In Defense of the Catholic Church

Priests, Abuse, and the Meltdown of a Culture
by George Weigel @ NRO

The American narrative of the Catholic Church’s struggles with the clerical sexual abuse of the young has been dominated by several tropes firmly set in journalistic concrete: that this was and is a “pedophilia” crisis; that the sexual abuse of the young is an ongoing danger in the Church; that the Catholic Church was and remains a uniquely dangerous environment for young people; that a high percentage of priests were abusers; that abusive behavior is more likely from celibates, such that a change in the Church’s discipline of priestly celibacy would be important in protecting the young; that the Church’s bishops were, as a rule, willfully negligent in handling reports of abuse; that the Church really hasn’t learned any lessons from the revelations that began in the Long Lent of 2002.

But according to an independent, $1.8 million study conducted by New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and released on May 18, every one of these tropes is false…

…But if the Times, the Globe, and others who have been chewing this story like an old bone for almost a decade are genuinely interested in helping prevent the crime and horror of the sexual abuse of the young, a good, long, hard look will be taken at the sexual libertinism that has been the default cultural position on the American left for two generations. Catholic “progressives” who continue to insist that the disciplinary and doctrinal meltdown of the post–Vatican II years had nothing to do with the abuse crisis might also rethink their default understanding of that period. The ecclesiastical chaos of that decade and a half was certainly a factor in the abuse crisis, although that meltdown is not a one-size-fits-all explanation for the crisis and the way it was handled.

A must read.

For what it’s worth, before I could begin to teach religion at my local parish, I had to attend a four hour workshop on how to prevent the sexual abuse of minors. In the Diocese of Arlington, at the very least, the Church is taking this issue extremely seriously.

Oh, Snap!

Stephen Colbert’s Free Speech Problem
by Steve Simpson & Paul Sherman @ The Wall Street Journal

Comedy Central funnyman Stephen Colbert, like most of his friends and allies on the left, thinks that last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is, literally, ridiculous. To make his case that the ruling invites “unlimited corporate money” to dominate politics, Mr. Colbert decided to set up a political action committee (PAC) of his own. So far, though, the joke’s been on him…

…Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections—which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created “71 distinct entities” that “are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech.” The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean. “Legalese” doesn’t begin to describe this mess.

So what is someone who wants to speak during elections to do? If you’re Stephen Colbert, the answer is to instruct high-priced attorneys to plead your case with the FEC: Last Friday, he filed a formal request with the FEC for a “media exemption” that would allow him to publicize his Super PAC on air without creating legal headaches for Viacom.

How’s that for a punch line? Rich and successful television personality needs powerful corporate lawyers to convince the FEC to allow him to continue making fun of the Supreme Court. Hilarious.

Of course, there’s nothing new about the argument Mr. Colbert’s lawyers are making to the FEC. Media companies’ exemption from campaign-finance laws has existed for decades. That was part of the Supreme Court’s point in Citizens United: Media corporations are allowed to spend lots of money on campaign speech, so why not other corporations?

I despise Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, so this just makes me laugh and laugh.


You know…the media should love us. Every time a team with less money than the Yankees is up against them in the post-season, they become national darlings because they’re the underdogs. Trust me…I remember this phenomenon impacting me on more than one recent occasion. I hate the Red Sox, but I cheered for them in 2004. I couldn’t care less about the Twins, but they had my support in 2005-6-7-9-10. And of course, my own team, the Mariners, enjoyed a brief moment in the spotlight, first in 1995 when they actually DID upset the apple cart and defeat the hated Yankees (in come from behind fashion), and again in 2000 and 2001 when they were the upstart west coast rival. The same underdog mentality favors Palestine in the media coverage of the middle east (because they’re the poor, “displaced” natives who’ve been ousted from their sacred land by wealthy Jews (except that, in Israel it’s totally legal to be a Muslim and they could go there right now and live peacefully if they wanted…but whatever). And the same dynamic is what appeals to Hollywood elites who need a “cause” to feel like their decadent lives matter when they back leftist organizations that claim to be in support of underdog minorities here at home or some cause of the moment abroad for which rich white Americans can be blamed in the media (and people believe this stuff).

And…I think…the same dynamic applies to liberal hatred of America and American values. A small part, perhaps, but some part of them is thinking that we’re the Yankees…that we’re bullying around a bunch of underdogs who deserve their day in the sun. It’s why NPR thinks they’re being intellectual in supporting Palestinian-favoring news coverage (because they actually believe that Jews control our media and that the Palestinians are the underdogs). It’s why when we suffered the blow of 9/11, a few of our most vocal ivory-tower elites blamed us for the tragedy (which they would never tolerate if the tragedy were a woman being raped – that would be blaming the victim, right?). And it’s at the very heart of the ideals of Communism – a bad idea that never works anywhere it’s tried because it’s antithetical to human nature, but that continues to be tried again and again because it’s fun to play Robin Hood and take from the rich to elevate the underdog…until the system collapses in on that underdog and he is crushed.

