July 19, 2005

No Enemy Too Small

Perhaps one of the more pathetic early attempts to attack new Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was this gutless attack against Judge Roberts' family by Daily Kos poster mayan:

Did You Catch His Wife

When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack...Roberts' wife's face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.

This was quickly followed by bottomdweller Geotpf:

He's probably gay

Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children...

Judge Roberts has been an official Supreme Court nominee for less than three hours, and progressives are already employing two of their more repugnant tactics:

  1. Attacking a conservative through their family.

  2. Attacking a conservative though sexuality.

In this instance, they combined the two, much as John Kerry and John Edwards did in making an issue out of Mary Cheney's sexuality in their failed 2004 political campaign.

The difference here is that Mary Cheney is an adult.

Jack Roberts is four years old.

Update: And the moonbat party never ends.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 19, 2005 11:58 PM | TrackBack

Typical. Sad, but typical.

Posted by: trentk269 at July 20, 2005 01:21 AM

Well, NBC's "Today" just revealed the truth. Using a different camera angle, they showed Jack fidgiting and "dancing" before being escorted from the room by his mom. No doubt when Justice-designee Roberts mentioned Jack, Mrs. Roberts probably flashed back to that moment. If you have kids, you know what went through her mind. ;-)

Posted by: Sardis at July 20, 2005 07:07 AM

I think Ted Koppell had it first on Nightline, or at least that is where I saw it first.

A perfectly understandable reaction from Mrs. Roberts, and President Bush (who grinned a little when he told John Roberts that he was "glad your family could be here tonight," presumably just after the children were escorted off-stage) as well, followed a perfectly disgusting response from the depths of the progressive movement at Daily Kos.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 08:00 AM

I saw that comment last night too.


Posted by: TallDave at July 20, 2005 10:58 AM

The new biggest sin of the right seems to be being gay. What with all the outings being perpetrated against good men, the left seems to be making a war on gays. Gays are good, but only if they're leftist. I think that's a good way to sum up their position. And if they're not leftists, subject them to the nastiest most degrading attacks that you can.

By the Way, *very* nice new place. I haven't been over here in a while. Lots of great MuNuvians around, between you and Ace, at least. ;)

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 11:45 AM

I have a personal problem with the "if you're conservative, you must hate gays" meme. I've know a lot of gay people over the years, and have included some as among my best friends. Being conservative doesnt' mean you must dislike gays (though obviously enough conservatives do dislike gaysto establish the stereotype).

I also have a problem with the liberal "if you are gay, you can't be conservative without being a traitor" mindset. Conservatives don't happen to be the best party if gay marriage or similar issues are your only real issues. But what happens if you are a Hawkish fiscal conservative? Should you immediately dump an entire party that you agree with 90% with becuase of one issue you disagree with them on?

That is the liberal argument, and it is idiotic, and yet that is the way many militant liberal gays see the world.

We should fight for these 90-percenters, and shouldn't give them up without a fight.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 11:55 AM

You know that the left is going to look for dirt on Jack. How long before they figure out that he is 4?

I'm looking forward to the Libs making utter fools out of themselves in the coming months. Let's middle America (politically) know what idiots the Dems are.

Posted by: William Teach at July 20, 2005 12:20 PM

I have found some dirt on this Jack Roberts. I have it on good authority that he often 'plays' with young children, many of whom are mere infants. He is also virtually illiterate, with almost no formal education. He is supported entirely by his parents, and is known to take frequent 'naps' during the day (surely a sign of substance abuse). When news of his degenerate son gets out, Judge Roberts won't stand a chance.

Posted by: jic at July 20, 2005 12:42 PM

jlc -- Just a few years ago, he was constantly drinking from a bottle and could not control his bodily functions!

Posted by: Robert Crawford at July 20, 2005 01:25 PM

Robert, that is quite enough about Senator Kennedy. Please try to stay on topic...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 01:35 PM

Brilliant Ted Kennedy rip, ConYank!!!

Posted by: Brian at July 20, 2005 01:43 PM

Geotpf is a member of a forum I go to General Mayhem
He's really a devoted Democrat that hates all aspects of conservatives or Republicans.
And alot more

Posted by: ViriiK at July 20, 2005 02:05 PM

Spot on target, ConYank.

Gay conservative here. My political concerns are:
1. Taking the war to the terrorists. I support the invasions of both Iraq and Afganistan.

