Republicans have secret gay sex clubs for GOP congressmen and senators

[The Second Stone]

Is it true that The Family and the C Street Frathouse are secret gay sex clubs for the likes of Diaper Dave Vitter, Craig Livingston, Mark Foley and other members of the GOP congressional delegation where they can go to have gay sex, be secretly filmed and blackmailed for the rest of their career? Can anyone prove that such is not the real double secret purpose these supposedly secret Christian tryst dens?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=577928

[Ludovic]

It's even worse than that. Lot offered his daughters to the angry mob, and this can obviously be taken as a commandment for Christians to follow. Any Christian who claims to not send their daughters to an underage brothel on the weekends is obviously just following the commandment to cover up their secret pedophilic religion!

[John Mace]

I don't get it. In the linked thread, Huerta88 isn't asking people to prove a negative, just asking if there is some tradition of victory mosques. Most people in that thread were having a legitimate discussion.

Your parody doesn't work.

[Boyo Jim]

That would certainly explain their high degree of party "loyalty".

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Is it true that The Family and the C Street Frathouse are secret gay sex clubs for the likes of Diaper Dave Vitter, Craig Livingston, Mark Foley and other members of the GOP congressional delegation where they can go to have gay sex, be secretly filmed and blackmailed for the rest of their career?

No. But there is a secret gay bathhouse under the Matterhorn at Disneyland. You can have buttsecks with male prostitutes dressed like Donald Duck, Hercules, and that pug dog from Pocahontas.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I don't get it. In the linked thread, Huerta88 isn't asking people to prove a negative, just asking if there is some tradition of victory mosques. Most people in that thread were having a legitimate discussion.

Your parody doesn't work.

Agreed.

But it doesn't matter. Let the kiddies have their fun.

[Edward The Head]

Originally Posted by The Hamster King

that pug dog from Pocahontas.

Oh my god, how did Disney know my deepest secret?

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I don't get it. In the linked thread, Huerta88 isn't asking people to prove a negative, just asking if there is some tradition of victory mosques. Most people in that thread were having a legitimate discussion.

Your parody doesn't work.

Then off the you go!

[gonzomax]

That is unfair. I heard they quit the diaper sex, thesame group sex parties and the beastiality weeks ago.

[Count Blucher]

Originally Posted by Edward The Head

Oh my god, how did Disney know my deepest secret?

It was in one of their songs...

SPOILER:

"....some day my Prince will come..."

[DanBlather]

They are covering up the questions about Glen Beck killing a woman in the 70s. I am not saying it happened, but why is the mainstream media ignoring the question? It's all over the internet.

[TruCelt]

I don't know about "The Family", but the "C Street House" is where Republicans go to strategize about how they'll rape and pillage other people, not each other.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

I don't know about "The Family", but the "C Street House" is where Republicans go to strategize about how they'll rape and pillage other people, not each other.

That is what they want you to think. But because that is what they want you to think so it will act as a cover for their secret Muslim rituals. You know how the most rabid homophobes are publicly against gays and lesbians, but secretly gay themselves? Well they accuse Obama of being a secret Muslim and claim to be Christians for the purpose of hiding the fact that they are not Christians, but worship money and power with every fiber of their faithless souls. The proof is to look not at what they say, but at what they do and what they do not do: everything is about bowing down before Mammon and refusing basic charity to poor people.

[Sampiro]

I think the main closeted Congressional gay bar in the back of the independent bookstore "The Bent Over Page".

[John Mace]

Actually, what I find Pit-able from that thread is the insistence of so many assholes to post "but Christians do it, too!". It was a simple question, and the OP explicitly asked to avoid a GD debate about the subject.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

I don't know about "The Family", but the "C Street House" is where Republicans go to strategize about how they'll rape and pillage other people, not each other.

Nitpick: though undeniably creepy and almost certainly nefarious, the C Street Center has both Republican and Democratic residents/attendees.

[lisacurl]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I think the main closeted Congressional gay bar in the back of the independent bookstore "The Bent Over Page".

[John Mace]

Shot from Guns:
Because the purpose of GQ is to answer question, not to route out the political leanings of the people asking the questions. Especially when the OP explicitly asks to not turn this into a political debate.

