"All Faggots Must Die" message left on blog traced back to office of GOP senator

[opinterph]

I never claimed to have any evidence;

… Are you even literate?

I am literate and I am paying attention. You introduced a conditional statement, without any evidence, as a means to poison the well.

 

[Kulindahr]

^She wants our tax dollars to go to Youth Pride, a group that "promotes homosexuality" among teenagers as young as 13 !

Are people really dumb enough to buy that ? They're implying that a GLBT support group is turning kids into gays.

It's as offensive as it is ridiculous.

If dollars could produce gays, there'd be a LOT more dollars getting spent out there on 'recruiting clubs' and such. I doubt there's a gay guy alive who wouldn't like to see double or triple the number of out, proud gays.

Many here are blaming the Senator personally. If he was stupid enough to have done this, then he needs to go no questions. But if an idiot staffer is responsible, I have no issue allowing the Senator a period of time to investigate and take appropriate action. If the Senator fails to do so, then he should be held accountable for his failure to either properly supervise his charges, or worse, allowing that type of environment to flourish within his public office. I simply think it pointless to get our panties all up in a twist, before we know who is responsible, that's all.

Appropriate action....

Require the staffer to take a gay guy a week out for dinner and a movie, and write a three-page report detailing all the great things about the guy.

Repeat until staffer happily joins in a good-night kiss.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am literate and I am paying attention. You introduced a conditional statement, without any evidence, as a means to poison the well.

I'll grant poisoning the well as result. I'm not convinced that was the intent.

Why would I need evidence for a conditional statement?

You understand the function of that statement, right?

It's saying: "I don't have any evidence that he is, but if he is . . ."

Do I really have to spell out this shit?

The whole reason I phrased it that way is that it's not exactly easy to obtain any evidence that any particular legislator is associated with them. They're somewhat secretive, and the media has only been able to directly link a handful of government officials to them, despite the fact that they're very much in bed with powerful people (hence the existence of the National Prayer Breakfast).

The fact Chambliss is a socially conservative Senator is enough to suggest that he could be tied to them. It's a mere possibility.

Does this all make sense to you?

No, of course not - you're too blinded by this irresistible urge to be contrary to comprehend any of this.

I have to say you phrased it badly. You could have pointed out what you put in the large paragraph above.

My mind won't make a connection between "urge to be contrary" and opinterph.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pardon me for assuming people are actually informed. I know it's not the norm in today's America.

Being informed doesn't mean people can make the leap into your brain and see what it is you didn't say. Your statement as it was could easily have been taken for trolling, as it made a potentially incendiary assertion without any background. Or it could have been taken as personal fuming based on ignorance because you didn't indicate any foundation for the linkage you suggested.

Leaving it up to the reader to figure out what you meant, what the background is, in fact to read your mind, means no one is going to really get what you're after.

I certainly didn't -- I shrugged it off as an uninformed piece of conjecture...


... at least until you sassed opinterph.

 

[White Eagle]

I just heard on hardball that Saxby Chambliss or his aids are to be investigated about the posting. The Sgt at arms, I believe, who was appointed by a Dem is to check into it. I'm looking for a link now.

 

[White Eagle]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9178966

Saxby Chambliss confirms: "All Faggots must die" comment came from his Atlanta Headquarters

"I've just gotten off the phone with Atlanta Journal-Constitution political writer Jim Galloway who says that Sen. Saxby Chambliss has confirmed that the "All faggots must die" comment left here on JMG earlier today did indeed come from his Atlanta office. Galloway reports that Chambliss told him his office is conducting an internal investigation. For now Chambliss' spokesperson has issued a preliminary statement:"

That's it for now. Still checking for more.

 

[White Eagle]

More:
Matthews had a log cabin guy come on and the log cabin guy just defended all Republicans and Chris didn't let him get by with it. He cut him off at the end of the interview. The guy started to defend his response but Chris just kept going.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=110653

Anti-Gay Senator on ’All Faggots Must Die’ Post: A Staffer Did It
by Kilian Melloy
Wednesday Sep 22, 2010

Georgia Republican Sen, Saxby Chambliss has confirmed that an anti-gay comment posted at GLBT site JoeMyGod.com originated from his office, but says that the offensive remark was posted by a staffer.

The comment was left at JoeMyGod.com on Sept. 21 by someone identified as "Jimmy." The comment was left at an article reporting that the senate had voted against cloture for a bill that would have rescinded "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," the anti-gay law that bars openly GLBT servicemembers from the armed forces.

--snip--

Blogger Jason Pye recollected Chambliss’ own anti-gay remarks from last February, when the senator warned that allowing openly gay troops to serve would transform the military into a zone of ""alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art," and declared that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards."

 

[construct]

allowing openly gay troops to serve would transform the military into a zone of ""alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art,"

Excuse me, but isn't that already a stereotype of the military?

 

[altlover85]

Can't they just trace the IP address to whomever's computer and then question everyone in the office as to where they were when the comment was made?