2. Tax cuts. They work everytime they are tried.

3. Overturn Roe v. Wade and appoint strict constructionists to the court.

I don't care about "gay marriage". I think it's kind of silly. Property inheritance issues can be resolved with contracts.

With my philosophy of government, how could I possibly be a democrat? This is something my liberal friends just can't wrap their minds around. This "conservatives hate gays" mentality is tiresome.

Posted by: Bald Eagle at July 20, 2005 02:05 PM

RobTBCS has a good point.

I often wonder why there is no concern for that "Right to Privacy" used to justify abortion and condemn Sodomy laws when the subject is a Conservative. Seems like clear hypocrisy to me.

Posted by: OBQuiet at July 20, 2005 02:22 PM


u cannot b serios!

Posted by: unknown at July 20, 2005 02:28 PM

Unfortunately, it appears that "attacking a conservative thru sexuality" (even some else's) is acceptable practice...

Gay Activists Call For All "Out" Attack?

Posted by: California Conservative at July 20, 2005 03:50 PM

Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.

Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.

And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.

Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.

Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops—filibuster and everything—to stop such a nominee.

Well, not quite. The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993.

President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.

(The source for the information in the second through fourth paragraphs is “Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project: The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law,” co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brenda Feigen Fasteau in September 1974. The information in the fifth paragraph can be found in the transcript of Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing.)

Posted by: IraqvET at July 20, 2005 03:56 PM

Well, while liberals are soooo senstive about sexuality, it's fair game for them to use it as a weapon. Like Ted Kennedy proves, liberals can get away with murder.

Posted by: TexanPatriot78 at July 20, 2005 04:03 PM

I heard that he wets the bed too. Oh wait, that's John Kerry...!

Posted by: Paulie at July 20, 2005 04:04 PM

Fine forum Con Yank! Fine forum.

Posted by: TexanPatriot78 at July 20, 2005 04:04 PM

Confederate Yankee: I have a problem with the whole "If you think homosexual sex is wrong then you don't like gays" meme. I think divorce, suicide, praying to saints, and gay sex are wrong. This does not mean that I dislike divorced people, attempted suicides, Catholics, or gays.

Is it really so inconceivable that one might disaprove of another's activities without disliking (or, more commonly, "hating") the person?

So, I disagree that "enough conservatives do dislike gays to establish the stereotype". Rather, enough conservatives think gay sex is wrong and enough people interpret that disaproval as hatred to establish the stereotype, which is completely unjustified by the facts.

Posted by: Doc Rampage at July 20, 2005 04:19 PM

The kid is four years old.
It was past 9pm.
I'm sure well past his bedtime.
The disgusting comments that resulted from his childish fidgeting shows an obvious [void] in their understanding of children, in any respect, i.e., see the left's failures in public education.

Posted by: OhioMags at July 20, 2005 04:56 PM

Confederate Yankee: The "traitor" bit is always a bit... well... I don't know how to say it. Too knee-jerk. No set of people can be simplified that much. On the other hand, I always get a chuckle out of my favorite statement "I'm not racist/homophobic, I have black/gay friends." (Though you didn't say that, because it directly equates having friends of a certain sort as disproving a certain negative quality, instead of offering evidence. If you get me)

Bald Eagle-- you hit the nail on the head w/ the gay marriage deal. I often see many people justifying it because of the legal advantages. I think to myself... wouldn't it be simpler just to modify the current laws about, i.e., hospital visits if need be or, oh no, write a will or contract of some sort, rather than redefine marriage. Oh well, kudos to you there. It's eminently reasonable.

Doc Rampage-- Good thing you don't dislike Catholics. ;) And since you said perfectly what I think about the unfair stereotype of conservatives hating gays, I'll leave it there.

What a can of worms I've opened!

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 05:08 PM


God bless you; we need more like you.

Posted by: DaveP. at July 20, 2005 05:10 PM

Terrific piece! I couldn't figure out your trackbacks, but I linked!

Posted by: The Anchoress at July 20, 2005 05:29 PM

As a straight conservative who supports civil marriage rights for homosexuals (preferable done on a state by state basis through referenda), I do wonder about the Left's new anti-gay stance.

I also wonder what they think abot this:

They were 18 years old -- their only crime was being homosexual.

