Riley J. Hood: What Do They Call Themselves?

Riley J. Hood is the chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin. He was a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012 and received 70 votes. The following article was published on June 6, 2013. 

What Do They Call Themselves?

Excellent speech becometh not a fool:
 much less lying lips a prince.” Proverbs 17:7

By Riley J. Hood-CPoW State Chairman

            As the sodomite community tries to define the terms of their existence, so they call themselves terms that are allegedly non-offensive. Here are the actual definitions of what the sodomites call themselves:

  1. Homo-sexual-(Homosexualität) a used by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895) in a homosexual journal that lasted one year in 1870. (Some attribute the term to Karloy Maria Kertbeny.) Ulrichs was sodomite who sought to explain away sin. “Homo-sexual” was a psychological type, they were women trapped in men’s bodies. He used the Latin, “anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa;” as a formal statement of his theory. A precursor to the “gay genes” and “born that way” nonsense.
  2. Queers-They call themselves that. The term meant “odd” or different before it connoted a sodomite.
  3. Gay- The term means “bright.” The male homosexual didn’t invent this term, they stole it. Prostitutes, by the 1890′s called themselves the “gay set,” the “gay nineties” was the 1890′s, when women’s fashions were being made more and more revealing. Women who had large families called themselves “the gay set,” and in the 1920′s so did the flappers, who called themselves “gay blades.” So, the sodomite stealing the prostitutes self description is no surprise, as there is no shortage of female impersonation amongst “the gay community.” By the way, they stole the Rainbow Flag from the Inca’s, in its exact form, so much for their vaunted creativity.

No matter what term the sodomite adopts for himself, it won’t take long before that term becomes a pejorative. Children these days, when they see something they think is substandard, say, “That’s gay.” The reason why, is because the essence of what they do is disgusting, no matter how many times they try to “re-term” it. “And likewise also the men, leaving off the natural use of the woman, burned in lust one toward another; men with men, working that which is unseemly, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”Romans 1:27

So what do they call normal people? The nice term is “straight,” the nasty term is “breeder.” To the sodomite, any form of productivity is looked down upon, but especially traditional marriage, without “birth-control,” that produces children. They have a full onslaught of made up politically correct terms, such as “homophobia,” for people who oppose them and “hetero-sexist” for people who find their actions disgusting.

The Bible calls them sodomites and reprobates, and says of them, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:32 Not “were worthy of death, but not anymore,” but “are worthy of death.” So even in the New Testament, sodomy, namely same-sex acts are a criminal offense.

The Constitution Party of Wisconsin calls them criminals. Our Platform and our goal regarding these reprobates, is straight-forward– “We call upon all state officials to outlaw all acts of sodomy.” From the National Constitution Party’s Platform we read, “We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions. “If left unpunished, the criminal does tend to become domineering. The sodomite has been “Out Loud” for too long and only re-criminalization will restrain them.

 

Robert Peck, the chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington, commented on Hood’s article:

Thank you Mr. Hood. It may not be the popular thing to do, but someone needs to speak the truth. Some may say “we should love gay people and not say anything mean.” And I agree, we should love the sodomite, the pedophile, the adulterer, prostitute, drug addict, liar, thief, gossiper, hypocrite and people who commit any other sin or engage in any other destructive behavior. However, love – real love – does not stand idly by watching individuals, or a whole society, go down the wrong path to destruction and not say anything.

 

Article source:

http://www.constitutionpartywi.com/2013/06/what-do-they-call-themselves/

62 thoughts on “Riley J. Hood: What Do They Call Themselves?

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I hope it’s not too soon. The main reason I wanted it up though was because it highlights that Hood’s views aren’t exactly fringe in the CP.

  2. Daddyfatsax

    I sense this guy is a closet homo. just saying…me thinks thou doth protest too much.

  3. Steven Berson

    man alive – all of the recent posts of various Constitution Party members ranting about what goes on in other people’s bedrooms – and that is none of their damn business – makes me seriously sad for them. What a bunch of utter small minded hypocrites!!

