He didn't get married until he was 40. That's really late. Now, he's a devout Catholic, so you know he didn't have sex before he got married (at least not heterosexual sex).
He married a (female) partner at a major law firm. My wife is on the cusp of partnerhood and I never see her. I don't think that my parents had sex after my dad made partner (don't try to tell me otherwise). You think that they have sex?
He has kids, therefore he must have had sex with a woman? Nope. They're adopted.
Possibly most damning: He played Peppermint Patty in his school play. That's totally gay. And cross-dressing.
posted on August 8, 2005 04:28:48 PM new
From today's WSJ - James Taranto's column.
'D' Is for Bigotry
Last week we noted that posters on the Angry Left Daily Kos Web site were specuating that John Roberts's 4-year-old son was gay.
===============
A poster on the Daily Kos, a site as influential on the left as it is deranged, wrote (ellipsis in original): 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.
Another poster wrote that Roberts's son "is probably gay," explaining that "extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children." Jack Roberts is 4 years old.
It turns out other Kos posters are speculating that Roberts himself is gay. Here's the "argument" someone called "ceolaf" makes:
He didn't get married until he was 40. That's really late. Now, he's a devout Catholic, so you know he didn't have sex before he got married (at least not heterosexual sex).
He married a (female) partner at a major law firm. My wife is on the cusp of partnerhood and I never see her. I don't think that my parents had sex after my dad made partner (don't try to tell me otherwise). You think that they have sex?
He has kids, therefore he must have had sex with a woman? Nope. They're adopted.
Possibly most damning: He played Peppermint Patty in his school play. That's totally gay. And cross-dressing.
This may be meant in a jocose spirit, and in any case Roberts obviously isn't gay. But it got us to thinking:
Liberals and Democrats certainly aren't above gay-baiting. Last year Kedwards crudely attempted to appeal to antigay sentiment by proclaiming that Vice President Cheney has a gay daughter.
And as The Weekly Standard's David Skinner notes, innuendoes about David Souter's sexuality flew in 1990, when then-President Bush appointed him to the
Supreme Court:
"This is a man who has never been married, never had children," noted one widely quoted observer, a prominent lawyer who, reported R.W. Apple Jr. in the New York Times, "asked not to be identified because he practices from time to time before the Court." . . . This statement was quoted and alluded to so often that Souter soon became pegged as the Curious Bachelor from New England.
NPR's Nina Totenberg, Skinner notes, called Souter "at best, very weird."
The liberal-left engages in other forms of bigotry as well. A Senate Democratic memo revealed that Judiciary Committee Democrats targeted Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination for defeat because "he is Latino."
And although Clarence Thomas's opponents avoided directly making an issue of his race during his confirmation hearings, these days he is the frequent target of liberal racism, ranging from relatively subtle (Sen. Harry Reid stereotyping him as unintelligent) to shockingly crude (Emerge magazine caricaturing him as a lawn jockey).
And of course as we noted last week, Anita Hill faulted Roberts for being a white man.
Then there's religion. We tuned in to NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, and there was Mario Cuomo sounding for all the world like a 19th-century Know Nothing:
The question for Judge Roberts is, "Are you going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the church says that, you will do it no matter what? You will overturn Roe against Wade."
Manuel Miranda lists other Bush-appointed judges, Catholic and Protestant, who've been subject to Democratic inquisitions for allegedly excessive piety. But being impious affords no protection.
As we noted in March, Sen. Howell Heflin of Alabama explained in 1987 that he voted against Robert Bork's confirmation in part because he was "disturbed by his [Bork's] refusal to discuss his belief in God--or the lack thereof."
Gays, blacks, Latinos, whites, Catholics, Protestants, (suspected) atheists--come to think of it, liberals have a defense against the charge that they're prejudiced: They hate everyone equally.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 8, 2005 04:47 PM ]
posted on August 8, 2005 05:35:16 PM new
It's another double standard, imo, dbl.
They don't expect liberals to answer all these invasive questions....and when republicans tried with ginsberg...she refused to answer them. You watch...IF Robert's also refuses...he lose those votes. But it's different somehow in their eyes. It's not in mine.
Imo, standards/expectations should be the same for all nominees.
