gay man I do not mind a bit of sanctorum IN me from time to time. Not ON me tho.

I only have one question: How does Dan spend his "Santorum" coinage? Do they make special coin-purses for it? If so.... ewwww!

Just a note in defence of William Shirer and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich": Shirer didn't have anything against gays in particular. The top Nazi ranks were riddled with liars, hoodlums, crooks, weirdass deviants, perverts and psychological basket cases of all kinds: sexual, moral, psychological and financial. Shrirer basically paints a portrait of the worst of a given society oozing to the top and locking itself in, which is a fair and accurate (if incomplete) portrayal, even if one looks back and realizes that he was (typically for his era) wrong on equating "gay" with "pervert". If you go back and take those references out of the book it still remains a classic that has held up remarkably well in the half-century-plus since its publication.

I'm just curious: does anyone feel bad for all the other people with the last name Santorum? I have a feeling there might be...

Hey, look, it's raining!

Aw shucks. Thank you for all the kind comments, dearies.

Oh, and Troll? Thank you for proving my point so eleoquently @ 21. You just sing the same song, over and over. You're a mess, dear - and not the kind of mess you can cover up with make-up, or by putting a fall in your hair. You're more of a vomit-in-your-handbag sort of mess. The only thing you can do is throw out the handbag and buy something new.

@ 37 - Neither do I, but I prefer when it comes out of me instead of being put in.

@ 41 - Can we just throw out the handbag? I don't think we need a new one of these.

@4

Just out of curiousity, how often has your therapist mentioned strategies to combat your obsessive projection?

@Strange Savage crush on Rick Santorum

Obviously Savage (whose surname is perfectly appropriate without a google campaign) still has his strange crush on Rick Santorum. Once again Savage, Mr. Santorum is a decent, normal man who will never be 'monogamish' with you and your boyfriend. Never. Give it up and pick some other target for your disgusting fantasies. Clinton just had a birthday, and judging by the parade of sub-par females he put us through as president (especially his wife) he has no standards whatever. (Seriously, you're the most powerful man in the world, and who do you choose? Lewinsky, for God's sake? The big nosed girl from Arkansas? You could have done better Billy Joe Jim-Bob Clinton!) Anyhow, go for it Savage, give the old horndog a birthday he'll never forget! No matter how much he wants to.

Poor Seattleblahs.... Did I cut a little close to the bone? If so, I'm sure the bosom of your highly theoretical family can provide all the comfort you deserve.

And speaking of strange crushes - your thing for Dan would be cute in the context of some Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic comedy, loosed basely on "In The Good Old Summertime" (because, after all, you're no Judy Garland - or Margaret Sullivan, for that matter) but in the world of Slog, it's just tiresome. I'm sure, if you really try, and take advantage of services such as Craigslist, you could find a Dan Savage lookalike to work your issues out with. Just don't write a personal check.

@44: If you inhabit the moral high ground, why are your boots dripping with sewage?

Oh brava.

On the other hand, Dan, Our Side also cannot complain about the Other Side being tacky if we ourselves engage in tackiness. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but doesn't this comparative work both ways? Does it not also limit our criticism? Just askin'

Savage is within his rights to keep on needling Santorum, because the doofus keeps going out there, spouting the same ridiculous rhetoric at ever-more-shrill and desperate levels, and in all ways ASKING FOR IT.

I mean, look at the Iowa straw poll. The railing-against-gay-marriage issue is Santorum's whole career at this point - it's the only way he has any remote chance of getting the national media to cover him, period - and this time it just didn't work, not one bit. As someone else pointed out, his presidential run was really just an extended audition for Fox News pundit status anyway - except that the campaign fizzled SO badly, became SO much of a joke, that it's unlikely even Fox News would want to end up with Santorum - er, on their hands.

Sarah Palin is much more their speed - she's a total joke too, but she has just the right combination of "spunk," misplaced confidence, and willful pig-ignorance of how big a joke she is, that she just keeps cheerfully spewing out pure A-1 grade TV-soundbite gold. That kind of willful, proud defiance of reality is what made Fox News what it is today. Fox viewers LIVE to be reassured that they're actually in the Alterna-Conservoverse and everything is well in hand. By comparison, Santorum just sounds desperate at this point, like he doesn't believe anything he's saying, but is determined to keep shouting it even as the ship sinks beneath him. No one wants to tune into Fox News for that - if they wanted that, they'd tune into Reality.