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    Maybe if we continue to print articles about the loonies in the Constitution Party, it will lose any remaining credibilty that it has now.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    I think so, too. He’s not important enough for us to give him this much attention here.

  6. Sam Kress

    “Maybe if we continue to print articles about the loonies in the Constitution Party, it will lose any remaining credibilty than it has now.”

    The few people who think it has any credibility lap stuff like this up. It doesn’t bother them one bit.

  7. Cody Quirk

    And yet Mr. Peck claimed in a previous article against the CCTUC that the there was no need to unify the other constitutionalist parties and that the CP was the answer to the ‘Clarion Call To Unite’ for ALL constitutionalists- while here he is sustaining the opinions of a man that many other constitutionalists do not want to associate with.

    What a hypocrite.

  8. Sam Kress

    Since Hood is defining terms here, for those who missed it on the other thread:

    So-do-my:

    So do my neighbors
    So do my friends
    So do my parents
    So do my kids
    So do my pets
    So do my siblings
    So do my co-workers
    So my teachers
    So do my preachers
    So do my politicians
    So do my lovers

    And last but not least

    So do my holier than thou religious hypocrite acquaintances…

  9. langa

    More comments on this article within the first couple of hours than most articles get in a couple of days. But I guess that’s just a coincidence.

    It couldn’t possibly be that people find these ridiculous screeds to be more amusing than the latest LP press release.

    After all, the people whose opinion really matters have already declared that these articles by Hood (and, I’m guessing, the other CP wackos) aren’t fit for regular publication here on IPR. So, that settles that!

  10. Dave

    The best one yet!

    I really do hope Mr. Hood has car trouble outside of a gay bar one day. The results would be most amusing for all involved.

    Also, I suppose this confirms my previous question. Mr. Hood apparently thinks all gays should be put to death, at least according to the Bible.

    Almost makes me glad he’s represented by America’s only openly gay senator.

  11. Dave Terry

    “Riley J. Hood is the chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin. He was a write-in candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012 and received 70 votes”

    70 votes??? I’ve known some cheese heads in my time, but I don’t honestly think even ONE of them was THAT stupid!

  12. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    There’s a reason Hood is so opposed to homosexuality. I’ve got a hunch about his own sex life:

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    On the one hand, it’s a good thing these CP sickos will never enjoy political power.

    On the other hand, it would be better if they went back into the Republican Party so as to help hasten its political self-destruction as well.

  14. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @6 and 7, Paulie and Jill

    Sounds good. Last Riley article for June. Although I’d like to point out that not all of his articles are about homosexuality, he has plenty of others that are just as insane about other topics.

    We (me, Cody, and Joshua) will start publishing Riley’s stuf regularly on the Independent American & Constitutional Review (IA&CR), which is dedicated to covering right-wing and constitutionalist third parties in the U.S. Check out our website:

    http://iacreview.blogspot.com/

    And if you could give our Facebook page a quick like, it’d be much appreciated!

    https://www.facebook.com/IAandCR?fref=ts

  15. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Quirk/Twerp @ #9 – It is truly nauseating that YOU, of all people, call Bob Peck; a man ( a REAL one as compared to yourself and all of the other wimps around you ) of immense honor and, especially, integrity ( something which you will never know ) a hypocrite when you beat your chest proclaiming your Mormonism and then turn around and support the emotional pathology of homosexuality at every opportunity.

    Truly a case of a total fake attacking a man of total honor though certainly something to be expected from a rat/weasel like you.

    It is even more unfortunate that you have plenty of company in Jill P. who proclaims her Christianity while spitting in the face of The Creator via her promotion of the lie that homosexuals are ” born that way;” i.e.; that God made them that way.

