Patterico's Pontifications

7/30/2007

Wonkette: We Wish John Roberts Would Die

Filed under: General,Scum — Patterico @ 3:46 pm

Wonkette:

Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.

B-b-but . . . I thought hate speech was a problem only on prominent righty blogs — not prominent lefty blogs. Didn’t Rick Ellensburg say so?

(Thanks to Michael E.)

198 Comments

  1. That’s in particularly poor taste. :(

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 7/30/2007 @ 3:48 pm

  2. Hey, that’s just an anonymous comment! You can’t hang that on the blogger!

    Oh, wait…

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/30/2007 @ 3:53 pm

  3. Was Roberts a textualist? The text there says “you.” But your headline says “we.”

    Comment by amarc (36ddaf) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:02 pm

  4. Yes, not only poor taste, but poor reporting also. Geez, Wonkette, you could at least get your facts straight you know, don’t let the liberals guide you so much.

    Comment by Deagle (0289b0) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:03 pm

  5. It’s too easy for all sides to forget that we’re talking about an actual person, not a proposition.

    Comment by T. O'Connor (018b43) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:03 pm

  6. I agree with aphrael.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:22 pm

  7. Apparently the same thing happened to Roberts back in ’93 and he just carried on from there. Since the docs didn’t understand it then and don’t now, they’re calling it idiopathic. I wish the best for him (and I wish the bet health for Stevens, Ginsberg, etc too).

    As for the thinly veiled hatred from the Left:

    1. It’s not all Lefties, tho it does represent an unfortunately large consituency.

    2. As with all such hate, it mostly reflects the speakers’ own feelings about themselves; neurotic bunch, aren’t they?

    Comment by ras (adf382) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:23 pm

  8. I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    Maybe I missed that post.

    Comment by Blue Texan (83aa8f) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:25 pm

  9. I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    Maybe I missed that post.

    You did. I have railed about Ann Coulter on this site in many posts, including the one where she talked about poisoning Justice Stevens’s creme brulee. You missed it because you didn’t even bother to search for it. You just smugly assumed the post doesn’t exist.

    Comment by Patterico (4d68bd) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:29 pm

  10. Ah, Patterico, its just so much work to actually figure out your sins. Assigning them from the “right wing blog sin bucket” is so much less work.

    Comment by Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:31 pm

  11. Insty didn’t. And Robertson? Did you blog about that too?

    Comment by Blue Texan (83aa8f) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:32 pm

  12. On the cluefulness scale, citing a wonkette article in this fashion is one step above citing an Onion article as if it were from a serious news source.

    Only a very small step above, but credit where credit is due.

    Comment by bob (404356) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:33 pm

  13. Not good for the Wonkett

    here

    Comment by Jack Moss (f66eff) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:35 pm

  14. Here is the post you missed, Blue Texan. Go tell your hero Greenwald (who never denounces lefty hatred, ever) that this is how to be intellectually honest.

    And then keep moving those goalposts!

    Comment by Patterico (a178b7) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:35 pm

  15. I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    Funny, I don’t remember Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson wishing that John Roberts was dead.

    Maybe I missed that post.

    Maybe you’re ‘missing’ more than a post.

    Comment by Warren (397237) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:36 pm

  16. Insty didn’t.

    Oh for f**k’s sake.

    Comment by Jack Sparks (5dca71) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:36 pm

  17. Lefties really rejoice over death, don’t they? Terri Schiavo, Dick Cheney’s close calls, unborn babies…… they are truly the authors of the culture of death and depression.

    Comment by Amy Proctor (73de8d) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:39 pm

  18. Comment by Blue Texan — 7/30/2007 @ 4:25 pm

    I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    Most of already knew those two are a-holes. Didn’t know about this blogger being one… until now.

    Comment by thomas (8ddf31) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:40 pm

  19. Hmm, I don’t see how I’ve “moved the goalposts.” I asked,

    I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    Note that “Pat Robertson” isn’t the same person as “Ann Coulter.”