But take heart, you knuckle-dragging conservative racist bastards…your Tea Party movement is surely an underdog sensation in the making. There can be no doubt that the current established media is dominated by liberal bias that runs so deep that NPR can’t even be called the most extreme of left wing voices. They’re the fat cats now. They are the ones sitting on Michael Moore’s claimed piles of money in deep wells that we can’t get at (see his speech at Madison’s union protests). The good news is that, like in any good Hollywood movie, the fat cats tend to get complacent and arrogant. Sit down next to one of them and talk like a liberal elite and you can get them to say outrageous things…and with today’s hidden camera technology, you can record it for posterity and sting the bastards where it hurts…on YouTube and in the blogosphere where today’s underdog conservatives are waging their comeback.

Look no further than Tim O’Keefe’s “Project Veritas”…an undercover liberal-clobbering PR war machine so successful that it has single-handedly destroyed ACORN (one of the most corrupt “community organizing (read: racketeering) liberal front groups of all time), made a mockery of the New Jersey Educators Association, and exposed the antisemitism, anti-Americanism and liberal bias of NPR’s top brass. In fact, their latest video essentially proves that NPR is guilty of treason squared. Not only did they not bat an eye at supporting a clearly-religious organization with an anonymous contribution dedicated toward continued pro-Muslim slanting of news coverage (and promises that their contribution could remain anonymous and shielding from Federal scrutiny…this from a PUBLICLY FUNDED public broadcasting company). But they revealed that the same radio network execs had no problem with the knowledge that the funding would come from a Muslim Brotherhood front group whose website states that it works to spread acceptance of Sharia Law (which is, by definition a treasonous set of laws that run contrary to our Constitution).

The same liberals who wag their fingers at Christians who want to put up a manger on the public square, howling “separation of church and state, you bigot!” have no problem with a publicly funded institution backing another religion (Islam) openly…NPR – the public voice of America – is to have pro-Islam news coverage (to even things out, they claim…LOL)…that’s a considerably greater intrusion on the separation of church and state than public displays of religious reverence. And on top of that, they don’t bat an eye at taking money form people who would subvert our Constitution in favor of laws that would send women back to the stone ages as property and force us all to tolerate murder and barbaric crimes against humanity as long as they’re done by Muslims practicing Sharia. That’s compounding one treason with another and that’s despicable. But I have good news…they’re OPEN about their crimes! Because they’re no longer the underdogs. They’re the fat cats…and you can get them to say all manner of racist, hateful, ignorant, arrogant things as long as you have money to offer them and claim to agree with their politics.

And maybe someday, what remains of the Media after we’re done exposing the bias for what it is…will appreciate our underdog story. Think of it…citizens armed with nothing but genius and a few tiny cameras upsetting that apple cart Moore likes to talk about in his fat-headed speeches just by getting liberal elitists to reveal how sorry and empty their public calls for social justice truly are. “Pay no attention to the racist, backward, money-grubbing, anti-American traitors behind the curtain…your enemy is the Tea Party!! They’re the real racists!”

Please google ProjectVeritas and throw them your support if you’re able…this is the only way we can win the PR war and take back the truth.

Media Bias in Climate Change Debate: Not Just the Press

If you think that the bias in reporting on global warming is coming exclusively from the news media’s reaction to the opinions of scientists on this contentious issue…think again.

Kerry Emanuel Urges Media to Sway Public Opinion

As glaciers melt and island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the global research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S.

The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, coming to a peak during a Friday session, “Science without Borders and Media Unbounded”.

Near the forum’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.

“You haven’t persuaded the public,” replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, “No, you haven’t.” Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, “That’s right. Kerry said it.”

I provided the important text so you wouldn’t have to read this idiotic rant more than you need to. The point is…when scientists see a crowd of unconvinced Americans who think they’re being sold a lie when it comes to climate change, their response is to assume that the Americans are just too stupid to get it and tell the press to convince them.

Just what the heck kind of world do we live in? I thought the scientists’ job was to objectively seek out truth and report what they find and the media was supposed to objectively report on events, not spin the public opinion? But I’m being unspeakably naive (intentionally for argument’s sake) of course…no one truly believes the media is reporting the truth objectively.