Posted by: Blue State Conservative at July 20, 2005 05:35 PM

hey ! i'm a gay guy (who was once a child too - gasp !) and my first reaction at seeing that cute photo was that the kid may very well be gay. you often hear about how we were just 'the best little boy in the world' .. bright, inquisitive, and always ready to perform. my mom always said of me as a child "he was always dancing and singing" ... and i still am !
i fail to see how that's any kind of a put-down.
lighten up, folks !

Posted by: el polacko at July 20, 2005 07:17 PM

Jack also sleeps with stuffed animals - precursor to bestiality?

Posted by: Kathlene at July 20, 2005 07:18 PM

I know the people on the left feel better about using the termprogressive than liberal,but can someone tell me if there is any difference in the views of the two groups?Or is it like saying "pre-owned " instead of "used" for a car.
I'm actually serious;I do no there are differences between "neo-con" and conservative ,but I suspect progressive is just a mimicry(Viceroy and Monarch butterfly) for a form of protective coloration.

Posted by: linc at July 20, 2005 07:35 PM

He was also seen masticating the the lunchroom of a pre-school. The KOS should run with that.

Posted by: moptop at July 20, 2005 07:54 PM

"Jack also sleeps with stuffed animals - precursor to bestiality?"
Kathlene, you made me snort! An eminently quotable sentence. ;)

linc-- progressive is mostly the same thing, I think. It's a positive way to say what we've all come to know (and hate) as liberalism without the stigma currently engendered by that word. It's a shame too, because liberalism once meant something good! Right now, I wouldn't let them trade liberalism, although I'd like to reclaim it, because the power of words could easily be lost. Oh well, you didn't ask to hear me bloviate, so I'll clam up now. It is my understanding that it's basically the same thing.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 08:07 PM

There is no such thing as a "progressive" They just use to term because these losers are too afraid to tell the truth. They know that if they tell anyone outside their little box that they are liberals the game is over.....
The liberal solution to this unruly child would undoubtedly be counseling and a good dose of Ritalin.

Posted by: LJS at July 20, 2005 08:40 PM

Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children...

And, according to the liberal belief system, this is a BAD thing? Hmmmmmm...seems like a bigoted statement to me...

Posted by: gerryg at July 20, 2005 08:56 PM

Interesting...just stumbled onto this site, read the two comments about the mom's shift in facial expression (your program won't let me type the word "P*ker" !) and a joke about little boys who burst into dance for whatever reason wherever the spirit moves them... and thought the postings were a funny, sort of insider joke between two gay guys on the message board... then read all the TOTALLY opposite perspective some of you folks have taken on this... like the other guy said, lighten up, y'all! Use more emoticons, or something!
Unless this is an EXTREME IRONY message board.. in which case, nice job!

Thanks for the tidbit. Bye!

Posted by: Lil Gilbert at July 20, 2005 09:31 PM

So let me get this straight (no pun intended).

Pretty much every conservative on this board thinks the Dkos poster was SERIOUS about doing "opposition research" on a four-year-old kid?

Jesus Fucking Nailholes, can you really ALL be as dumb as Michelle Malkin looks?

Get a sense of humor, ya fuckin' retards!

Posted by: Jerky at July 20, 2005 09:57 PM

Try again, Jerk.

Kos' readers were quite serious. They just didn't know the kid was only four.

And yours is a pathetic attempt to mask your compadres' ignorance using the "just a joke" method.

Posted by: Juliette at July 20, 2005 10:25 PM


It was quite obvious that the Kos Kids weren't bright enough to find out how old Jack Roberts was before they decided to attack his sexuality.

They were deciding on a plan of attack first, and were going to worry about little details--such as whether or not he was gay, or old enough to walk across the street by himself--for later.

They were quite serious, which is why the other posters {such as trillian) felt so ashamed.

They were outed...for fools.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 10:33 PM

This is how division is wrought. You read a couple of posts by a couple of morons in an open thread and immediately attribute it to an entire political wing. I don't equate all Con's with the statements of, say, Rick Santorum. And neither should any of you. Grow up and learn to ignore the village idiots that have learned to type.

Posted by: Peasant at July 20, 2005 10:48 PM

It's good to see that conservatives are nasty too on their blogs.

This story started with everyone being upset by a bunch of libs joking in a nasty way and ended up with a bunch of cons being nasty too.

But really, if you want to know why libs make a thing about repubs being gay, it's because your party and BASE doesn't respect gays at all. Sure you can say, "But some of my best friends are gay." but when it comes down to it the repub BASE thinks they are sinful people and don't want anything to do with them. That's a shame.