    Comment by Blue Texan (83aa8f) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:41 pm

  20. Amy,

    they are truly the authors of the culture of death and depression.

    I wasn’t kidding when I said they project their self-hatred onto others. I think it’s the root of pretty much all their attitudes, which is why debating policy on its merits with them is a waste of time: You seek knowledge; they seek redemption.

    Comment by ras (adf382) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:43 pm

  21. “Insty didn’t. And Robertson? Did you blog about that too?

    Comment by Blue Texan — 7/30/2007 @ 4:32 pm ”

    Yah because Patterico? You are responsible for anything any slightly rightwing-ist person has ever said on the “interwebs’ E V E R. bastard, liar, wingnut!

    Comment by E (7b5950) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:46 pm

  22. Gentlemen, set your watches. Glenn Greenwald should be issuing a fiery condemnation of Wonkette any minute now.
    After all, it’s the principle of the thing.

    We can’t have people salivating over the prospect of dead Supreme Court justices, now can we?

    Comment by Cassandra (57b9d6) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:51 pm

  23. I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    Other than the fact that I have not heard either AC or PR wishing for the death of Roberts, I get what you’re going for here. What you are implying is that anyone, on this site, who denounces the Wonkette blog is, somehow, a hypocrite.

    And that, my friend, is the problem with our public discourse these days. I hate the term, but it’s something you’ll understand, hate speech is hate speech is hate speech. Whether it’s uttered by jerks and morons on the right or left, it still shouldn’t have a place in any part of a rational discourse. Yet, questions such as the one you ask appear to be a defense of hate speech that you may agree with (at least it seems that way).

    When something is wrong, it’s wrong. It isn’t less wrong because that braying jackass AC spreads her special brand of bile around. And it isn’t less wrong because Pat Robertson opens mouth and inserts foot every once in a while.

    Simple fact: it’s all wrong, and I, for one, am quite sick of it. This type of talk is a refuge for the intellectually lazy, the chronically stupid.

    Comment by Eric (9bf7ac) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:52 pm

  24. Amazing.

    Some people just don’t want to be nice at all.
    No matter whether it is ‘only words’ or not.

    Ill will upon another human being will be counted against you in the next life.

    If you have one, that is, Wonkette (and others).

    Comment by Daniel (ff7347) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:54 pm

  25. yah, Patterico, if that is ur real name! Answer
    blu texas! Answer for every f*cking thing p Robertson has ever said! You are such an obvious and cheap LIAR by not! Oh man, I’m tellin ya, clearly BlewTexas is your intellectual supior(*), give up!
    ((*) mis-spelled on porpoise, or “purpose” if you are one of those anti-wet mammal rightwing assmaster jackalopes…)

    Comment by E (7b5950) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:55 pm

  26. Seizures aren’t that big of a deal. They have some really good medication for them now. Most the time they never find the cause of seizures. I began having them when I was 8 months pregnant. No reason found for them. 9 Years later I still have the occasional seizure in my sleep, which is a big improvement over having one while driving.

    Comment by Kelly (0b96b3) — 7/30/2007 @ 4:55 pm

  27. Nah, Patterico isn’t responsible for all those RW utterances responsible, but he is obligated to announce his feelings on each and every utterance. I mean we see that on everyone else’s site: the standard “how I feel about what everyone else said today” section.

    But for the record, I’ll make a $5 wager that Patrick has more posts lamenting Coulter comments than Blue Texan has regarding Michael Moore, Streisand or “Mother” Sheehan. Heck, BT probably disses Coulter less, if you don’t count boogeymen mentions.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:00 pm

  28. It’s not all Lefties, tho it does represent an unfortunately large constituency.

    Please stop the hate! We’re “Bigger Americans”, not “an unfortunately large constituency.” There’s nothing wrong with being fat, dammit!

    No respect. Even here. Just . . . none.

    Comment by bobby_b (6dddbb) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:03 pm

  29. Wonkette are so kewl when they post Jew baiting turds then threaten to sue those who object.

    How edgy!