This is reaching levels of obscenity, however, in the scientific community, that I cannot tolerate. First you have Trenberth claiming in a recent (PUBLISHED!) article in GRL that the burden of proof should be shifted to climate skeptics since their case has been made and discredited…now you’ve got Kerry Emanuel urging the media to report the same sense of consensus to the people, whether it’s real or not, to motivate them to take on the task of remediating climate change. This is OUTRAGEOUS.

Especially when the objective polls of hard scientists would suggest that there IS no consensus on climate change and a careful review of the opinions on any of the major key issues surrounding climate science reveals disagreement about…well…EVERYTHING!

Do yourselves a favor, Americans…turn off your TV during the local news and stop reading the newspaper…it’s all lies and spin. Go straight to the web and read a variety of sources to stay informed.

Melissa Mia Hall Didn’t Have to Die

If you’re wondering what prompted my last furious post, here is further explanation:

An uninsured Texas writer by the name of Melissa Mia Hall died of an undiagnosed heart attack a little more than a week ago, and a group of writers on Live Journal are busy trying to spread the meme that she died precisely because she was uninsured and was afraid she wouldn’t be able to pay the bills if she went to see a doctor.

Now, if I read the posts on her untimely death correctly, Hall lived in the Fort Worth area. Provided my information regarding place of residence is correct, here were some of the patient assistance programs that were available to her (found via Google-fu):

  • The hospitals in the Texas Health Resources Network offer charity care for low-income patients. They also offer discount pricing for uninsured patients and financing options for those with a balance above $250.
  • The JPS Health Network also offers at least two patient assistance programs for those struggling to afford medical care.
  • Baylor Health offers charity care to patients whose total medical expenses exceed a certain percentage of their annual income. Their services also include charity care for those with “catastrophic” medical expenses.

Those are the first three medical entities (besides the children’s hospital) that pop up when I Google for “hospitals near Fort Worth, Texas.” I don’t know Hall’s income, so I don’t know exactly what she would’ve qualified for, but this notion that there was absolutely nothing out there for her is a complete lie. Don’t accept it.

ETA: By the way, Hillbuzz has published my letter regarding charity care. Keep an eye on the comments section. It may end up being a source of some important information.

Liberals Are Responsible for "Deaths Due to Lack of Health Insurance"

I know my heading is an inflammatory statement, but hear me out:

In 2006, I came down with an intractable infection that landed me in the hospital several times over the course of two months. At the time, I was uninsured, so when all was said and done, I was handed a bill that totaled over $20,000. Just for a point of reference, I make about $26,000 – $30,000 a year. My hospital tab was 2/3 of my highest annual salary.

But here’s what happened next: My mother and I informed Potomac Hospital that I did not have the means to pay, and they refered me to a hospital charity set up to deal with cases like mine. This charity took a look at my income and my necessary expenses (car payment, student loan, etc.) and decided to cover 75% of my bill. The remaining 25% was spread out over a few years of monthly payments.

Whenever I hear that someone has died of an undiagnosed medical condition because they were uninsured and did not go to the doctor for fear of the potential bill, I feel sad — but I also feel enraged. These people have been scared by years of leftist rhetoric into believing that they will have to choose between medicine and food. It’s not true. If you are truly in a position where you can’t pay for the cost of your medical care, people will help you. Hospitals will eat some of your expenses. Doctors will give you discounts. Drug companies will give you free meds. Trust me, I have personal experience. You just need to know how to work the system. Unfortunately, many people don’t know how to navigate these options, and that is directly because the leftist media are keeping that knowledge from them. It’s outrageous — but it also serves the left’s agenda.

Do I believe our current health care system needs to be improved? Yes. But it pisses me off when leftists use poor so-and-so, who died due to untreated heart disease, in an attempt to manipulate people into accepting Obamacare. If Obamacare is really so fantastic, why are certain organizations busily signing up to opt out?

The Real Radio Hatemongers

The Media Research Center has compiled a report documenting some of the most hateful things leftwing radio personalities have said about the right:

The Real Radio Hatemongers

This report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. Among the lowlights:

■ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” (Ed Schultz)

■ Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” (Mike Malloy)

■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?…When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)

■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps….This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)

■ Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” (Mike Malloy)

■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)

■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)

■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Rush has never claimed that Obama eats babies.

Challenging the Narrative

As you may have noticed, I’ve slipped into a kind of hypomania this week. Why am I so ardently battling left-wing lies about the right? Well, first of all, it is my honest belief that the left’s ghoulish behavior in the wake of the Tucson shootings is a prelude to 1) an attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine or 2) an attempt to police political speech in some other way, and I feel it’s my duty as a liberty-loving American to stop that train of thought before it leaves the station.

