Karmi and S aren't here to argue about everything.

The three of us make the case for conservatism here. You all listen, rebut, and move on. We listen to your case-believe it or not, we really do!-rebut, and move on. We all have our “life or death” issues that we're not changing opinions on. Other readers here have theirs. Hell, occasionally, we all agree on something.

But in the whole, big scheme of things, none of this is life or death. When we wake up tomorrow, there'll be new arguments and these will be forgotten.

It's all a game.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And the 10th amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. That's a sidestep not worthy of a person with any intelligence. And I'd say that even if Barack invoked it as a reason why he wants to leave the matter up to each state to decide.

I hear you when you say this: It's how the game is played. Somebody has to go under the bus at some point. Today, its gays. Tomorrow, it'll be someone else. And come later on in the week, it may well be me. You deal with it and move on, or you dwell on it and stay there.

This is the kind of responsibility and response I was looking for from you. It doesn't even matter to me whether I agree — it's just the directness and honesty that I appreciate.

So. Thank you again for that reply.

I have had the (admittedly vague) sense that unlike Karmi and S, you aren't just some combative “argue about everything just to argue” conservative contributor here. I was getting worried in this discussion that I had been wrong about that! Glad I was not. (I was wondering why I was staying in this discussion.)

You want me to fall on the sword for the right wing and call them bad for throwing gays, blacks, and whoever they need to under the bus? Fine; bad right wing.

Now ask me if I'm gonna lose sleep over that.

I'm not.

Cause I don't take this personally. It's how the game is played. Somebody has to go under the bus at some point. Today, its gays. Tomorrow, it'll be someone else. And come later on in the week, it may well be me. You deal with it and move on, or you dwell on it and stay there.

It's an evasive tactic, is all.

Instead of standing true and clear and mature about your actions in this actual discussion, and taking real responsibility.

So let's try again.

Can you actively right now in your actual actions in this discussion show through what you actually say and do here that you are against the kind of ugly dehumanization and use of gay people that was the subject to start with?

Don't make claims about what you do. Show what you do by doing it, or stop complaining you are all misunderstood.

I don't understand what teaches people that their real-time actual actions are invisible to others … and can be erased by simply word-claiming something else. I mean ….. pssst! I see you!

Conflating again, D?

First off, neither one of you know enough about me to criticize what/why I believe what I do. You wanna continue on that path, let's do it off this thread.

And for you, Michelle….I know the sins of conservativism, probably better than you. I've acknowledged several times that my party has a suspect history. But I've countered that with an acknowledgement of the equally suspect history of dhimmicrats.

We've all fucked up; there's blood on all sides. That includes yours.

Trust, it ain't just conservatives who are guilty. …

… but wrote this in supposed response to a comment from DoctorRoger that actually stated: And that's unacceptable. I'm not going to have my “blackness” or my “gayness” used by so-called liberals in order to score political points, nor will I have either of my identities used by so-called conservatives to do the same.

D's was a substance-less non-response; it “argues” a point that DoctorRoger already clearly made and does not disagree with. And more importantly it continues the practice of evading the larger issue: the claim that the practice is unacceptable.

We all have to be responsible for dealing with the ugly in our political groups. The fact that some other group uses people doesn't take away responsibility from you if YOUR group does it.

But D, I don't see you taking any responsibility for challenging or changing the ugly dehumanizing Republican practice of using gay people as a wedge to try to get people to vote. In fact, you have not even admitted that that is what this is actually about.

Instead, what you did right away when this came up was changed the language in a way that downplayed the ugly and made such dehumanizing practice by Republicans/conservatives sound reasonable and benign — you wrote: I saw that this morning. Barnes was simply suggesting that McCain address social issues that are important to conservatives.

Below in a related discussion you are discussing your “spiritual beliefs.” I am looking at your actions in this part of the discussion and I have to say: What a bleak and lacking set of spiritual beliefs you must have, to make your spirit and heart so accepting of the dehumanization and objectification of other actual people, and so evasive of actual responsibility (others and yours) for preventing such things.