Eugene Delgaudio Campaign Kick-Off

great reporting, Joe. Paul is a prince among men -- excellent phrasing!

and a rollicking great event!

Ten things I would rather experience then 4 more years of Delgaudio:

1. A root canal without anesthetic.
2. Drinking a gallon of ice tea in a stadium of 50 thousand people and only one bathroom.
3. Hunting with Dick Cheney or Driving with Ted Kennedy
4. Ray Nagin and Michael Brown handling my family emergency.
5. Meeting a hungry pit bull in a dark ally while covered in steak sauce.
6. Listening to Robert Bird filibuster on the Senate floor on any subject.
7. Waiting for George Bush to write his own speech (and then listening to him give that speech).
8. Loud gangsta rap or loud acid rock playing surround sound for a straight month.
9. Having to tell TC a secret that my life may depend on him keeping.
10. Being forced to listen to the views of Ann Coulter and Cynthia McKinney on the same day.

LC - Thanks!

M 5-19 - Now how did I know that was coming...GREAT list (although I take exception to the premise!)

I plan on talking with every household in his district before June, and making such a sharp point on his issues that whether he shows up before or after me, the house will vote him out. Best part? I'll use the truth!

There are also volunteers who will attack Staton's District, Tulloch's District and Clem's District.

Snow has taken care of himself, and couldn't win if his name was the only one on the ballot, devoid of a democratic challenger.
But it won't be. He's irritated three individuals in his district to the point that they're all willing to fight to get at Stevie.

That's politics, so go for it. If you have a slate in mind across all these districts, though, better be sure to firm up their position on illegal immigration. That's all the free advice I'm going to give you.

Thank you for the wonderful news coverage Joe Budzinski and novatownhall.com. Your comprehensive and wall to wall reporting is the most extensive report. You have mobilized the conservatives, independents and moderate Democrats in Northern Virginia and given flight to liberal fantasies of domination. Sterling is alert to liberal lies and will not allow liberal lies to move them. Your own vigilance will be rewarded with more victories of public support.

Supervisor, thank you for fighting the good fight against long odds.

"liberal fantasies of domination"?

Good one Eugene! Loudoun marvels at your wit, and Joe embibes your wisdom.

Jonathan, I think you and I might both have been doing some imbibing tonight, eh? I try to believe the best of my fellow man, so I will cut you some slack.

You lost me Joe, and I think Eugene lost you. Do you not understand the symbolism behind Eugene's quote in my 1218 post?

What are you cutting me slack for?

I'm cutting you slack on a few messages that seem overly emotional, from the past 48 hours. Because I've been there.

No, I don't get the symbolism. But I'm not an artist-guy, so please feel free to spell it out.

Not overly emotional. I'm as cool as a cucumber. Must be the symbolism and the drama combined. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that you're clueless, but I don't think that's the case.

Ask Eugene to share all of his christiannewswire press releases with you.

Please google domination.

Ok, I'll google domination tomorrow am. Can't wait to see what that is all about.

Joe, Jonathon,
I just googled "domination" all by its self and got either a video game or sexually themed sights.

I then added in 'christian' on a hunch that was the kind of domination Jonathon was thinking about and got some really offensive crap. On one sight it advocated the use of nukes to wipe out a huge chunk of the world.

First of all I am closer to being a Marxist than the writers of that post are to being Christian. In fact I would say it looks like a anti-Christian hack job, along the lines of the 'protocals of zion', which is allegedly written by jews.

So,this is cool as a cucumber Jonathon?

-JA

Eugene used "fantasies of domination". Please ask him to help you refine your search. I don't pretend to know his motivations, and besides, that violates the rules of good-faith dialogue.

Oh I see ... probably the most mundane definition would be the correct one.

Now Joe, why would you assume mundane? The orange hat seems to be a bit flamboyant.

Eugene, care to elucidate?

I mean, as opposed to the direction you and Jacob seem intent on steering this ... Eugene was simply referring to politics.

JA says,

"Jonathon was thinking about and got some really offensive crap."

Rob/Joe/Jack, et. al, you guys need to make a decision. If you would like to invite other opinions and foster good faith dialogue, you MUST refrain from assigning motivations. You MUST stop the mindreading. Eugene used the phrase "fantasies of domination". I thought it was an odd phrase and I questioned it. I'm not going to pretend that I can read his mind. People on my side of the moral divide don't think we are God. We don't think we have God-like powers, and that is where the dividing line needs to be drawn. It has nothing to do with the composition of our families.

If this discussion is not what you had envisioned on this blog, let me know and I'll gladly stop wasting my time.

Peace,
Jonathan

I was kidding, Jonathan. It's a comment I make periodically when a thread goes off into unexpected directions, and I found it mildly amusing to lump you and Jacob together as the "dirty mind" crowd.

Jonathan:

"Assigning motivations" and "mindreading"? Let me refresh your memory with a few quotes from you and David from your own blog:

"We aren’t fully human to them."

"Small-minded opportunists."

"Judge Wilkinson has illustrated what a real conservative is, as opposed to some of those currently claiming that label who really just want to undermine the system of goverment that our framers had in mind."

"I say that you do not see GLBT people as fully human because you are unwilling to coexist with us as equal human beings."

That's quite a bit of mind-reading.

Jack,

I'm fully aware of the content of our blog and I'm willing to accept responsibility for that content. You claim to be a scholar. What are your credentials again? You got VD in D.C. and your working on a BLT from Mickey D's or something like that, whatever? Regardless, it doesn't take a computational astrophysicist to understand when he has been insulted and disrespected.

The language used by anti-gay activists leads me to believe that they don't see gay people as fully human. Being on the receiving end of that language the above statement is a fair subjective assessment.

You yourself feel that you can play God with our lives, that you can "save" us, and that you need to "protect" all the world's children from us. That doesn't sound like coexistence. For you to believe with certainty that you are morally superior to *all* gay people is a stunning feat of self-indulgent hubris. And where do you obtain that moral superiority, from Leviticus? Basically, you are saying:

"God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Yes, that thinking is "small-minded" and to use that thinking along with the lies perpetuated by the Eugenes and the CWAs of this world - both prominently promoted by this blog - to deny our right to form families, that's anti-human.

Think about it. There is a lot of evidence to back up the statements on the www.equalityloudoun.org blog. On many occasion, you have engaged in the scapegoating and bad behaviors synthesized in those statements. Are you willing to take responsibility for your words and actions?

You didn't address the moral distinction I made. You shot back an accusation as a small-minded person would.
You've confirmed that no valuable discussion can be expected from the principals on this blog.

Congrats.

Jonathan:

I grant you that I misspoke, I cannot save anyone. I can only try to convince someone that he needs saving.

So you take responsibility for what you posted. Fine. What is your response?

I have never claimed to be morally superior to all gay people. I know a number of gays who are celibate and realize that acting on their urges would be sinful. They are far superior to me. I will pray that you will come to the same realization they have. However, there are none so blind as those who will not see. If you believe that believing the Bible is "small minded," then you are willfully blind.

As for your right to form families, you have the same right to do so as any other man, as I have said before. You have the right to marry any available woman who will have you. That you are unable or unwilling to do so is YOUR problem, not a violation of your rights. This is different from laws that forbade interracial marriage, because then men of different races had different groups available to them.

Now, I'm afraid that, being the dumb Rocket Scientist that I am, I did not see what "moral distinction" you made. You made a distinction between what two things, or what two people?

As for "valuable discussion," I notice that you come here to try to get it, as there seems to be no discussion at all over on your blog.

Speaking of your blog, please tell me how I have "scapegoated" or engaged in "bad behavior."