    Add to this wimps like KL and you have an entire team devoted to attacking Christianity and promoting the victory of outright evil over our nation and, especially, our children.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. one of the few exposing the outright evil which so many at IPR support, endorse, and promote – which is why that ” free speech ” lover Jill P. wants me to be banned for exposing her evil

  16. Daddyfatsax

    Take it easy Don, you might blow a blood vessel in your head…and it looks like your brain is short of oxygen as it is. Deep Breathes. Now..riddle me this, you exposer of outright evil…the bible says many things…you like to point out how homosexuality is wrong…ok, when was the last time you wrote about premarital sex? What about eating shellfish? What about the whole of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that are laws that shall be followed…do you rail against all the cloven hoof eating heretics? Did the past couple thousand years dull your nerve to persecute anyone other than gays? Expose my evil, you self righteous asshole…I will be attending multiple fundraisers for abused children this summer, and I regularly donate to Three Square (feeding the disadvantaged) and Opportunity Village (a place where mentally challenged go to get work and social interaction)…so if you are done exposing all the evil…please list the charities you actually do something with to further your Jesus’ message, instead of sitting on your headrest spouting the ills of people who aren’t hurting you, and don’t follow the same intolerant bigoted god you do. Good day.
    Jason Smith

  17. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    KL – So you all develop a website dedicated to attacking the CP and the moral values which it stands for.

    What a surprise. The very team which claims(ed) that it was working for ” unity ” attacks the biggest force for unity and the very group which originally established that unity until they were attacked by the very people who are now in alliance ( behind the scenes ) with the current website developers.

    All of that crying, moaning, and groaning that the wimps of CCTUC were sooooo misunderstood and picked upon by the big meanies of the CP is now exposed by their ” coming out of the closet ” regarding their RINOism; i.e.; as enemies of the moral foundations of the nation who attack the CP in service to the Masters of the original attackers inclusive of the SPLC, ADL, and the Republican Party RINOS.

    All of that effort to build a website devoted to attacking the CP and Biblical/Christian morality.

    All of that effort simply to promote homosexuality.

    And to top it off they then call the defenders of Biblical morality; the foundation of our nation; ” hypocrites.”

    Truly the evil intentions of the CCTUC, hidden behind their lies, are finally, like the rotten garbage that they are, being exposed.

    Don J. Grundmann D.C. a chronicler of the corruption of the CCTUC who nailed it perfectly regarding the true motivation – to destroy the 3rd party conservative movement – behind the false front

  18. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Smith @ #20 & 21 – I have documented the objectives of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement at CandleCrusade.org.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. reminding you that A) there is no such thing as ” gays,” and B) it is homosexuals and their supporters, via the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement, who are ( unfortunately only starting ) persecuting real/normal people inclusive of working to attack children in kindergarten by their indoctrination into homosexuality. The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is truly, as intended via so-called ” Pride Parades,” a movement of no shame.

  19. Jared King

    Wimps? Rats? Weasels? Twerp? Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed for one.

    “Ya’ wimps! I could take every last one of ya’! C’mon, I kick ass for the Lord!”

  20. Daddyfatsax

    Again, Don…a little too focused on what some people do in their beds. Why no outrage at the hypocritical leaders of the Xian faith who rape kids, cheat on wives, troll for gay sex in bathrooms, lead double lives…? All this vitriol for the gay community, none for the heathens in your own camp? Clean your own room before you criticize someone else’s. You and your “conservative” group are out of touch with reality. Would it make you feel better if we passed a law saying gays were 3/5 ths of a human? Would that make you feel more like the Am’rca of your youth? Get off your cross, someone needs the wood.

  21. Mark Seidenberg

    Jared King at Post 24.

    I think the order is Rats, Rodents, Weasels, Wimps, and then The Twerp. The is followed
    by all kinds of fakes, viz. phones, documents,
    meetings, people.

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    Daddy @ 20 & 25: Good job at saying what many of us think. Grundmann actually calls children with sexual identity issues “monsters. “

  23. paulie

    More comments on this article within the first couple of hours than most articles get in a couple of days. But I guess that’s just a coincidence.

    Rubbernecking at a car wreck.