Secondly, I hate bullies. For too long, the left has used its media monopoly to bully conservatives — and conservatives, who have been trained by the aforementioned media monopoly to play nice and avoid rocking the boat, have usually absorbed the blows without a fight. I’m not going to allow that anymore. We now have alternative media streams at our disposal (this blog being one example), and we should use them.

Certain individuals have scolded conservatives for defending themselves. To them, I can only say things that are unprintable. What the left has done is declare us accessories to mass murder. It is natural – nay, it is legitimate – for us to get angry and fight back. Lying down and taking it is tantamount to ceding ground to the left. The only thing that will really stop these schoolyard bullies is punching back – hard. (And of course, I use “punching” in the metaphorical sense. I wouldn’t want to be accused of using rhetoric that incites violence. And by the way, isn’t it sad that I have to insert this qualification to appease the reading impaired?)

But now to the central purpose of this post, which is to challenge the dominant narrative the left uses to “explain” the Tea Party movement.

First, let’s look at the stats. In the spring of 2010, Gallup conducted a poll which discovered the following:

  • The Tea Party is more conservative than the general U.S. population. (Duh.)
  • The Tea Party is slightly more male. (Other polls have come up with the opposite finding, though, so I suspect the sex ratio is very close to 50/50.)
  • The Tea Party is predominantly middle class.
  • Within the Tea Party, the age, education, employment, and race demographics resemble the spread for the general population.

The picture Gallup presents here certainly doesn’t suggest that the Tea Party is made up of slack-jawed hillbillies and white supremacists. But let’s tackle, one at a time, some of the specific charges the partisan left levies at the Tea Party movement:

The Tea Party is sexist.

Why? Because Tea Partiers tend to be pro-life? Not everyone agrees that anti-abortion policies are sexist. As a matter of fact, a very strong argument can be made that abortion benefits men more than it benefits women — and that rather than increasing societal sympathy for women in crisis pregnancy situations, the existence of legal abortion has curtailed that sympathy.

Moreover, during the 2010 election season, Tea Partiers supported an unprecedented number of female candidates. Here’s a story from CNN (hardly an organ of right-wing commentary) that discusses the phenomenon:

2010 is year of GOP women candidates

This article doesn’t credit the Tea Party for backing these female candidates, but it’s a stone-cold fact that some of the most visible 2010 races featured Tea Party-supported female candidates running against incumbent Democrats. If Tea Partiers were genuinely sexist, they simply would not have encouraged these women to enter the political arena – and they definitely would not love Sarah Palin, the supposed “queen bee” of the movement, as much as they do.

(Of course, Sub Spike would interject here that hardcore partisan leftists don’t recognize conservative female politicians as “real women.” My response? Oh, well. If I can get some reasonable folks thinking, that’s good enough for me.)

The Tea Party is racist.

O rly?

During the 2010 election season, dirty, filthy racist Tea Partiers supported the following candidates in their bids for elective office:

Susana Martinez (New Mexico), the nation’s first elected Latina governor

Nikki Haley (South Carolina), America’s second Indian-American governor

Tim Scott (SC-01)

Col. Allen West (FL-22), who is awesome

Marco Rubio (Florida), who came from a family of Cuban exiles

And while we’re at it, what are we to make of the individuals who represented the Tea Party Express at this press conference:

As others have pointed out, this is a form of sublimation. If we weren’t hurling invective at each other, we’d be engaged in open tribal warfare. Do I want our political process to be conducted in a more civil manner? Of course. But when you think about it, verbal invective is pretty civilized compared to the alternatives (cane fights, pistol duels at dawn, the aforementioned tribal warfare, etc.).

But I’m digressing. Bottom line, the Tea Party is no more violent than any other American political movement. As a matter of fact, its record is quite good. And that pretty much sums up the reality in general. On all of the dimensions discussed above, the Tea Party turns out not to resemble the left’s fevered nightmares.

Responding to Annoying Liberal Remarks on Facebook, V – Steph’s Rules for Net Debates

  • When I ask a question, answer it. Don’t change the subject. Don’t fling yet more unsupported accusations. Don’t behave as if your position is self-evident to everyone who has a brain. It’s not.
  • Cite your sources. When I was a kid, Sub Spike taught me not to take people’s claims at face value. If you refuse to provide links, I’m going to assume you can’t back up your assertions.
  • No personal attacks. My biggest pet peeve is when people insinuate that I lack intelligence. I graduated summa cum laude with highest honors from a top 50 university. And by the way, I was a science major. I didn’t choose a course of study in which verbal virtuosity is valued over hard facts.
  • Don’t take your personal issues out on me. If somebody has hurt you at some point in your life, I’m sorry. Still, it’s not my job to be your therapist or your personal punching bag.