    Comment by TheGrandMufti (530675) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:05 pm

  30. Every one of you waxing indignant over wonkette’s comment … do yourself a favor and google “wonkette” first. You’re taking something seriously that describes itself as “A blend of gossip and satire and things the author makes up.” Wikipedia will inform you of wonkette being known for “repeated references to gin and anal sex.” It’s slightly more serious than the Onion, and that comparison is being charitable to wonkette. If you don’t know what the Onion is either, then look that one up also.

    You can always wander over to Kos and find some random commenter to froth about. Go on. You know you want to.

    Comment by bob (404356) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:06 pm

  31. Now, here’s a funny post,where BlueTexan attacks republicans for disavowing Anne Coulter.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:06 pm

  32. bobby_b,

    You’re a bigger man than I, sir!

    Comment by ras (adf382) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:07 pm

  33. Oh, I see, bob, Wonkette’s being funny! Why didn’t I see that before, bob? Ha, ha, that’s really funny bob!

    Comment by clazy (ad9d1d) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:09 pm

  34. Wonkette did not write that they wish John Roberts would die.

    They made a joke about their readers wishing he would die, which (were I one of their readers) I would find extremely offensive.

    But they didn’t actually express the wish themselves. Couldn’t you have found one lefty blogger actually expressing disappointment that he didn’t die?

    Comment by lowellfield (a686cd) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:09 pm

  35. Whoever the heck that MacRanger is, I can’t be bothered registering for your site (if you’re here and if not this is a general comment), but damn.

    You referred this to the Secret Service?

    For goodness sakes, why? Don’t you think they have better things to do?

    Poor tastes, yes. Worth referring to the Secret Service? No.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:11 pm

  36. Here is some more Roberts hate from Eschaton

    Comment by Yenny (fd9758) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:12 pm

  37. Blue Texan,

    It moves the goalposts to talk about Reynolds.

    I didn’t know about Robertson’s quote and you have provided no link. If he has said anything similar I’m happy to denounce it; I consider him a fool anyway.

    Provide me one example of Greenwald unreservedly condemning any lefty hate speech. Just one — as I did with Coulter.

    Comment by Patterico (4a6c22) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:13 pm

  38. Of course, Blue Texan aka Instaputz (what an apt choice of name, Blue Texan) hasn’t bothered to denounce Wonkette because she was only joking.

    Comment by DRJ (bea74b) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:13 pm

  39. Wonkette translated: You readers of mine are so naughty! (Aren’t they the cutest?)

    Comment by clazy (ad9d1d) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:14 pm

  40. But Robert’s viewpoints on the constitution differ from the ends justify the means crowd. Clearly he must die.

    Comment by buzz (e09efa) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:18 pm

  41. You moved the goalposts when Patterico said he did condemn Ann Coulter, and you acted like he didn’t do it enough for him to comment on Wonk’s Roberts comment without being a hypocrite.

    Just admit you got owned and move on.

    Comment by Kevin (1c20c1) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:22 pm

  42. [...] Some on the left wish him otherwise. [...]

    Pingback by Keith D. Milby :: blog » Blog Archive » The Lefts Wish for John Roberts (985d5e) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:24 pm

  43. Chief Justice Roberts hits head in accident……

    … and some reports state he was foaming at the mouth shortly there after: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a seasonal resident of Hupper Island, located off Port Clyde, was taken to Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport mid-day…

    Trackback by Brutally Honest (72c8fd) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:38 pm

  44. “I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?”

    How old are you? Didn’t your mom ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

    Wonkette – an immature whiny-ass who needs to get a real job.

    Comment by Dana (9cd9d3) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:42 pm

  45. Ace defines Wonkette perfectly.

    Comment by nk (173e2a) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:51 pm

  46. [...] Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit points us to Patterico, who refers us to a rumor at [...]

    Pingback by Chief Justice John Roberts suffers “benign idiopathic seizure” « Volunteer Opinion Journal (5283cb) — 7/30/2007 @ 5:58 pm

  47. Let’s be honest, if it was Earl Warren or other criminal-loving justice, many of us would be thinking that.

    Comment by Jack (f08c5d) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:00 pm

  48. Patterico,

    Very well stated in #23. If people don’t learn how to use the internet as a means of civil discourse I think any window of opportunity to make it serve that purpose will be permanently lost.