    It couldn’t possibly be that people find these ridiculous screeds to be more amusing than the latest LP press release.

    Amusement is part of what we do, but only a part.

    After all, the people whose opinion really matters have already declared that these articles by Hood (and, I’m guessing, the other CP wackos) aren’t fit for regular publication here on IPR.

    We have published plenty of them, and will publish them again. It’s just a matter of frequency/mix. Your opinion absolutely matters, but it would matter even more if you help with posting articles as well.

    I really do hope Mr. Hood has car trouble outside of a gay bar one day. The results would be most amusing for all involved.

    +1

    Last Riley article for June. Although I’d like to point out that not all of his articles are about homosexuality, he has plenty of others that are just as insane about other topics.

    Fair enough. My suggestions is serve up about 1-2 a week in July. How does that sound?

    the bible says many things…you like to point out how homosexuality is wrong…ok, when was the last time you wrote about premarital sex? What about eating shellfish? What about the whole of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that are laws that shall be followed…do you rail against all the cloven hoof eating heretics? Did the past couple thousand years dull your nerve to persecute anyone other than gays? Expose my evil, you self righteous asshole…I will be attending multiple fundraisers for abused children this summer, and I regularly donate to Three Square (feeding the disadvantaged) and Opportunity Village (a place where mentally challenged go to get work and social interaction)…so if you are done exposing all the evil…please list the charities you actually do something with to further your Jesus’ message, instead of sitting on your headrest spouting the ills of people who aren’t hurting you, and don’t follow the same intolerant bigoted god you do.

    Preach it, Reverend!

    Again, Don…a little too focused on what some people do in their beds. Why no outrage at the hypocritical leaders of the Xian faith who rape kids, cheat on wives, troll for gay sex in bathrooms, lead double lives…? All this vitriol for the gay community, none for the heathens in your own camp? Clean your own room before you criticize someone else’s. You and your “conservative” group are out of touch with reality. Would it make you feel better if we passed a law saying gays were 3/5 ths of a human? Would that make you feel more like the Am’rca of your youth? Get off your cross, someone needs the wood.

    Amen!

    Wimps? Rats? Weasels? Twerp? Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed for one. […] I think the order is Rats, Rodents, Weasels, Wimps, and then The Twerp.

    Such hatefulness for a religion that preaches love!

  24. Joshua Fauver

    Grundman behaves and posts in here in a way that would seem to suggest that Jesus “whom he claims to believe in and model his life after.” would have responded differently had the pharisees brought a homosexual man and thrown him before Jesus instead of an adulterous woman. What kind of christian is he? I believe the words Jesus used were “you who are without sin cast the first stone.” Then he told the woman, “where are your accussers?” and she said “I have none.” and He responded with “nor do I accuse you, go and sin no more.” That doesn’t sound anything like what comes out of Don’s mouth.

  25. langa

    We have published plenty of them, and will publish them again. It’s just a matter of frequency/mix. Your opinion absolutely matters, but it would matter even more if you help with posting articles as well.

    It’s not a question of me trying to tell you what articles you should publish. It’s a question of you telling other people what articles they shouldn’t publish, simply because you personally find them distasteful. Why would I want to contribute if I had to worry whether every article I published had the Paulie Seal of Approval?

    The bottom line is that Hood’s articles clearly meet the criteria for inclusion on IPR, and there is clearly a lot more interest in them than there is in most of the articles that are published here. So why shouldn’t Krzysztof (or any other contributor) be free to post them as often as he chooses? It doesn’t create any extra work for you, so why is it any of your business?

  26. Ad Hoc

    Who told anyone what they are allowed to publish?
    All I saw was some people, including some IPR writers and some readers, express their opinion. No one said it was a rule, unless I missed something.

    Wouldn’t want to see an article every single day from a state chairman of the Workers Marxist Leninist People’s International Party who got 70 write in votes either. But maybe that’s just me.

    If you really want to read new pearls of wisdumb from Riley Hood every single day I heard that the Independent American and Constitutional Review will be publishing them. Blessed be!