Now let’s explore how LM – the individual featured in my previous post – violated my rules:

  • I confronted LM and asked her to back up her assertion that the Tea Party is Racist/Sexist/Homophobic. She returned with a smart ass question that implied that I didn’t know what I was talking about. This violates the first three of my four rules. She didn’t answer my question, didn’t cite her sources, and attacked my intelligence through insinuation. I should’ve terminated the discussion here, but I simply couldn’t resist continuing. What can I say? I’m not a perfect human being.
  • I then tried to inject some facts about the Tea Party movement into the discussion. I should’ve provided some links, true, but I was writing in the heat of the moment. If LM were interested in having a good faith discussion, she could’ve asked for my sources, and I would’ve gladly provided them. Instead, she continues to call Tea Partiers nutjobs and states that I support the violation of her “bodily integrity.” Whatever, LM. I personally think the right to shoot one’s “almighty gun” will do more for the preservation of a woman’s bodily integrity than either legal gay marriage or unrestricted legal abortion. The right to kill my unborn children for my own convenience certainly won’t help me if a rapist should come looming towards me in a dark alley. A gun might.

    But anyway, I’m rambling. Suffice it to say that LM violated my fourth rule by ranting at me instead of genuinely responding to what I said. Thus, at this point, I decided it was time to bow out. I’ve been in internet debates often enough to tell the difference between an open-minded individual and a hardcore partisan. I can have a fruitful discussion with the former; a productive debate is impossible with the latter.

  • Unfortunately, LM came back with her whopper about the supposed intelligence deficit among conservatives. Because, as I said, that is my biggest pet peeve, I once again couldn’t stop myself from going back for another round. In response, I asked her to provide her sources. She refused to do so, thereby violating rule number two as well as rule number three. I was completely done at that point. She did demand later that I try to “convince” her that the Tea Party is not racist or sexist. I told her again that I didn’t believe she was ready to listen. Because really, what do you suppose would’ve happened if I had produced pro-right statements written by “brown” and/or gay Tea Partiers? Do you honestly think that would’ve persuaded her? I for one highly doubt it.

Failure to follow my rules for debate will ultimately result in termination of the discussion. I don’t have the time or the energy to waste on screeching harpies who refuse to argue in good faith.

Reponding to Annoying Liberal Remarks on Facebook, IV – A Current Throw-Down

LM: I saw some itchbay on CNN the other morning saying she was “deeply offended” at people calling the tea party violent. I was like you know what’s offensive? Telling women and gays and brown people that their rights should be restricted. THAT is what’s offensive.

Me: How does the Tea Party do any of the things you are claiming, L?

LM: Have you been listening?

Me: Yes. Probably more than you have.

I’m a Tea Partier, so I think I can speak about our movement with some degree of authority. First of all, it is not centralized. There are multiple groups that bear the “Tea Party” label, and their agendas are not 100% identical. Some tend towards social conservativism, but others do not. There are gay Tea Partiers, “brown” Tea Partiers, and a HELL of a lot of female Tea Partiers, and I think they would all object to the characterization of the movement as anti-woman, anti-gay, or anti-“brown.”

The one thing that ties the disparate Tea Party groups together is a frustration with wasteful spending and government over-reach. You may disagree that the spending is wasteful or that the government is over-reaching, but advocating for limited government is not in itself sinister. Do Tea Party events attract the crazies? Yes, but so do leftwing events, AS I MYSELF have witnessed several times here in Washington D.C.

LM: Well, maybe you should tell the ones ought there telling me that I don’t have the right to what i want to with my body to stfu and stop trying to take my rights away, since you seem to be so up on the subject. I’m afraid that I can’t truck with anyone telling me that their right to shoot their almighty gun is more important than my bodily integrity. And yeah, that’s what you donation towards those nutjobs is supporting, friend.

Me: Okay. Clearly you’re not up for a rational debate, so I refuse to continue this discussion.

LM: Because you will lose. Look at all the stats on right-wingers lower education and IQ levels. You can’t win, my friend. Do you really expect anyone to believe the tea party is looking out for anyone’s rights other than old rich white christian men? Srsly expect anyone with any sense to believe that?

Me: Care to provide links to your bogus stats?

At this point, LM posted a macro that did not pertain to the discussion, at which point, I replied:

Okay. Thanks for confirming that you’re not up for an honest debate. THE END.