    Comment by voiceofreason63 (3926d8) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:01 pm

  49. “It’s not all Lefties, tho it does represent an unfortunately large consituency.”

    Try this: Stand up to extreme hate speech when you find it on a lefty blog. (I mean a truly lefty blog, the sort Kos would endorse, not a centrist-liberal site like Dean’s World.) Note how many people stand up to support your point of view, or your right to have same. Now note how many shout you down and/or tell you to get lost.

    Don’t know how many of the latter you’ll encounter, but the number of the former will be zero.

    Comment by Mr. Snitch (b1865a) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:05 pm

  50. Why are so many liberals like “Blue Texan?”

    Imagine how much better he’d look right now if he’d said: “You’re right. I made a mistake. I tarred you with a broad brush – and I’m sorry.”

    Imagine if *any* liberals had that simple maturity.

    If they ever figure this out, they’re going to win a lot more elections.

    Comment by PB (df860b) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:06 pm

  51. You’re taking something seriously that describes itself as “A blend of gossip and satire and things the author makes up.”

    I love the lefty ability to justify ANYTHING!

    Ann Coulter makes “a joke” – Hate Speech!
    Wonkette makes “a joke” – Hilarious Humor!

    Comment by Jeff R (e2034f) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:10 pm

  52. [...] left-wing blog comments sections for hate. But none top the editorial remark of the bloggers at Wonkette, who must be jealous of all the attention that the Daily Kos has gotten [...]

    Pingback by Michelle Malkin » Justice John Roberts hospitalized (41113f) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:12 pm

  53. I was wondering in the car on the way home, what will Kos tastelessly crack about Roberts today?

    Wonkette, the most low website of all, beat Kos to it. Will Hillary and Obama kiss up to you now?

    Comment by Patricia (824fa1) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:14 pm

  54. #52
    And your basis for that conclusion is? Wasn’t too long ago Drudge was being criticized by you for his web layout after he criticized you.

    All the sites are in competition to some degree – some more than others.

    Comment by voiceofreason63 (3926d8) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:18 pm

  55. Why are so many liberals like “Blue Texan?”

    Because his behavior is an intrinsic aspect of being a liberal.

    The first part: constant knee-jerk tu quoque replies. Anytime someone posts “Democrats did bad thing X,” their very first reaction is to immediately post “Well, Republicans once did bad thing Y.” Note that the reply doesn’t actually address the original charge – it’s just an elaborate “hey, look over there!” to disrupt the conversation. It also lets them pull out the deadly HYPOCRITE label.

    The second part: absolute purity. A lefty will deny deny deny absolutely any accusation against their side until they’re blue in the face. Even the slightest flaw can never be admitted, lest a chink appear in their armor. If it’s something there’s just no way they can deny, then it either becomes “a right-wing conspiracy” or “a joke.”

    Comment by Jeff R (e2034f) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:20 pm

  56. #55
    Do you really think that is correct? All one has to do in a roomful of Republicans to get a similar reaction is say something about a black-white issue..say “I think there is legitimate reasons why blacks are not in the party” and you will hear the litany of “Sharpton… Jackson… Tawana… Cosby..”

    Each side has its reactionaries. The side that chooses to be self disciplined with these “rogue” elements will be the one the voters are more comfortable with.

    Comment by voiceofreason63 (3926d8) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:24 pm

  57. [...] July 31, 2007 Posted by taoist in Hypocrisy. trackback Before blogs on the left started to hope for the death of John Roberts after his [...]

    Pingback by I Knew It Wouldn’t Take Long « Tai-Chi Policy (30e6a7) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:26 pm

  58. It’s only hate speech when it’s a Republican

    Comment by steve miller (be6a74) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:27 pm

  59. It is really hilarious how the Left has devolved into a case study of projection syndrome. Observers can accurately track the belief systems of “Progressives” by just noting what they accuse their political opponents of believing and doing.