[Shot From Guns]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Shot from Guns:
Because the purpose of GQ is to answer question, not to route out the political leanings of the people asking the questions. Especially when the OP explicitly asks to not turn this into a political debate.

I don't care what the retard requests. If he asks a loaded question, he's going to get some complex answers.

I fail to see why, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, you have any objection whatsoever to giving someone more factual information than they may have thought to ask for, but information that is nonetheless related to their original inquiry.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

I don't care what the retard requests. If he asks a loaded question, he's going to get some complex answers.

How is it a loaded question?

Person A: My friend told me about <conspiracy theory 427>. This sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory crap. There isn't really any truth in it, is there?
Person B: OH YOU RETARD! HOW DARE YOU ASK A LEADING QUESTION!!! I HATE YOU!!1!!1!

To me, it just seems like Person B's reading comprehension needs some work.

[Bill Door]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I think the main closeted Congressional gay bar in the back of the independent bookstore "The Bent Over Page".

I thought Mark Foley planned to turn over a new leaf as soon as he got to the bottom of the page.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bill Door

I thought Mark Foley planned to turn over a new leaf as soon as he got to the bottom of the page.

Untrue!

However he does like to lick his fingers before turning pages.

[The Second Stone]

It's not an innocent question. It is a question designed to spread an ignorant and hateful idea that the Republicans are putting forth that week for the purpose of inflaming their base. The whole idea that it is an innocent question is nonsense. They do this all over the internet and then they have their usual fellow traveler posters to add, "oh this is so reasonable to ask". It isn't.

Lutherans don't erect "victory churches", nowhere in the Koran is there instructions to erect "victory mosques", Islam has no more mosques on former church sites than any other religion and they are not "victory mosques". The community center Park51 is not a mosque, it is not at "ground zero", Islam did not cause 9/11.

One of our regular posters here, loves to nitpick liberal posters for the slightest inaccuracy. Yet on the "victory mosque" debate, he doesn't question the use of the phrase "victory mosque", doesn't correct that Park51 is a community center, doesn't correct that it is at "ground zero" doesn't correct that Islam did not cause 9/11. The OP in "victory mosques" is filled with direct and implied hateful and lying premises. But the usual Republican apologists that love to nitpick accuracy from liberals are silent on this.

And let's not mince words, the scapegoating of Muslims by Republicans (heightened in this election cycle) is every bit as dangerous and venomous as what the Nazis were doing before they gained power.

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

It's not an innocent question. It is a question designed to spread an ignorant and hateful idea that the Republicans are putting forth that week for the purpose of inflaming their base.

I'm glad you can read minds. Personally, I can't.

I've never heard of a "victory mosque". If I read a thing talking about Islam's history of setting up victory mosques, I'd raise an eyebrow , and then post to GQ a very similar OP as Huerta88 did, expecting to get a lot of people saying, "No."

Why would I ask? Is it because I secretly long for the answer to be, "Yes."? No, it's because I enjoy learning interesting trivia. Knowing that there were "victory mosques" in the age of the Crusades would be interesting. I wouldn't think that relevant at all to the mosque being built in New York, but that's entirely independent of whether such a thing ever existed.

Huerta88 has been a member for 8 years, and that I can tell the only time he's been pitted is because the name he chose has unfortunate connotations. Overall, so far as I can tell, he's a long-standing and respected member of the community. I have no particular reason to think that he had an ulterior motive in posing the question. Nothing in his OP suggests to me that he asked for any reason than because, like me, he was interested in what the history of the idea was.

[Shot From Guns]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

How is it a loaded question?

Because it's related to a debate in the U.S. that's incredibly loaded with bigotry, fear, and hatred. Even if the OP is just looking to debunk that particular myth, he should have no objection to people offering historical information on what all various religions have done over the years in terms of erecting religious spaces, both to celebrate victories and to convert the worship spaces of other religions. Especially when the question is clearly prompted by some (mis)information coming out of a "debate" that is an attempt to demonize the entirety of a widely diverse religion.