Posted by: knoxlib at July 20, 2005 10:51 PM

Not to rain on your liberal bashing party here or anything, but I suspect it was a joke. Not a very good one to be sure, but likely a joke.

As for the "attacking a conservative through his family" as the original post suggests... Please! We learned that stuff from you guys and we'll never be as good at it as you are. Take a bow.

Now, as you were. Continue your antics.

Posted by: David at July 20, 2005 10:53 PM

"Completely unjustified" Doc Rampage? BULL, try being a gay man in a room of conservative "christians" , you'll learn soon what hate really is. Try telling those who have been beaten and killed by conservatives that it is an unjustified stereotype. It's totally justified, it's a fact. It's also a fact that it does not describe all conservatives or all who call themselves Christian.

And if you're so worried about stereotypes why don't you confront the amount spewed by the "conservatives" on here. The dancing kid is probably more mature than most who have posted here.

Posted by: David Rowe at July 20, 2005 10:56 PM

Actually David, the most homophobic single social group I know of are black men--a demographic that votes over 80% Democrat.

I invite everyone to read the entire Kos post. It is quite obvious that posters mayan and Geoptf were quite sincere at the time they made these comments, which was made more apparent as another poster, the previously linked trillian said:

Maybe you should shut up about things you know nothing about.
It's one thing to research and criticize someone's record, but this whole sub-thread just makes dems look ridiculous.

Trillian was right. To pretend otherwise, and to try to play this off as a joke is revisionist.

Or would you prefer "reality-based?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 20, 2005 11:05 PM
I have a personal problem with the "if you're conservative, you must hate gays" meme. I've know a lot of gay people over the years, and have included some as among my best friends. Being conservative doesnt' mean you must dislike gays (though obviously enough conservatives do dislike gaysto establish the stereotype).

James Lileks said it best, I think, when the Kerry-Edwards campaign decided to go after Mary Cheney:

"So the Cheneys have a gay daughter. OMG! I go to church, ergo I should hate the Cheneys for not putting her under wooden planks and pressing her death with stones, old-skool style! This is truly upsetting to me, because as someone who believes in a permanent reduction in capital gains tax and a strong military posture I must ergo obviously stands-to-reason rear back in horror at the very idea of gay people walking around freely instead of herded into camps and made to sew pink triangles 18 hours a day. Kerry was right to expose this festering obscenity! What if she visits the White House? What if she touches the silverware? Icky icky icky!"

Posted by: Voice of Reason at July 20, 2005 11:36 PM

But don't you realize that there are fools on both side of the fence? Do you take into account that there are certainly Republicans that say/post offensive things? No, Con Yankee, you and the Coulter/Malkin sects will only always play the game of "Oh yeah? well your guy said THIS!" and try to appear to be a little less ridiculous than the other side.

Posted by: Peasant at July 20, 2005 11:50 PM

Little boy...four years old...can't stand still...sounds like he had to "go #1" to me.

Posted by: JAS at July 20, 2005 11:58 PM

I'm quite aware conservatives say and do stupid things on occasion, Peasant. We just haven't turned it into a lifestyle.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 12:07 AM

I'm a liberal, and I know that qualifies me as a retard from the get-go in your book, but let me just say that anybody who tries to label the sexuality of a fucking four-year-old at all is sick.

I have come to expect this kind of bullshit from both sides of the aisle, and it is sickening. When I saw the pics of Roberts' son breakdancing, I was thinking what Michelle Malkin was thinking: I could picture my son doing the same thing, and it made me smile.

Then, I hear the "people" over at DailyKos trying to criticize Roberts over it, and looking for something to latch onto.

From my perspective, that of a liberal (? I don't even fucking know any more if I want to be associated with sick fucks like that), I find their behavior repugnant.

Why does everything have to turn into a smear campaign?


Posted by: ~A! at July 21, 2005 12:45 AM

You conservatives miss the whole point, particularly bringing up the Mary Cheney example. Progressives don't think there's any moral issue attached to being gay or being straight - it's conservatives who make an issue out of it. So when conservatives end up being closeted self-hating gays (think the current mayor of Spokane, WA) or have family members who are gay (think Phyllis Schlafly), but continue ranting against gay people, it's only natural that progressives would point out the massive hypocrisy.

Posted by: Rick at July 21, 2005 12:50 AM

Marcos testified at the FEC that (to paraphrase) we welcome people from all areas of political THOUGHT!

