Richmond Democrat Lies to Censor Political Opponents

Aww! Isn't that special?

It seems that portions of the Virginia far Left blogosphere can't handle the truth, so they silence their political opponents.

The "Richmond Democrat" has taken to describing State Senator Benny Lambert as "disgraced." What is his disgrace?, you might ask.

Apparently, for the far Left, a Democrat suffers "disgrace" when he endorses a Republican.

Now there are many words for such behavior. A few that I've used myself include "perfidy," "despicable," and "opportunist." I've used them in discussing "Republicans" who have, in the past, endorsed Democrats. I have commented not at all on Senator Lambert's endorsement, or of the imposition of Democrat discipline against him. What I did --- rather pointedly --- was demand that Democrats apply the same standard on those "Republicans" who endorse Democrats. As one might expect, from a political party which is institutionally situational in its notion of ethics, my invitation was declined.

But it seems to me that to call one "disgraced" simply because he or she endorses a candidate from the other party goes too far. But the poor Richmond Democrat, so confused (about many things, without a doubt) has chosen to censor a comment that I added to his thread, in which I suggest the type of behavior that most would consider "disgraceful." You know ... like being found in bed with another man. And then I point out that this is the type of "disgraceful" behavior which is rewarded among the far Left, as it has been in the Occoquan District in Prince William County, where Democrats have nominated a homosexual for County Supervisor.

The "Richmond Democrat" accuses me of submitting a post which is "laced with unprintable language and homophobic attacks on another blogger." Unfortunately, I didn't save my post myself, and I don't know what the Richmond Democrat considers "unprintable language." Certainly, it wasn't one of George Carlin's seven dirty words. Perhaps, to Richmond Democrat, what is "unprintable language" is any comment which demonstrates that his choice of words, in light of his other positions, is imbecilic.

Of course, what the far Left calls "homophobic" is almost always argument they can't answer, as well as opposition to the far Left agenda's adoption of a political agenda when not only endorses, but celebrates, perversion. It is a belittling charge, made to avoid the problem that the far Left's commitment to repealing five thousand years of societal standards regarding sexual perversion is merely based in "fear of" that perversion, a childish effort to attribute fear to their political opponents.

He also claims that it "violated [his] comment moderation policy." However, to the best of my recollection, nothing in that post was an "obvious falsehood," "profane," "defamatory," or anonymous," so it is difficult to understand his problem with it, save for the fact that it demonstrated the foolishness of his choice of words. Perhaps the Richmond Democrat should add "embarrases the host" to his list of justifications for silencing his opponents.

Of course, what the "Richmond Democrat" calls a "personal attack" is calling a pervert a "pervert."

Once again, a practical demonstration of the depth of the far Left's attachment to free speech and honest debate.