As I mentioned in the original thread, if I posted a thread in QG asking if Black people like fried chicken and watermelon, should I be able to get all in a huff if people respond with anything other than straight-up yes or no answers with cites, including perhaps information on the dietary preferences of other groups?

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

I'm glad you can read minds. Personally, I can't.

I've never heard of a "victory mosque". If I read a thing talking about Islam's history of setting up victory mosques, I'd raise an eyebrow , and then post to GQ a very similar OP as Huerta88 did, expecting to get a lot of people saying, "No."

Why would I ask? Is it because I secretly long for the answer to be, "Yes."? No, it's because I enjoy learning interesting trivia. Knowing that there were "victory mosques" in the age of the Crusades would be interesting. I wouldn't think that relevant at all to the mosque being built in New York, but that's entirely independent of whether such a thing ever existed.

Huerta88 has been a member for 8 years, and that I can tell the only time he's been pitted is because the name he chose has unfortunate connotations. Overall, so far as I can tell, he's a long-standing and respected member of the community. I have no particular reason to think that he had an ulterior motive in posing the question. Nothing in his OP suggests to me that he asked for any reason than because, like me, he was interested in what the history of the idea was.

I've always assumed that it was a reference of both the Mexican dictator Huerta and Heil Hitler, kinda "Heil Huerta", as his (her?) posting is generally fascist supporting. I see a denial.

As for reading minds, I have a pretty good ability to read my own mind and I understand when someone is yanking my chain or trolling. There is a difference between googling "victory mosques" and posting a question provocatively. The all-innocent "nobody does that" or "88 doesn't do that" really clashes with my experience of how people especially Republicans behave and how 88 behaves.

Again, I will point out that Republicans will nitpick the slightest miss from the mark when it suits them, but to this day claim Jimmy Carter said the US is in a malaise in a speech (he didn't), or that Bill Clinton carried on with Monica Lewinsky in "the oval office" (he didn't, it was a private office), or that Al Gore claimed to "invent the internet" (he didn't), or that Park51 is a mosque (it isn't) etc.

It's bullshit spreading of bullshit.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

I don't care what the retard requests. If he asks a loaded question, he's going to get some complex answers.

There is nothing loaded about that question, and he explained very clearly why he asked it.

I fail to see why, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, you have any objection whatsoever to giving someone more factual information than they may have thought to ask for, but information that is nonetheless related to their original inquiry.

Let's examine the post I was responding to:

Originally Posted by elbows

Ever been to Cuzco, Peru? The Spaniards razed the Inca temple to erect their cathedral. Problem was, it was so well constructed they gave up before tearing out the foundation, choosing to just build on top of it instead. You can, today, go into the cathedral and see the Inca stonework foundation.

Or is that somehow different because they don't refer to it as the 'Victory' cathedral?

Now, it had already been established multiple times that "Christians do it, too". The OP had already said he was only interested in Muslims, and he explained why. Note that elbows had to call into question not only the motivation of the OP, but implies that he's a hypocrite.

That's what should be Pitted about that thread. Fucktards like that who can't keep their ideological bullshit out of GQ. Why you felt you had to jump in to defend his is beyond me.

[Shot From Guns]

I notice you still haven't responded to my "Black people love chicken and watermelon" hypothetical OP. Wonder why?

[Malthus]

You guys have gone off half-cocked on this one. The question was inoffensive.

[Shot From Guns]

Exactly as inoffensive as "Do Black people love eating fried chicken and watermelon?"

Actually, it's more like, "Do Jews kill and eat Christian children and/or babies?"

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

I notice you still haven't responded to my "Black people love chicken and watermelon" hypothetical OP. Wonder why?

Well, if the OP explicitly said he was only interested in dietary habits of black people, then yes, I would hope people would avoid posting about the dietary habits of white people.

But you're missing the point. It's not so much the "Christians do it, too", but the implication that the OP is trying to dodge that fact, or that simply asking that question makes the OP "suspect" (your words).

Notice that the very first post in that thread was not only about "Christians do it, too", but then asked "what's the difference"?