And I thought the left was so supportive of all our 'privacy rights'. Well...just look how the liberals are violating Robert's privacy rights...trying to dig into his children's adoption records....now trying to smear him as being gay. And also prying into his religious beliefs. I thought our Constitution said people can't be voted against/excluded because of their religious beliefs. But that's not stopping the liberals....who needs to apply our Constitutional laws when they're out to smear a decent man.
These people are sick....and I mean that seriously. They aren't decent human beings at all....their bottom suckers/feeders....feeding off the waste of people with good character.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 8, 2005 05:39 PM ]
posted on August 8, 2005 05:36:24 PM new
What's funny about the gay son thread, is at the end, like most Dems - they implode and turn on themselves...
"his son is about five or six. 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."
"I found references to your comment on a couple of conservative blogs, one of them was Michelle Malkin's blog."
"Think before you hit the post button! And I'm going to add a 1 to the collection that you already have. Remember that the Democrats are supposed to be a party of inclusion and equality."
posted on August 8, 2005 05:48:31 PM new
Oh no not another gay thread
What is it with Linda's fascination of the gay community.
"It's one thing to research and criticize someone's record, but this whole sub-thread just makes dems look ridiculous."
Just like the Republicans did with the story on McCain's child when he was running for President. I guess the Republicans would rather discredit one of their one.
What about the Republicans discrediting a disabled war veteran - Max Cleland. No proof he was supporting terrorists but it didnt stop the Republicans from issuing a story.
Just proves they will do anything to win.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on August 8, 2005 05:58:03 PM new
The Republicans didn't say he supported terrorism, they gave the truth - that he did not support the Homeland Security bill. Whether or not he was a disabled Vietnam vet had nothing to do with it.
Should they have put his picture up there with Saddam and bin Laden, no - that was the action of his Republican challenger - not the whole darn party.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Caroline
Linda, You know that I don't use poster's comments as a source. How nasty you are to try to leave that impression. My sources are all top notch -- something that you cannot say.
At the end of the comment, that you have provided the poster explained his comments under the heading, "Is John Roberts Gay? (jujitsu)" as satire used to describe "how the right handles democratic candidates." You failed to include his link to a New York Times article describing John Robert's personal history which did not mention his sexual orientation.
You were not alone in misunderstanding his intent. At the end of the reader's comments he added this explanation.
From the poster...
"I know that it's really sad when you have to explain the joke, but...[/b] Folks, this is a SATIRE of of how the right handles our nominees. Some of them do it more blatently, some less, but all my this method. It also is a satire of how the left too often looks at people and potential appointments: identify politics. Of course it doesn't matter if he is gay. Not all women are (what I would call) good on "women's issues." Not all African-Americans are (what I would call) good on "minority issues."Not one part of me thinks that Roberts is actually gay. And not one part of me cares. The big point of the diary is the link to bilmon. http://billmon.org/archives/002044.html Make the right uncomfortable with Roberts by embracing him. That makes "them" clarify his views so that their base is satisfied/mollified. Then, we have something to work with. Jujitsu. Just read follow the Bilmon link.
<<<end quote>>>
posted on August 8, 2005 07:20:15 PM new
oh helen......the one who won't answer questions put to her by me nor by desquirrel.
You run away everything someone asks you a serious questions.
But if you will put KOS in your pretend FBI files....I'm sure that all the posts/links you have made here USING THAT link as your 'proof ' for your argument will defininately surface.
Can't deny you use that site ALL the time. We all know it's true....we've seen it many, many time.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 8, 2005 07:50:14 PM new
I'm too busy to deal with you right now so go play with Ron or Bear or Caroline. If you get bored, you can go bebopping over to Kos and read. Hell, maybe you will learn something, such as how to recognize satire!
posted on August 8, 2005 07:59:41 PM new
Oh yes....that's your MO....always too busy to answer anyone's serious questions. You always find some accuse for not answering.....but still don't when you return.
For crying out loud helen, ANYONE with half a brain cell knows the 'daily kos' is a blogger site. And while you won't acknowledge what MSM papers YOU believe are liberal, you pull crap from this blogging site all the time. Afraid the laugh's on you, helen. With your off-beat 'sources'.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 8, 2005 09:00:50 PM new
it was a swallow no doubt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golfer:Stop checking your watch all the time,its too much of a distraction.
Caddy:Its not a watch, its a compass
Caroline 
like logan has done above.