  27. langa

    Who told anyone what they are allowed to publish?

    Read comments 1, 6, and 28, as well as the comments in previous Hood threads. If you still don’t see it, try a class in reading comprehension,

  28. Ad Hoc

    I read them. Just read them again. Still no commands there.

    “I hope…” and “I think…” are not the same as “You must not or else.” Take that class yourself unless you got something better than those three comments.

  29. Ad Hoc

    Punctuation isn’t the issue unless you were misunderstood, which I don’t believe you were. Reading comprehension, however, is exactly to the point. Nothing in the comments you point to can be reasonably interpreted as a command.

  30. langa

    If your reading comprehension is as good as you fancy it to be, you would notice I referred to previous Hood threads. Anyone capable of reading between the lines can clearly see that Paulie has made it very clear that Hood’s articles are to be kept to a minimum, and whether you want to admit it or not, we all know that around here, what Paulie says goes.

  31. paulie

    If your reading comprehension is as good as you fancy it to be, you would notice I referred to previous Hood threads. Anyone capable of reading between the lines

    Please reference exactly what you are referring to. I don’t recall ever saying that my opinion is mandatory. Please point out where I did so, and if you do I will apologize. Otherwise I’m left thinking you are imagining, rather than reading, between the lines. IE reading in things that are not there.

    we all know that around here, what Paulie says goes.

    Hardly. Chris is a frequent contributor now, and he has fully earned the right to disregard my suggestions when he feels like it. Warren is the only one here who can absolutely dictate anything. I think I’ve earned the status to have my suggestions carry some weight, through a lot of hard work, but they are still just suggestions.

  32. paulie

    While I don’t have time to review every comment on every Hood thread to see if I was too overbearing somewhere, I’m willing to admit it is possible …if you produce the direct evidence that I did that. As far as I can remember, all I did was make the same suggestions that a number of other people made.

  33. langa

    While I don’t have time to review every comment on every Hood thread to see if I was too overbearing somewhere, I’m willing to admit it is possible …if you produce the direct evidence that I did that. As far as I can remember, all I did was make the same suggestions that a number of other people made.

    I was reacting mainly to the fact that Krzysztof apparently felt the need to apologize for posting this article, and then to get your approval as to when he could post another Hood article.

    Warren is the only one here who can absolutely dictate anything.

    Yes, but he generally takes a hands-off approach, and seems to leave you in charge of the day-to-day operation of the site. In fact, he said something similar to that on one of the troll threads (and no, I don’t remember which one, as there were unfortunately several of them).

    By the way, I don’t generally have a problem with you being in charge, as you have put more work into the site than anyone else, and you generally do a good job.

    Recently, however, in the case of the troll and now with Hood, you seem a bit too eager to silence people who you disagree with. This is particularly true in the case of Hood, as posting his articles really does nothing to disrupt the site. It’s not like anyone is forced to read them, and, unlike Milnes, Ogle, etc., they have no effect on any of the other threads. So I just don’t see the need to exercise any sort of censorship with regard to them.

  34. Ad Hoc

    Langa who is censoring Chris, or even Hood? Look, some random wacko who says the most outrageous shit he can think of can write an article a day. Hell, maybe he is retired or works at home or something and can write 20 articles a day. He gets to be a state chair of a tiny party that might not otherwise even have a state chair in that state at all (after all there are other states where they don’t) and gets 70 write in votes. Does that mean he should have 100% of his articles published here?

    Never mind that it’s Riley J. Hood of the Wisconsin Constitution Party. It could be J. Hiley Rood of the Idaho Green Party (fictitious person) with articles like

    “Soylent Green: A fresh perspective”

    “Burn cops, not pot fields”

    “Human extinction, a necessary path to zero carbon emissions”

    “The human virus”

    “Animal, plant and bacterial rights: an idea whose time has come”

    “Humans: Eat shit and die; a billion flies can’t be wrong”

    “Thank Gaia for AIDS”

    How many of this person’s articles would be too many….ten a day? twenty? a hundred?