The OP said he didn't want a GD debate, and GD debates aren't appropriate in GQ anyway. Yet the very first post tried to push in that direction. Others followed. More than one person called it a "loaded question" which is absolutely ridiculous.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

Exactly as inoffensive as "Do Black people love eating fried chicken and watermelon?"

Actually, it's more like, "Do Jews kill and eat Christian children and/or babies?"

Heh, it was nothing like those examples.

Some religions do in fact on occasion establish religious edifices on the sites of military victories, either in commemmoration or to do penance - there are some examples from Christianity, such as the Hastings "Battle Abby", erected by the victorious Normans with the altar right over where King Harod fell. Islam as it turns out doesn't, but it is by no means obvious that they don't.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

Exactly as inoffensive as "Do Black people love eating fried chicken and watermelon?"

Only if you're inclined to be offended. There is nothing wrong with this question, which is better analogy to the OP:

There is a stereotype of black people eating fried chicken and watermelon? Is there any basis for this stereotype?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that type of question, and it's perfectly appropriate for GQ.

Actually, it's more like, "Do Jews kill and eat Christian children and/or babies?"

Isn't it more like: Was Hitler really that bad?

[Shot From Guns]

The context is that the "victory mosque" claims are part of a determined campaign on the part of part of a right-wing faction in America to spread violence and hatred through lies and deception. If someone is asking a question that indicates they've been exposed to those lies and misrepresented half-truths, it behooves any listener to ensure that the person is exposed to the true background that informs the scare tactics those extremists are using.

Get it now, you fucking tards?

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

The context is that the "victory mosque" claims are part of a determined campaign on the part of part of a right-wing faction in America to spread violence and hatred through lies and deception. If someone is asking a question that indicates they've been exposed to those lies and misrepresented half-truths, it behooves any listener to ensure that the person is exposed to the true background that informs the scare tactics those extremists are using.

Get it now, you fucking tards?

Heh, be outraged and offended if you want - as I said, you are going off half-cocked, Guns.

It was a perfectly legitimate and inoffensive question, inoffensively worded. The OP merely wanted to know if there actually existed any such thing as 'victory mosques", as alleged by the scaremongerers. There well might have been - as I said, such things *are* known in Christianity, though not common - but as it turns out, there isn't.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

The context is that the "victory mosque" claims are part of a determined campaign on the part of part of a right-wing faction in America to spread violence and hatred through lies and deception. If someone is asking a question that indicates they've been exposed to those lies and misrepresented half-truths, it behooves any listener to ensure that the person is exposed to the true background that informs the scare tactics those extremists are using.

Get it now, you fucking tards?

The OP explicitly stated that the reason he was asking the question was because of what was being said by right wing scaremongers. He wanted to know if there was any basis in truth. We do this sort of thing all the time. The fucktards are the ones who ignore that and try to turn a GQ thread into an outing session.

[Shot From Guns]

If you don't see someone asking about the validity of a claim that clearly came from a group of disgusting, bigoted scaremongers as an opportunity to fill that person in on some more accurate background surrounding said ridiculous claim, then I don't see that we have any real opportunity for discussion here.

Originally Posted by Malthus

you are going off half-cocked, Guns

I see what you did there.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

If you don't see someone asking about the validity of a claim that clearly came from a group of disgusting, bigoted scaremongers as an opportunity to fill that person in on some more accurate background surrounding said ridiculous claim, then I don't see that we have any real opportunity for discussion here.

If you don't see that what people were actually doing was accusing the OP of holding those views hinslef, then you haven't read that thread. Hell, you were doing it yourself!

I've explained it multiple times, and you keep dodging it. You're right, there is no real opportunity for further discussion.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Shot From Guns

If you don't see someone asking about the validity of a claim that clearly came from a group of disgusting, bigoted scaremongers as an opportunity to fill that person in on some more accurate background surrounding said ridiculous claim, then I don't see that we have any real opportunity for discussion here.

Hey, I have no problems with "filling someone in". I did the same myself - looking for example at Christianity. That's what leads me to the conclusion that the question isn't an absurdity - as there *are* in fact "victory churches", which makes it less obvious that there would not be "victory mosques".