    Politics was much more enjoyable when all of the players were adults!

    Comment by Another Drew (a28ef4) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:36 pm

  60. Can we question their humanity?

    Comment by Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:41 pm

  61. Blue Texan (isn’t he a guest blogger for Greenwald?) hasn’t come up with that example of Greenwald denouncing lefty hate speech yet.

    Anyone care to place bets on whether he will?

    My guess: he will either disappear, or return with more irrelevant bluster — but no examples.

    If I’m wrong, I’ll be shocked. Truly shocked.

    But I’m not wrong.

    Run, Blue Texan! Run like the wind!!

    Comment by Patterico (a2dab7) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:51 pm

  62. Come on Wonkette!
    You must either be a member of the Ultra Conservative Right Wing Neo Con Christian Militia in denial or just plain ole not nice.
    Roberts is a huge mistake in the supreme court along with Aleto, but wishing death on them is being like them.
    Did you ever think this may be God’s way of sending Roberts a message.

    Comment by Mike (852db1) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:53 pm

  63. Why am I not suprised at this typical display of left-wing “sensitivity?”

    Nor am I suprised that the media is describing Chief Justice Roberts as the only one who’s “foaming at the mouth.” As opposed, that is, to Wankette or the Kos Kidz or the rest of the Democratic Party base.

    Comment by Wes S. (e01f28) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:53 pm

  64. “…he will either disappear, or return with more irrelevant bluster — but no examples.”

    He’ll return later though on a different thread after blustering his way through / running away from this one.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 7/30/2007 @ 6:57 pm

  65. Let’s hope that the DUmmies & the hatemongers disgrace themselves as stupidly as the female Wanker just did.

    The Daily Kos will predictably have some wack-jobs saying the same sort of hate speech, and I hope someone calls the Dhimmi-crats on this when they kiss up to the Far Left next week at the Kos Konvention.

    Comment by daveinboca (d0db99) — 7/30/2007 @ 7:39 pm

  66. Unfortunately both sides are correct: accusing the left of bad faith is like accusing a turd of smelling like shit. Not exactly big news.

    yours/
    peter.

    Comment by peter jackson (8e9c0f) — 7/30/2007 @ 7:44 pm

  67. [...] The folks at Wonkette are low-class asses. [...]

    Pingback by Breaking News! : The Sundries Shack (0ae8fa) — 7/30/2007 @ 7:46 pm

  68. It Didn’t Take Long For The Left To Wish Death Upon Chief Justice John Roberts…

    Patterico provided the link to this:
    Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.
    Here is the story behind his fall and I wish him a speedy recovery!

    ……

    Trackback by Right Voices (1466f5) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:00 pm

  69. A vicious, inappropriate remark by Wonkette (whom I do not read).

    Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus (9ad9d1) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:10 pm

  70. Speaking of Blue Texan, “…he will either disappear, or return with more irrelevant bluster — but no examples.”

    Gotta feeling we will meet his sock puppet soon.

    Comment by Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:13 pm

  71. The discrimination I faced as an “epileptic” in the 1970s was much worse than either the symptoms or the treatments. That people think this is something to make a joke over … there are days I’m ashamed to be a member of the human race.

    Comment by htom (412a17) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:17 pm

  72. It would have been the fair thing to do, if you were going to quote this disgusting comment from Wonkette, to point out that this is the only well-known leftie blog that has wished for John Roberts’ death. As far as I know, from the liberal blogs I have seen so far since this story about Roberts broke, no one has said anything like what Wonkette did.

    It truly would have been the right thing to do to point that out, rather than making it seem like Wonkette was representative of what other liberal blogs were saying.

    But that, of course, is exactly why I am not in the least surprised that you did not do that.

    Comment by Kathy (25b12b) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:21 pm

  73. It truly would have been the right thing to do to point that out, rather than making it seem like Wonkette was representative of what other liberal blogs were saying.