 

[Kulindahr]

Can't they just trace the IP address to whomever's computer and then question everyone in the office as to where they were when the comment was made?

If you read the whole conversation in the first post, well, that's what happened.

 

[altlover85]

So they know who did it then, Kulindahr?

 

[Kulindahr]

So they know who did it then, Kulindahr?

Nothing says the individual responsible has admitted it, but from the articles above, especially White Eagle's, they pinned it to the location and the Senator admitted it was his office, and intends to find out just who did it.

I'm waiting to see what the Senator considers appropriate consequences.

 

[opinterph]

I can't even express how pathetic it is that you think I'm running some nefarious smear campaign.

I think it might prove beneficial to remind you of the Guidelines that govern your interaction in CE&P. You are expected to express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. Thus, posting an interrogatory statement that may reasonably be construed to imply or suggest that another member is “illiterate” represents a demeaning personal characterization that has the effect of insulting or impugning that member, may represent excessive baiting, is certainly inflammatory, and which may also constitute abusive conduct – a JUB Code of Conduct violation.

Are you even literate?

Pretending to comprehend the thinking or motivations of another member and to post a sarcastic affirmative statement to that effect similarly diverts the discussion from the thread's topic to that member personally. Such remarks have a tendency to derail the free flow of legitimate discussion and are distracting, to say the least.

… you're too blinded by this irresistible urge to be contrary to comprehend any of this.

And while posting about your desire to share abusive remarks directed toward another member is better than actually posting those remarks, the result is much the same. Again, the effect is to demean the other member personally, rather than sharing your opinions about the ideas that member has contributed to the discussion.

And as for "poisoning the well" - I'll leave a nice blank space in place of the invectives I'd like to direct your way...

It is okay to disagree with your perception of the ideas presented by another member, but you may not use insults, sarcastic remarks, or other innuendo to personally demean that member.


With regard to Senator Chambliss and your insinuation that he is associated with “The Family,” my initial response merely asked you to provide some proof to support your assertion. In the alternative, it certainly left open the possibility for you to admit that you have no specific knowledge to substantiate the innuendo you introduced into the discussion. You suggested that by using a conditional characteristic (in the way you worded your statement) you are somehow excused from any responsibility to back it up with facts. Please recognize that my primary interest in asking the question had more to do with the fact that Saxby Chambliss represents my state’s interests in the US Senate than any effort to prove you wrong. I assure you that before engaging you in the question, I had already searched for the answer myself. There is little question that Saxby supports conservative values, but it is my impression that being Republican or subscribing to Conservative Family Values does not necessarily imply an affiliation with The Family. Similarly, association with that group does not necessarily represent an endorsement or love of “the idea of killing fags.”

Regardless of whatever association fallacy is most appropriate to this circumstance, the unsubstantiated allegation that Senator Chambliss supports the killing of gays is reminiscent of Karl Rove’s style of gutter politics – in that it requires quite a leap of faith to embrace.

 

[altlover85]

I already knew what office it came from. I was saying couldn't the IT people at the location figure out whose computer it was and then question everyone and figure out who sent the email?

 

[Kulindahr]

I already knew what office it came from. I was saying couldn't the IT people at the location figure out whose computer it was and then question everyone and figure out who sent the email?

First we'd have to know the office layout. I'd guess it was a computer accessible to a number of people. Whether they can pin it to a specific computer would depend on how the office connections are set up; if I understand these things right, the office can have a static IP address while individual computers may not, and if things are wireless, I think that all the computers in the office could share a single static IP address.

Time to call in our geek squad.

 

[Lostlover]

Oh man...

Oh hell no...

You're encroaching onto my territory now.

Run away! Run far far away! Faster!

Cool gif....

 

[opinterph]

Opin, are you just trolling at this point?

 

[BostonPirate]

what a purse fight

ladies ladies

look... the guy has about eight people in the office the mail came from. It wont be hard to figure out who sent it. The sergeant at arms is handling the investigation instead of chambliss, and that means that he is SAYING he is cooperating, when a simple one day internal investigation would answer the question.

it didn't happen.

Chambliss is responsible for the quality of people he hires and their actions.

I am waiting for DoJ to get involved next. I think it will happen.

 

[Kulindahr]

what a purse fight

ladies ladies

look... the guy has about eight people in the office the mail came from. It wont be hard to figure out who sent it. The sergeant at arms is handling the investigation instead of chambliss, and that means that he is SAYING he is cooperating, when a simple one day internal investigation would answer the question.

it didn't happen.

Chambliss is responsible for the quality of people he hires and their actions.

I am waiting for DoJ to get involved next. I think it will happen.

And if he really wanted to can the jerk and no one would talk, it would be easy: assemble the staff that could have had access to that computer, put their names in a hat, and tell them that if the guilty party won't step up, he's going to draw a name and that person is canned. If the guilty one still won't step forward, do it again.










Maybe he should put his own name in the hat.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think its obvious that he supports the person who said it privately, but knows the politics of the situation are different than that.

its an improvement.

Ten years ago we wouldn't have even gotten an investigation.

It still sucks.