What I find objectionable is taking out ire rightly directed at the scaremongers on the OP, thinking s/he is "suspect" if they simply want to know the answer to the question rather than see their thread disolve isto a giant tu quoque party, etc.

I see what you did there.

I plead the fifth.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

And let's not mince words, the scapegoating of Muslims by Republicans (heightened in this election cycle) is every bit as dangerous and venomous as what the Nazis were doing before they gained power.

This year it's socialists and Muslims. Two years ago it was terrorists and homos. Two years before that it was homos and Mexicans.

Same shit, different year. I'd like to think that they'll eventually run out of targets. After they get to the leftys, anyways.

-Joe

(handedness, not politics, obviously)

-Joe

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

And let's not mince words, the scapegoating of Muslims by Republicans (heightened in this election cycle) is every bit as dangerous and venomous as what the Nazis were doing before they gained power.

"Every bit", huh? Is it your contention that if the Republicans come to power, they will round up Muslims and kill them by the millions?

Glad to see we have such paragons of ignorance fighting here. Such even handed antidotes to scaremongering and scapegoating.

[Captain Amazing]

I think it's best not to assume ill intent in GQ if at all possible. I don't know if it makes a difference if an OP is posting a question with bad intent. If they're asking a question, just answer the question without being overly concerned with motives.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by John Mace

"Every bit", huh? Is it your contention that if the Republicans come to power, they will round up Muslims and kill them by the millions?

Glad to see we have such paragons of ignorance fighting here. Such even handed antidotes to scaremongering and scapegoating.

He's talking about what they are doing, you're predicting what he thinks they will do. Pretty weak shit, even for you.

-Joe

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

He's talking about what they are doing, you're predicting what he thinks they will do. Pretty weak shit, even for you.

-Joe

It's "every bit as dangerous". What makes it every bit as dangerous if it doesn't result in roughly the same thing?

In that case, my cat snarling at me is every bit as dangerous as a Siberian tiger growling at me. No, it's not.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by John Mace

It's "every bit as dangerous". What makes it every bit as dangerous if it doesn't result in roughly the same thing?

In that case, my cat snarling at me is every bit as dangerous as a Siberian tiger growling at me. No, it's not.

It's not a surprise that you think it is okay to bait Muslims as long as it results in nothing. That's pretty sorry, even for you. But let's be clear just two weeks ago a mosque under construction was burned in Tennessee.

And your suggestion that it will result in nothing is not only belied by the fact that it has already in this particular round of baiting, but it ignores 1,500 years of religious strife between some Muslims and some Christians and ignores human nature.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

It's not a surprise that you think it is okay to bait Muslims as long as it results in nothing. That's pretty sorry, even for you. But let's be clear just two weeks ago a mosque under construction was burned in Tennessee.

And your suggestion that it will result in nothing is not only belied by the fact that it has already in this particular round of baiting, but it ignores 1,500 years of religious strife between some Muslims and some Christians and ignores human nature.

Where did I say it was OK to bait Muslims and that it would result in nothing?

Look, there is one and only one reason for invoking Nazis, and that's to invoke the image of death camps. If you don't want to be called on that, then don't invoke Nazis. It's really that simple.

And btw, a mosque was not burned in Tennessee two weeks ago. Some construction equipment was burned. Not to minimize this type of hate inspired arson, but get your facts straight.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

This year it's socialists and Muslims. Two years ago it was terrorists and homos. Two years before that it was homos and Mexicans.

Same shit, different year. I'd like to think that they'll eventually run out of targets. After they get to the leftys, anyways.

See me, I like to think that one day, for one shit-smearing campaign they'll actually stumble upon a nugget of truth or factual issue, probably by mistake, instead of running exclusively on bullshit.
T'would be a breath of fresh ass.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Where did I say it was OK to bait Muslims and that it would result in nothing?

Look, there is one and only one reason for invoking Nazis, and that's to invoke the image of death camps. If you don't want to be called on that, then don't invoke Nazis. It's really that simple.

And btw, a mosque was not burned in Tennessee two weeks ago. Some construction equipment was burned. Not to minimize this type of hate inspired arson, but get your facts straight.