Obviously, they also welcome plenty of people who can't think.

Diversity in everything but thought! Airheads all of em. KOS = Kookie Offensive Sick

Posted by: cavy at July 21, 2005 01:05 AM

No, Rick, it is you who misses the point of the Mary Cheney example. Yes, some conservatives are bigotted against gays, just as some liberals are bigotted against whites, and some moderates are bigotted against left-handed Bangladeshis. But ask yourself: why did both John Kerry and John Edwards mention Mary Cheney's sexual orientation en passant during their debates? They didn't bring it up in the context of an accusation of hypocrisy, they brought it up completely in passing. Clearly they were attempting to reach the caricatured caricature in the Lileks post I quoted. They were hoping to appeal to bigots; they were hoping that by reminding Bush supporters of Mary Cheney's orientation, some of them would be repelled enough to withhold their votes. What does it say about politicians when they engage in a naked attempt to stroke the sensibilities of the bigots they claim to despise?

Posted by: Voice of Reason at July 21, 2005 01:09 AM

Ok, so it is extremely obvious that Kerry and Edwards used Mary Cheney as a political tool. They denied her the dignity to fucking be left out of it, period.

Left, right, or center, denying that makes you narrow-minded and short-sighted, not enlightened and elite.

I guess I don't fit anywhere inside the political sphere any more. Damn.


Posted by: ~A! at July 21, 2005 01:16 AM


Not fitting into a neat little pigeonhole is not a bad thing these days.

When the far right and far left are America-haters, self-titled liberals are segregating isolationists, progressives follow the regressive themes of communism and marxism, and today's conservatives are classical liberals, it is enough to make your head spin.

Try to find honorable intellectually defensible ground and make a stand.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 01:30 AM

Not to get off track, but is Dick Cheney about the only guy who talks out the side of his mouth both literally and figuratively? Is it a coincidence that his name is also decriptive of him in the literal and figurative sense?

...point being, anyone can snipe. Anyone can pull the rotton apple from a barrel and declare the whole lot spoiled.

Regarding Roberts, we shall see. Based on what I know, I would vote him down, but I'm not closed minded about it. You see, in many ways I am a "liberal"; my mind is open to new evidence.

Posted by: chadwig at July 21, 2005 01:31 AM


Personally, I'm still trying to get background on the guy before I make a decision on whether or not I am going to oppose him.

Anyone see Iran hang a minor yesterday? Where is that? Why isn't that all over the MSM? I mean, I don't want any more war in the world, but things are getting nuts.

No matter what we say about human rights, and no matter what people say about US human rights, I have yet to see a gay man hanged for being gay.

So we're still ahead of the middle east. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is Saudi Arabia's Royal Family, Iran's government, people who abuse women and deny human rights to other people.

Jesus, I sound like a Republican. I need a drink.


Posted by: ~A! at July 21, 2005 01:45 AM

I support Jack's right to enter into a same-sex marriage.

Posted by: jules at July 21, 2005 06:14 AM

To Rob: How is it a war on gays by the left to point out the hypocrisy of the closet type who fights against the openly homosexual? Some creative thinking you got going there. And calling those that were outed "good people" is also a real creative stretch. In most cases outing occurs because the person is waging war AGAINST their own kind or is exhibiting deeply hypocritical public behavior. So.... "good?".

If you attack, you have to expect to get hit back. I'm really surprised that on a conservative blog you people aren't getting that. You're the masters of "attack" politics. Just ask Rove, Coulter, Limbaugh, Bush, etc...

for instance. you have all these comments indicating that leftists hate gays or think it's bad to have a homo child. Don't know where you're getting that from... Unless you're misinterpreting jokes about the right wings inability to deal with the topic without sounding like hateful Jesus freaks.

(Not that Jesus wouldn't weep at the way his name got coopted by the extreme right wing -- but that's another story)

And it's interesting to see Cheney brought up as in 'those poor Cheneys being attacked by liberals'. Mary Cheney is an out gay woman whose father is the vice president. How is she suddenly entitled to privacy about her lesbianism? She was already out. She herself made her gayness public. Personally I also felt the Edwards bringing it up was awkward at best --but the Republican discomfort with it being brought up at all, despite being public knowledge, shows the right wing discomfort with the topic.