    Forget about the ideology. It could be some radical libertarian or vanilla moderate for that matter.

    What has this person achieved? How often do they want their opinions to be known? Balance the two at least to some extent. Not that it can be done perfectly, but there are times when it can become very disproportionate and it can make sense to put the brakes on a little.

  35. Jill Pyeatt

    I believe I was the first one to suggest that Riley Hood had been over represented here, although I recall it was a comment and not a command. I’ve heard from several people that they were giving up on IPR because it had become too nasty. They wanted to read about third party activity, not put up with constant name-calling and infighting. My goal is to minimize that by discouraging articles and people who are responsible for much of that. I’m just one person, though, but that was my opinion. Chris can, and does, do what he wants.

  36. NewFederalist

    It appears to me that this site is imploding. All the nasty posts for and about Hood as well as Grundmann are just over the top. If Warren does not step in he could lose his investment.

  37. Jill Pyeatt

    Sorry about all the typos. I’m in a bouncy SUV traveling south on 5 in Ca, not the best roads in the world.

  38. paulie

    Recently, however, in the case of the troll and now with Hood, you seem a bit too eager to silence people who you disagree with.

    In the case of the troll, Jill took the lead on zapping it, and Warren to some extent. I mostly stayed out of that as I felt it harder to be a neutral arbiter when a lot of it was aimed at me. I argued for a more lenient policy/response than most others did in the troll threads. And with Hood I chimed in to agree with a bunch of people before me. I merely suggested some sense of proportion, not silencing.

    This is particularly true in the case of Hood, as posting his articles really does nothing to disrupt the site. It’s not like anyone is forced to read them, and, unlike Milnes, Ogle, etc., they have no effect on any of the other threads. So I just don’t see the need to exercise any sort of censorship with regard to them.

    Hood articles taking over the site is no more OK than Milnes and Ogle comments taking over comment threads. If Milnes and Ogle posted comments less frequently they wouldn’t have been so much of an issue; likewise if Hood was less prolific. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with them; new articles every day from, say, Jim Davidson would have been the same issue.

  39. paulie

    I was reacting mainly to the fact that Krzysztof apparently felt the need to apologize for posting this article, and then to get your approval as to when he could post another Hood article.

    When I get multiple comments from multiple people about how I shouldn’t pot this or that article(s) I like to get more input from other people for guidance. Some I value more than others. Did it occur to you that Chris may want my opinion, rather than that he is intimidated by it as you are making it out to be?

  40. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @44

    Fuck. I didn’t know people were saying shit like that. Sorry. We’ll take a longer break for Riley articles. I for one find them interesting, as well as vile, disgusting and insane.

    Hey Don, you’re a bigot. I’m also high right now. You and your insane theocratic homophobic pro-police state pro-drug war extremists can go to hell.

  41. paulie

    Yep, contrary to what langa says, my advice was mild compared to some people’s.

    Also, aside from whether you should be posting articles as part of a mission to bring down the CP or not, I don’t think it would work. I don’t believe IPR has that big of an impact on the whole national party. Whatever will happen to them in terms of growth and decline will happen for the most part with or without IPR; let’s not exaggerate our role here.

    It would be better to stroke the fires of hate less. But that is just an opinion and that’s all it is.

  42. langa

    I am a believer in a laissez faire approach, not only with regard to the economic marketplace, but also the marketplace of ideas. Whenever I see an article that I don’t like, I choose to ignore it. I don’t read it, I don’t comment on it, and I certainly don’t chastise whoever posted it. I wish more people (particularly people whose opinion carries a lot of weight around here) would do the same, but that’s their decision, and not mine.

    So, from now on, if you all want to engage in some elaborate form of central planning about exactly which articles are worthy of being posted with exactly which frequency, go right ahead, and I won’t complain at all, since such complaints would obviously be a waste of time.