There were actually Nazi atrocities prior to the death camps being set up in 1943 that were outrageous, such as burning synagogues, blaming things on Jews, etc. The time to point out the dangers of burning mosque sites as in Tennessee and stabbing cabbies as in New York is now, not after people get sent to death camps. In Serbia and Bosnia they have been regularly killing each other over religious differences for 700 years. We don't have that in the US because it is firmly denounced and religious strife is not accepted for use of political purposes. But that requires people to denounce it and show they will turn their backs on those who do. It was wrong and evil for the Nazis to do it in the twenties and early thirties to come to power and it is wrong for Republicans to scapegoat Muslims for political gain for the same reasons.

Yes, you are correct that construction equipment at a mosque site was burned, and not an actual mosque and I was wrong to write it that way. That is a however, a distinction without a difference. It is still a criminal act and an act of terrorism that you didn't denounce. How about instead of "not to minimize this type..." kind of passive voice bullshit that you condemn it and the the people who did it and the atmosphere of hatred that your fellow travelers have whipped up. "Not to minimize" is not "I denounce it and will not offer engage with people who talk like that".

Whether it is children killed in a church bombing in Mississippi, a cabbie stabbed in New York because he is a Muslim, it is all caused by the kind of bullshit propagated by non-innocent questions that imply that Park51 is a "victory mosque".

Damn Huerta88 for stirring up religious strife. Damn you Dionisio for defending it.

[Captain Amazing]

He's not stirring up religious strife. He heard people criticizing this mosque/community center/whatever by saying that Muslims have a tradition of building mosques on the sites of their victories, and he didn't know if it was true or not, so he asked. That's what you're supposed to do if somebody makes a claim that you don't know if it's true. You ask. Would you rather he just accepted or dismissed the statement without finding out if it was true or not? How is that a better thing?

Or what, did you think he knew it wasn't true when he asked it? How does that make sense? If he asks it and people show the statement isn't true, that would hurt what he's trying to do.

How dare you criticize someone for asking a question in GQ? That's what this website is about. That's what Cecil is about; separating the truth from the bullshit, answering questions, even if the questions are embarrassing, stupid, or uncomfortable. You scrofulous idiot, what gives you the right to decide what questions may be asked in GQ and what questions may not? Who made you moral guardian over the rest of us?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

There were actually Nazi atrocities prior to the death camps being set up in 1943 that were outrageous, such as burning synagogues, blaming things on Jews, etc. The time to point out the dangers of burning mosque sites as in Tennessee and stabbing cabbies as in New York is now, not after people get sent to death camps. In Serbia and Bosnia they have been regularly killing each other over religious differences for 700 years. We don't have that in the US because it is firmly denounced and religious strife is not accepted for use of political purposes. But that requires people to denounce it and show they will turn their backs on those who do. It was wrong and evil for the Nazis to do it in the twenties and early thirties to come to power and it is wrong for Republicans to scapegoat Muslims for political gain for the same reasons.

Yes, you are correct that construction equipment at a mosque site was burned, and not an actual mosque and I was wrong to write it that way. That is a however, a distinction without a difference. It is still a criminal act and an act of terrorism that you didn't denounce. How about instead of "not to minimize this type..." kind of passive voice bullshit that you condemn it and the the people who did it and the atmosphere of hatred that your fellow travelers have whipped up. "Not to minimize" is not "I denounce it and will not offer engage with people who talk like that".

Whether it is children killed in a church bombing in Mississippi, a cabbie stabbed in New York because he is a Muslim, it is all caused by the kind of bullshit propagated by non-innocent questions that imply that Park51 is a "victory mosque".

Damn Huerta88 for stirring up religious strife. Damn you Dionisio for defending it.

I called it "hate inspired arson". I'm under no obligation to condemn it the way you want me to condemn it. I was merely pointing out that you can't even keep your own facts straight.

But more on point, we've been talking about a guy posting a question on GQ and you invoke Nazis. You can wallow in all the self-righteousness you want, but you're off the deep end on this one. So, no, I'm not going to patrol GQ to make sure only "right thinking" people can post questions there without someone like you coming along to call them Nazis.