I personally hope that no homo children are born to right wingers of any sexual persuasion --if only to spare them from future pain and suffering. Even if their parents are gay conservatives: Who wants a parent that cares (as Confederate Yankee suggests) more about fiscal matters than their own child's civil rights? Not that all Dems are homo-loving of course... but the odds are better.

You all need to get a sense of humor if you think people are trying to "out" a 4 year old. It's called a joke. Dancing 4 year old = funny.

Posted by: Nathaniel R at July 21, 2005 07:04 AM

It is obvious that mayan and Geotpf are conservative provacateurs.

Quote some "leftist" saying something outlandish and then get the conservative minions to condemn it over and over.

How very Rovian!

Posted by: US Labor at July 21, 2005 07:22 AM

A Kos reader here.

I just wanted let you guys know that these comments are not representative of the Kos community as a whole. If want to take the time to follow the links you will find that using our ratings system that these commentators where hammered pretty hard and I would guess that if they keep it up they would eventually be banned from the site.

Posted by: marcus alrealius alrightus at July 21, 2005 07:38 AM

This whole thread reminds me why I have decided to take a step away from party politics and actually look at the real problems in my own life. Again there are factless accusations from both sides, full of hate and venom and little else, all the while the politicians themselves are screwing you both over. They pass draconian laws taking your `freedom` and you just sit and bicker on the web.

"I think the puppet on the left supports my views"

"I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking"

Government is the shadow cast by big business onto the people.

You are all arguing about the shadow...

Posted by: Sensibl3 at July 21, 2005 07:48 AM

Just another sign of the mean-spiritedness that is a defining feature of the American left.

Posted by: Jim O'Sulivan at July 21, 2005 08:13 AM

wow - how desperate are you people to start quoting posters to blogs as being indicative of ANYTHING? do you really want to start that low a level of discourse because I promise you - both the left and the right have commenters who are idiots.

Posted by: j. bryant at July 21, 2005 08:15 AM

Seriously, I think Jack may be struggling with ADHD, at best, or PDD, at worst.

I noticed some mild stimming, often more pronounced in less affluent children, who can't obtain good professional help. He's probably in an excellent behavior modification program, so it's harder to notice.

As the parent of a PDD child, I saw what looked like the "war - weariness" of the special child parent, as opposed to "I went through _____ (fill in the blank) hours of labor for this?

Posted by: Frank DiSalle at July 21, 2005 09:07 AM

"Neocon" is a liberal code word to reference Jewish conservitives.

Posted by: Don at July 21, 2005 11:09 AM

"Quote some "leftist" saying something outlandish and then get the conservative minions to condemn it over and over..."

...and watch the left-wing fruitcakes fall over each other rushing to the defense of the was just a guys are worse...I think he might actually be gay, so what's the problem?...

God, I say God Awmighty, liberals are so-o-o-o stupid!

Posted by: unclefrankie at July 21, 2005 11:27 AM

So, two anonymous posters to a blog make some crass comments about Roberts' family and that means all liberals and progressives are resorting to such tactics? I suppose you never watched Rush Limbaugh's skewering of Chelsea Clinton when her father was President.

Posted by: Brian Ragle at July 21, 2005 12:40 PM

"To Rob: How is it a war on gays by the left to point out the hypocrisy of the closet type who fights against the openly homosexual? Some creative thinking you got going there. And calling those that were outed "good people" is also a real creative stretch. In most cases outing occurs because the person is waging war AGAINST their own kind or is exhibiting deeply hypocritical public behavior. So.... "good?"."

See, that's exactly what I don't like... "AGAINST their own kind." Sexuality isn't the defining characteristic of every person on earth, and it's frustrating how that seems to be the only important thing anymore. Aren't human beings more than just their sex drive? They become a 'traitor to the race,' so to speak, because they don't have the same beliefs as other gays. They obviously believe that being conservative or Republican or whatever is the best for their interest if they're supporting such candidates. I'm surprised you wouldn't want them to decide what's best for themselves. Yes, they may honestly think supporting such candidates is in their best interest, as hard as that is to believe for you.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 21, 2005 12:52 PM

"So, two anonymous posters to a blog make some crass comments about Roberts' family and that means all liberals and progressives are resorting to such tactics?"

Brian, equally repugnant posts are available all day, every day on the major mainstream liberal blogs and message boards. Not fringe boards, mind you, but the mainstream of liberal web sites.

I think psychologists call it "projection."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 01:21 PM

You libs are pathetic.