    Right now, it seems the prevailing sentiment is apparently that IPR has too much controversy, and too many arguments. Personally, I enjoy a bit of heated debate from time to time, but evidently, many here do not, so have fun with all the press releases by the Party for Socialism and Liberation about how capitalism is The Root Of All Evil (surely as silly as anything Hood has said), along with the latest gossip about whether so-and-so should lose their spot as an At-Large Delegate to the LNC because they violated some esoteric bylaw (I’m sure Phillies will be around with his newsletter to give you all the latest dirt on such matters).

    If this is what IPR is to become, I will simply have to find some other source of amusement. No big deal. Carry on as you wish, and may all your days be free of nastiness, controversy, and name-calling, of which I am apparently (much to my surprise) a prime source. Who knew?

  43. paulie

    You haven’t been all that nasty at all, I’m not sure where you got that from.

    I do like some controversy myself, but there’s a point where the nastiness gets to be excessive and feeds on itself.

    We always have had a mix of different kinds of articles and comments at IPR, and hopefully will continue to do so.

    We try to balance what different people want as best we can.

  44. langa

    You haven’t been all that nasty at all, I’m not sure where you got that from.

    Well, comments 44 and 45 both seem to suggest that the Hood controversy, of which I have certainly been a major participant, has been responsible for producing an unacceptable level of “nastiness”, though that was certainly not my intention.

  45. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @45
    “It appears to me that this site is imploding. All the nasty posts for and about Hood as well as Grundmann are just over the top. If Warren does not step in he could lose his investment.”

    NF, I have to disagree with you. The vast majority of the articles aren’t really “controversial” (like Hood’s insane ramblings, for example). There’s a ton of legitimate content I’ve posted that’s not like this. I think that goes without saying. However, it does concern me greatly, like with what Jill said above, that IPR readers are either considering leaving or have already stopped frequenting the site because of the CP related stuff I’ve been posting recently. Personally, I enjoy the CP related stuff more than anything else, because there party is literally brimming with wackos, psychos and nutjobs. However, this is a personal reference, and above all else, I do want quality content that readers will enjoy and I want IPR’s audience to be here to stay.

    So, Paulie made a great point with publishing no more Riley Hood stuff for the month of June. I’ll do that.

    Paulie, Jill and anyone else: please feel free to send me tips, suggestions and advice anytime, about anything relating to the articles and IPR. Message me on Facebook or email me clesiak522@gmail.com. I will take content and post down if need be and adhere to all suggestions, especially Paulie and Jill. If there’s something you don’t like, or feel hurts IPR and its credibility, let me know as soon as you can. I want IPR to grow and be successful long into the future. If I am inadvertently hurting the achievement of these goals, then I’ll make sure to correct what I’m doing wrong. Let me know. Like I said before, I’ll delete articles if need be.

    Anyway, CP related stuff I’ve been posting recently is probably best suitable for the Indpendent American & Constitutional Review (IA&CR), a new site that Cody, Josh and I are running. IA&CR is a dedicated to following right-wing and constitutionalist third parties in the U.S.

    Check out the site:
    http://iacreview.blogspot.com/

    If you can, like our Facebook page:
    https://www.facebook.com/IAandCR

  46. paulie

    I usually prefer to make suggestions public so other people can chime in on them too. A couple of people have asked me not to criticize their articles in public (actually Cohen was the only one I remember pitching a fit about that…maybe someone else too) so if that’s your preference I can work with it.

  47. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @56

    Nah any way you can get suggestions across is great, including the public domain. I believe in transparency, so of course keep on commenting with tips and ideas and such.

  48. Murphy Slaw

    “Right now, it seems the prevailing sentiment is apparently that IPR has too much controversy, and too many arguments.”

    There’s a difference between controversy and political arguments and straight up hatefests and flame wars. Try to maintain a balance between bland and boring on one extreme and ultra-vitriolic and equally boring on the other.

  49. Murphy Slaw

    Just find a happy medium, between toxic sludgefest and vanilla snoozefest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *