Noted that Jimmy didn't waste any opportunity to beg for donations on Twitter so they can continue their fight against homo lefties. No actual rebuttal, just SEND MONEY! NOW!

Well, yeah, they should just come join the Libertarian Party.

Apparently, now that the It Gets Better program has gotten a national audience, sympathetic to its message, anyone who doesn't like Dan's opinion of them thinks that accusing him of being a bully will nullify his voice. It is exactly the same as conservative Christians crying that they are being descriminated against because their "Christian Values" message isn't getting such good press anymore. They just aren't allowed to hate with impunity and that is religious descrimination. Yeah, good luck with that.

Stockholm syndrome noun, Psychiatry. an emotional attachment to a captor formed by a hostage as a result of continuous stress, dependence, and a need to cooperate for survival.

I bet virtually every one of the faggots on GOProud grew up in either a hick town or a prep school, surrounded by young Republicans who tormented them every day.

False equivalencies are the stock-in-trade of today's punditry.

GOPFraud.

For people whose normal approach to anyone "playing the victim card" is undiluted scorn, they sure do play the victim card a lot, don't they?

I'm old enough to remember a few ethical, principled Republicans. They were intelligent moderates, honest, in no one's pockets, and civil gents who contributed to public discourse and reasonable legislation, and served their constituents well. I even voted for a couple of them, happily. Although I identified myself as more liberal than them, the ones I voted for had distinguished themselves in fair and reasonable public service and I thought deserved reelection. That was years ago, though. Those gents retired, died, and were never replaced.

What the fuck happened? How could an entire political party be consumed by such utter, venal, evil? Their "Southern Strategy" was only the beginning of their mutation. Today, they're unrecognizable, and entirely uncivil. The entire scum-sucking bunch of them should die in a fire, as far as I'm concerned.

@9: I'm only 20 and I miss the old sort. John McCain was one of the last of that type, as much as he could be considered that type, until he ran for President. Well, we've still got Mark Kirk. But when Mark Kirk is the shining beacon of hope and sanity, times are dire indeed.

@10 I remember McCain's fall very well and I can pinpoint the exact moment it happened: when McCain spoke at Liberty University on May 14, 2006. The Washington Post even wrote a story on his abrupt change of heart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

Not surprisingly, McCain kowtowing to the intolerant religious right via Jerry Falwell proved to be his downfall and started his descent into hypocrisy and irrelevance.

John McCain is a pathetic failure who has not made one single worthwhile contribution to American society.

The problem when Dan puts on his activist hat is that he pretends to speak for the entire gay community. But Dan's activist hat is not a gay activist hat, it is a liberal activist hat. Contrary to many readers here, they are not the same thing.

So yes, it is bullying when Dan and other liberal activists tell gays that they must support only one political party because it supposedly is "best" for them on gay issues.

I don't vote for president based on how they feel about me personally or marriage equality. That is silly litmus test voting. I vote for president based on his views on the economy, scope of government, the constitution, and foreign policy. There is no "gay" position on any of those things.

I just wish Dan would be honest and admit that many of his political hits on others are based on his liberal views and not his sexual orientation.

P.S. #13: McCain is not my favorite person and I did not support him for president. But the man was tortured for many months in a North Vietnamese prison for serving his country in a war started by LBJ. So it is both inappropriate and nasty to say he "has not made one single worthwhile contribution to American society".

I'm sorry he got tortured in prison but that doesn't count as a contribution to society, sorry. He has occupied a powerful and lucrative position for many years in large part as a result of his unfortunate war story yet failed to accomplish anything other than self-aggrandizement. Recognizing this truth is not at all inappropriate.

@15 Oooh. Sorry but as much as you might dislike McCain (I am rather annoyed by hard right shift durring the last election) calling someone's millitary service worthless is a dick move. You really do nothing but harm to your position by sticking to it. :p
GOProud is f'ing ridiculous though.

Sorry I don't worship the cult of the military and don't universally regard all military deeds as a totally worthwhile altruistic sacrifice for America requiring deference to military veterans under all circumstances.

@14 Bullying, by definition, involves intimidation. I don't think "telling gays they must support only one political party" strikes fear into anyone's heart. Unless Dan Savage is threatening to physically/emotionally/socially harm those who don't vote the same way he does, then he is not bullying people.

Besides, I think your paraphrase of his stance omits a conditional clause. Gays "must support only one political party" IF they care about their civil rights and IF they want their complaints to be taken seriously. Frankly, I don't want to hear one peep out of Mary Cheney or her wife about the second-class status of their marriage, or, frankly, out of any other gay who votes for anti-gay politicians and doesn't compensate by contributing to "the cause" in another way.

This is just common sense. I find the Democrats to be only slightly less awful than the Republicans on most issues, but when it comes to my rights as a gay American, there isn't a contest between the two mainstream parties. Since I believe that gay rights (i.e., the less glamorous employment and housing protections, along with marriage equality) are civil rights, and thus relevant to discourse on the scope of government and the Constitution, I don't consider our rights to be a "silly litmus test."

@17: Nice straw man. No one is suggesting that we "defer[] to military veterans under all circumstances." We're saying that a person who chooses to serve his country in the military deserves respect for that decision. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you keep that opinion to yourself if you hope to convince anyone of anything.

To make an analogy, it's like having a discussion about cuteness and taking the position that all babies are ugly. Cuteness (like respect) is a matter of perspective, so it's entirely possible that someone really believes all babies are ugly. But that position is so far out of whack with the general consensus that others are likely to disregard any other opinions on cuteness the baby-hater has. "What does he know-- he doesn't even think babies are cute!"

@19 I wasn't even originally referring to his military service. I was referring to the "accomplishments" in his political career which are non-existant. Professionally, he is a pathetic failure.

If you do want to get into the specifics of his military service, look up the Rolling Stone piece that detailed his history of crashing planes, causing fatal accidents, and pulling the "don't you know who I am?" card (referring to his father) while attempting to land a plane without permission while drunk after taking it to go get laid.

Does someone who is really bad at being in the military still deserve respect for their decision? That's what I meant by "under all circumstances".