Posted by: Dan at July 21, 2005 02:27 PM

WOW... don't you guys get it?

For every crazy thing idiots on the right say, the goobers on the left do the same, and vice versa. NEITHER side can take ANY kind of moral high ground here. BOTH sides have the same amount of dipwads.

For every liberal that wants to protect the rights of a loser living off of welfare there's a conservative that wants to dump chemicals in every natural body of water in the name of big business.

The only sensible thing is, in general, to be middle of the road. But both sides love to point at the other and say "See? See? THOSE guys are the mean ones!" It's just not true, and it's childish.

Posted by: charcoal at July 21, 2005 05:50 PM

"So when conservatives end up being closeted self-hating gays (think the current mayor of Spokane, WA) or have family members who are gay (think Phyllis Schlafly), but continue ranting against gay people, it's only natural that progressives would point out the massive hypocrisy."

It's good to have no morals - then you can never be called a hypocrite, right?

Posted by: PDXCon at July 21, 2005 06:19 PM

Re who's gay. I think the jury is also out on Dubya. Remember he "was" a cheerleader, at that bastion of famous closet queens YALE (see W. Buckley, etc.) and he had skinny arms and didn't get married until his mother insisted. Ergo: Gay! Not that there's anything wrong with it. :)

Posted by: Jon at July 21, 2005 06:34 PM

Well crap, Jon, I'm still skinny, lived with my folks, and dated a cheerleader, so I guess I'm gay, too.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 07:01 PM

For those of us that have problems with liberals/progressives let me give you a list of genuine liberals and my take on progressives.
Liberals (alive and dead): Scoop Jackson, JF Kennedy, Roger Simon, Charles at LGF (surprised?), Jeff Jarvis, Zell Miller (who would have thunk), etc.

Progressives are socialists and include most of Kos and DU types. Progressives spent most of the 60's sneering at liberals and then finding that a losing proposition coopted that name and defamed it.

For the record, I am not a liberal either in the classical sense or in the modern usage. I admire true liberals even though I disagree with them on many issues.

Posted by: David at July 22, 2005 09:08 AM

Its a shame that the DU, Kos kiddies and other progressives are so bankrupt that they have to attack a man's family and accuse his four year old son of being a homosexual. You mean he's like being Barney Frank or the Hildabeast?

I gather this is what passes for deep thought on the Left which accounts for their recent impressive showings.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 22, 2005 06:25 PM

man... you guys are WAY off-base thnking that a comment on the fact that the cute dancing kid may possible be gay is either an "attack" OR a "joke".
both views say a lot about your understanding (or lack thereof) of gay folks. talk to some parents and listen to them describe what their gay sons were like as kids and learn.

Posted by: el polacko at July 22, 2005 07:44 PM

Oh gimme a break. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. A whole page to talk about a couple of innocuous comments? Sheesh.

Posted by: Bill at July 22, 2005 10:51 PM

Nobody is actually claiming that Roberts is gay. This is just something that immature left-wing bloggers do for fun. (You can see one of Wonkette's guestbloggers pretending to claim that John Edwards is gay here.)

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf at July 22, 2005 11:36 PM

So, the bad guys here aren't the liberals who attack a little kid and accuse him of being gay (Hilarious! Ha Ha!), just because their parents happen to be prominent conservatives. No, the REAL bad guys are the conservatives who get upset about the attack, express their anger and try to draw attention to said attack.

OK. I get it.

BTW, if these posters are Rovian plants, then I suppose DU and Indymedia must also be phony, supposedly "liberal" sites actually run by Rove.

Posted by: cleve at July 23, 2005 02:13 AM

"Their" should be "his"...

Posted by: cleve at July 23, 2005 02:14 AM

Let's see, the progressives have progressed all the way up to the gutter.....they must have started at depths of depravity unknown to hamanity. I don't even want to look down at where they came from.

Posted by: webloafer at July 23, 2005 10:10 PM

But two things:
I seriously doubt anyone can determine sexual preferance from early childhood. You find pretty much every variance amongst both straight and gay.

Someone here opined that having a friend of a certain type did not preclude you from being prejudiced against that type. I find it difficult to believe that, for example, a member of the KKK could in any way consider him or herself friends with a black man or woman. If you can find one person who is honestly friends with someone of a kind they hate, do let us know.

Posted by: Jachra at August 6, 2005 04:10 AM


Posted by: inuyasha hentai porn at November 7, 2005 11:27 AM