So I'd say the tipping point is very close when Santorum will become SO much of a pathetic figure that it won't even be sporting any more to keep kicking him while he's down, like McCarthy in his later drinking-himself-to-death years when he wasn't even considered worth denouncing on the Senate floor anymore. But for now? The man's right up there in that dunk tank, BEGGING for our abuse. Right now it's all the attention he's ever going to get.

@4 -- Perfectly said.

Just pathetic.

First the aptly named Savage uses his vulgarity, perversion and general lack of any redeeming qualities to attack a good man with whom he has political differences. On politics? No! He tries to destroy the man with all his puny lisping might. Because the man will become the next president, or is an elected official making policy or for any legitimate political reason? No! Mr. Santorum serves no elected office. He makes no policy. He is an American voicing an opinion with which the Savage disagrees, that's all.

And he wants to justify this behavior with the childish 'he STARTED it!' Sort of fits with his general rallying cry for gay rights 'It's not FAAIIR!!!' Like the whining child with the all too perverse mind he is, this serves as reasoned debate for his miniscule intellectual conception.

Then Ms. Vel Du Ray makes the preposterous suggestion that Republicans are about victimization. That's the whole reason for being for progressives, the whine about who is or isn't helpless in the face of society. It's the base for the Democrat party, those who look for scapegoats for their personal failings. It has nothing to do with the inherently optimistic view of conservatives that their fellow men can feed, house, clothe and provide higher education for themselves and their families without a government official to help them do so, or a check to help them make poor decisions.

Really, reality is a bitch for you folks isn't it?

@50

Absolutely Savage is within his rights to display himself as the disgusting thing he is. Freedom of the 'press' (I know, a real stretch as regards The Stranger) and expression and all that.

Absolutely Savage has the right to show his odd obsession with Rick Santorum, and his vulgarity and depravity of all kinds.

Why he would want to do so is quite another matter. If I were half that repellant a person I'd do everything I could to hide the fact, not display it for all to see.

@54,55: Whatever you're on, please see your healthcare professional about upping the dosage.

You're intelligent enough that debating issues is worth while with you.

How you can defend the patent ad hominem attacks of the pervert Savage thinly veiled as political discourse is beyond me.

@57: If it's worthwhile to debate me, why don't you try that sometime? Every time I rebut one of your tirades, you disappear from the thread and make no attempt to defend your position. But come the next thread on the topic, you're back and reiterating the same arguments that I just debunked.
Now, your statement here is quite funny. You condemn Dan for making ad hominem attacks, and in the same sentence you call him a pervert, implying that the validity of his views are cheapened by his homosexuality. Do you know what ad hominem means?

Seattleblah, it's MRS Vel-DuRay. You used to know that. Where did our love go?

And if you and your bunch are so happy, self-sufficient, well-adjusted, etc., why do you even bother with people like us? Why spend so much of your time on the website of an alternative weekly when you have your highly theoretical family who apparently cleave to you as the Man Of The House? Aren't you denying your quiver or something?

But really - I think you are proving my point rather nicely. You fancy yourself as some sort of victim of Dan's evilness, and you try to bully the rest of us into accepting your rather dubious worldview. And you do a wonderful job of projecting your various character flaws onto the rest of us.

You really should do something about your negativity, while your highly theoretical children are still young, and their opinion of you hasn't been permanently ingrained. No one likes a bitter old man who spends all his time complaining about the government and the collapse of society. People are most just polite to them, hoping that they'll get something when they die. Do you really want to be that man?

@19, 32, 39: Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is an amazing book and an incredibly accurate and detailed history. I'll need to reread it but I don't remember anything anti-gay in there. Anyone who got that bizarre idea about the Nazis did not get it from Shirer.

@58: An ad hominem attack is when you criticize someone's views because of some insulting personal characteristic. SB didn't say that Dan was wrong because he's a "pervert," he just called Dan a "pervert" as well as arguing against his views. Not an ad hominem.

@61: Shh, it's in the tone. I'm reading between the lines a little. Don't be a newfag.

@62

For whatever reason, you're choosing to be obtuse. So here's the difference. I have no more patience for Glenn Beck than I do for Dan Savage, and for the same reason. Both men are damaging to civil discourse. Both employ the burnt field approach to politics, where finding a compromise someone from the far left like you and a rational man like me can live with isn't their goal. They'd rather see the country devolve into hostile political camps if that means their bullying wins, that their minority views are imposed on everyone else. Accepting that others have a different point of view simply isn't possible for them.

This whole campaign against Rick Santorum shows the real Dan Savage, it shows a man void of any sense of polity or civility, decency or morality. The false equivalency between Mr. Santorum making some comments about gays taken way out of context by Savage, and Savage orchestrating a personal attack on one man who holds no office and makes no policy should be obvious to you.

But to put it more plainly- I can say that homosexuality is sinful, or injurious to those who choose it, or physically just wrong, all of which are in my opinion true. These are my opinions of a lifestyle choice, not of Dan Savage or any other gay man or lesbian individually. That's what Mr. Santorum did, voiced an opinion he has every right to hold, whatever you may think of it. Nor did he compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia, except in listing possible variants of sexuality and noting that we don't encourage all forms of sexuality with the marital covenant.

But Savage is a liar as well as a deviant and pervert and purveror of libel, and you folks bought his lies wholly. Had he a shred of integrity he'd argue the issues with Santorum, not attack the man. Had he a shred of honesty he'd accurately represent the views of his opponents. After all, if he is so clearly right, the rightness of his views should overwhelm the honestly stated views of others, shouldn't they?

No. What Savage knows is that his disgusting lifestyle doesn't appeal to most Americans, though his right to be what he is does. He knows that his far left fringe politics are only popular in sections of large cities, and very unpopular in the majority of this country, so he can't rely on truth or integrity to win the day. His only tactic is his cowardice and dishonesty and obfustication of issues. His only recourse is to the slimiest negative qualities he possesses (though to be fair, he possesses these in plenty.)

This is the problem of the left generally. Honestly stating what you see as the ideal nation will lose you elections every time. Without fail. Americans are moral, decent, hard working self reliant folks, in the main. They don't want government hand outs, they don't want perversions made the norm. They ain't buying what you're selling, if you're honest about the goods. So you lie about them. You talk about 'social ustice' instead of theft by taxation. You talk about freedom instead of deviant people doing disgusting things and asking for social approval of them. You talk about equality, when you mean that gays ought to have more rights to define society than anyone else, despite the fact that their chosen perversion is represented by maybe 3% of the population.

Good luck with that. You'll need it when the punters see what's delivered as opposed to what you sold.

I opened this page, and a Rick Santorum for President ad appeared in the right-hand column. That's all.

@63: I wasn't talking to you. Do you answer to the name "newfag" now? (You should.)
Now, I'd like to thank you for airing all your delusions for us; they are most illuminating of your thought processes. But still, they are delusions and nothing more. Let's take it paragraph by paragraph:
Mr. Savage is not attempting to impose his minority views on everyone else. He is not advocating for special treatment of homosexuals, nor is he attempting to persecute heterosexuals. He, and the LGBTQ-rights movement in general, simply want to offer homosexuals et alii the same rights, privileges, and protections accorded others in society. Your stance is characteristic of the conservative culture of victimhood, where any attempt to protect the rights of those you disagree with is regarded as a personal attack on your First Amendment rights. Remember, your rights end where those of others begin.
Now, Mr. Santorum's comments were not exactly out of context. I quote the relevant Savage Love column: "Santorum didn't just say that gays have no right to private, consensual sex; he said that no one, gay or straight, has that right." And the interview with Mr. Santorum backs up this claim quite clearly. As for Rick Santorum holding no office and making no policy, you're just wrong. (Again? I'm sensing a pattern here.) The incident that led to the establishment of Santorum as a neologism occurred in 2003. Mr. Santorum was a Senator from 1995 to 2007. Numbers, motherfucker, do you speak them?
Now, Mr. Santorum did just as you said; he voiced his opinions as he has every right to. That is also what Mr. Savage did. Mr. Santorum thinks that homosexuality is immoral, and Mr. Savage thinks that Mr. Santorum is a threat to sexual freedom everywhere and therefore a real scumbag. Now, you claim that Mr. Santorum's comments did not compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia, and were not in any way homophobic, but consider this. If somebody said "Oh, it's nothing personal against Jews; we don't invite axe murderers or Scientologists over for dinner either", wouldn't you consider that statement to be offensively comparing Jews to axe murderers and Scientologists?
Now, you keep going on and on about how Mr. Savage is a liar and a pervert, but you never seem to provide any sources to back up your assertions. I'm calling you out, Seattleblues. I cite my sources when making claims, and there's no reason why you can't as well. I'd like you to show me where Mr. Savage committed libel against someone.
Your next paragraph doesn't really contain any coherent points, so I'll refrain from addressing your personal opinions.
Now, it is the height of chootspaw for you to claim the high ground for conservatives as far as honesty goes. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Obamacare Death Panels? No scientific consensus on evolution? Global warming as a disputed science? President Obama a Muslim? No new jobs from the stimulus bill? No terror attacks under Bush? Tax hikes opposed by the American people? Think about what you're saying here.
In conclusion: open the door, get on the floor, everybody walk the dinosaur.

Shorter version of almost every Seattleblah post: You are all depraved, and it's ruining the society I am trying to raise my highly theoretcal children in. You all need to come over to my side, because no one likes you. Dan Savage (or whoever his villian du jour is) is trying to destroy everything.

Victim/Bully/Projection. The Father, Son & Holy Ghost of the church of Conservatism, of which he thinks everyone belongs.

As Addison DeWitt would say, he is maudlin and full of self-pity. He is magnificent.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for the fucking one-trick-pony seattleblues (aka lostinhisownasshole) to answer venomlash's erudite throw down.

seattleblues (aka lostinhisownasshole) gutless clown servative blowhard that he is.

I don't suppose that idiot remembers that slickyricky santorum was driven from office due to a residency scandal. Slicky Ricky is NOT a good guy. He's a liar.

@63 Have you ever thought about going back to school and studying reading comprehension? You're so fond of throwing around the term "cognitive dissonance" as though you know what it means, so let me point out a couple of things. You criticize others for supposedly treating their opinions as facts (even in cases when people are citing facts) but you do the same thing yourself. And you've said you have no use for liars, but you have no qualms about lying when it suits your purposes.

I know you're probably in full retreat now from Venomlash's cogent arguments but I just wanted to throw that out there.

@67: Ooo I love All About Eve!
And can I join the masses in praise of you every post? Your writing makes me very happy.

@VL

Really, you're bettter than this, young man.

Let's start at the top. Savages views of marriage, sexual morality and politics are all extremely fringe. (Monogamish, for God's sake? That's like saying 'pregnant-ish.' You either are faithful to the person you claim to love, or you aren't.) He has every right to hold them. He has every right to express them. He has every right to try to get them codified as law. And he has a responsibility as a citizen to do so civilly and respect the majority if it doesn't agree with him.

It's the latter he's entirely incapable of.

As for gay 'civil rights' they are fully equal citizens as it is. They make lifestyle choices, to which they're entitled. What they aren't entitled to is the notion that they're exempt from the consequences of those choices. They can't marry their partner, for instance. They may be offended by how the majority views their expression of sexuality, for another.

Savage IS a liar. Just the other day he posted about an incident involving a woman unable to claim the body of her lover that never happened. He, Goldstein, Constant and Mudede consistently employ this approach to their posts- Read a partisan propanda website/newspaper for your 'facts.' Write a blog misrepresenting even this partisan view farther left. Finally, write a title to the post which slants the thing even farther from reality. Were this not conscious, I'd call it unfortunate. Since it is editorial policy, I call it what it is- lying.

I seek in no way to curtail the civil liberties of any other citizen. I just ask that they act like grown-ups and accept the good and bad of the life choices they make.

The whole victim/bully thing is patent nonsense. Everyone knows that Democrats and progressives have the monopoly on this political strategy. Create a perception of victimhood in some group, tell them you'll redress the situation (usually with money stolen from others through taxes) and ask them to vote for you. This has been the Democrat strategy for 9 decades or more. Your projection of this shameful approach to politics on conservatives is embarrassing. For you.

And again, Rick Santorum, whatever his faults or qualities, is not in a policy making position. The crusade against him should never have been anything other than issue based, but Savage isn't capable of that level of civility. It should have ended when his influence on public policy did, but Savage has this unseemly unrequited crush on him, and can't let it go. Defending that shameful attack on him is itself indicative of the person doing so.

Finally, spare me the 'motherfucker.' I work in construction. You have no epithets at your command I haven't heard and dismissed already.

Oh please, Seattleblah. You're grasp of politcal history is almost as thin as your grasp of reality.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, All of Fox News, Every little sniveling conservative also-ran in the heavily subsidized conservative media employs the same tactic: Get old people and angry middle-aged white men to listen to them by telling them how nothing is their fault - it's all the government's, or the gay's, or the minorities that are stealing good jobs, etc. You do it yourself when you refer to legitimate, necessary taxation as the government "stealing". You're all a bunch of big babys. The media people do it because most of them are wealthy, and they make a good living off it. What's your excuse?

As for Rick Santorum, "spreading santorum" was a clever tactic, but if he was worth anything as a politician he could have ridden it out. He's just a whiny little conservative, trying to blame Dan Savage for his own failings, and you parrot along like the addle-brained conservative Pomerainian you are.

Government is set up to protect people like you from yourself.

@71 You're calling Dan's views on "marriage, sexual morality and politics are all extremely fringe" and yet you don't cite any specific views or any polls to prove that all of those views are "extremely fringe". Oh, wait, I forgot. Because you believe you're right you don't have to cite anything to back up your opinions.

And you talk about civility and respect. How about dropping remarks like "English is so hard for liberals", especially when you also have trouble with your spelling? Or is it asking too much that you be civil as well?

As for you calling Dan a liar, let's look at a recent example where he posted an update admitting an error. You jumped on it with a sarcastic remark, missing the fact that Dan admitted he made a mistake--something you may have done yourself, but I can't remember it happening.

@71: Are you out of your fracka-lacka mind?
Being not strictly monogamous and being faithful to your special other are not disjoint, just so you know. You can sleep with ten people and still be FAITHFUL to all of them, so long as all of them are okay with you sleeping with the other nine. Now, your opinion that Mr. Savage's views are "fringe" is just that: an opinion. He is fringe by your standards, and fortunately, you do not set the standards. You have not proven that Mr. Savage is in any way a bad person; all you have proven is that you don't like him.
Now, you claim that the LGBTQ-equality movement doesn't respect the rule of law, and can't accept when things don't go their way. Let me ask you this: have you ever heard of women's-rights activists bombing Christian pregnancy counseling centers? Have you ever heard of gay advocates threatening clergy who refuse to perform gay weddings? When things don't go as we'd like, we work within the legal system to change them; we go to court, we petition our representatives, and we hold peaceful protests.
Gays cannot legally marry the person they love. Straights can. And you say they're equal under the law? You insist on clinging to the long-disproven belief that sexuality is a choice, and not innate. How like the conservatives of today to ignore all Facts that disagree with the Truth!
Seattleblues, you are either ignorant or a liar yourself for calling that mishap a lie. Let's see what Merriam Webster has to say: "Definition of LIE (intransitive verb) 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". See, lying requires knowledge of the untruth in order for deceitful intent to be present. Simply repeating a lie told by another does not constitute lying so long as one does not know of the lie.
You claim that the Democratic Party has been fabricating issues of victimhood since the 1920s. Please provide examples.
Seattleblues, I ain't sparing you no "motherfucker". Now, you may have worked on a construction site, but I can outcuss you any day of the week. (By the way, I was referencing "Pulp Fiction".) Concha tu madre, puto.

There's a man from West PA
Tweaked his name, 'cause he hates Gay,
Can't go back to West PA
You're a bad, bad Dan.

I find it extremely amusing that SB would write "If I were half that repellant a person I'd do everything I could to hide the fact, not display it for all to see".

But it's okay to display it when you, SB, are TEN TIMES that repellant a person, right?