    Patterico did no such thing. Hence the post title, which specifically states “Wonkette” and not “Lefty Bloggers”, and the additional mention of “Wonkette” before the quote citation.

    Comment by Joe R. (3c9055) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:36 pm

  74. I guess we have Ann Coulter to thank for the right’s newfound manners.

    Maybe Wonkette’s post will now bring some civility to the humor sites?

    Comment by alphie (015011) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:47 pm

  75. Which is dumber, wishing for the death of a Supreme Court justice, or thinking “Internets” is still funny?

    Comment by Jim Treacher (12ed69) — 7/30/2007 @ 8:56 pm

  76. [...] had the following to say (h/t Paterrico): “Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we [...]

    Pingback by Webloggin - Blog Archive » Justice Roberts Seizure Called No Cause For Concern (a2d188) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:00 pm

  77. Get a grip pat.

    Comment by AF (4a3fa6) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:13 pm

  78. [...] Justice’s future and I therefore refuse to link to them but you can check out their comment here via [...]

    Pingback by Chief Justice Roberts’ Seizure And The Future Of The Court at DailyWrit (e750de) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:14 pm

  79. [...] of course the nutroots goes from straight into hoping for his death. Patterico points to supposedly kinda mainstream “Wonkette.” Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his [...]

    Pingback by Hoystory » Blog Archive » It’s only hate speech when the right does it… (f2fa8b) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:26 pm

  80. The editors of this section of Wonkette are Anna Holmes , Jennifer Gerson and Moe Tkacik. Their bios are at: http://jezebel.com/gossip/welcome-wagon/meet-the-editors-261990.php Note their journalistic credentials. Good liberals all. Haven’t checked Open Secrets to see if they contributed to anyone but it might be a good place to check.

    Comment by Airedale (ad3a6f) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:33 pm

  81. Link found on the same page at Wonkette (which by the way begins: “The Democrats are sad, ineffectual and weak — and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon.”)

    “Richy-Rich Obama Confuses Iowa Working People With His Fancy Lettuce Talk”

    Barry Hussein Obama is not like Regular Americans — you know, the 95% of Americans who aren’t wealthy, good looking, slim and fancy eaters. All the presidential candidates are pretty well off, except for bankrupt Mike Gravel and (allegedly) Joe Biden, so Obama shouldn’t get any special trouble for being a super rich Ivy League elitist … unless he brings it upon himself.
    Campaigning in Iowa this weekend, Obama asked the crowd, “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?”
    He might as well have said, “Anybody here getting their hedge fund portfolios screwed by excessive exposure to these Collateralized Debt Obligations since Moody’s started rebranding Triple A’s?” Iowa doesn’t have a Whole Foods Market, not in the whole state. The cuisine of Iowa consists of Corn Dogs and “funnel cakes,” which are a kind of home-made grease donut rolled in sugar.”

    Dude, have you ever heard of irony? Are you that fucking dim? Of course not. So on to more important issues…
    Bedtime for Gonzo

    When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a “hypothetical situation.”
    But when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed him further, Gonzales declared: “It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.”
    By then, however, the government had been conducting a secret wiretapping program for more than three years without court oversight, possibly in conflict with federal intelligence laws. Gonzales had personally defended the effort in fierce internal debates. Feingold later called his testimony that day “misleading and deeply troubling.”
    The accusation that Gonzales has been deceptive in his public remarks has erupted this summer into a full-blown political crisis for the Bush administration, as the beleaguered attorney general struggles repeatedly to explain to Congress the removal of a batch of U.S. attorneys, the wiretapping program and other actions.
    In each case, Gonzales has appeared to lawmakers to be shielding uncomfortable facts about the Bush administration’s conduct on sensitive matters. A series of misstatements and omissions has come to define his tenure at the helm of the Justice Department and is the central reason that lawmakers in both parties have been trying for months to push him out of his job.
    Yet controversy over Gonzales’s candor about George W. Bush’s conduct or policies has actually dogged him for more than a decade, since he worked for Bush in Texas.

    Comment by AF (4a3fa6) — 7/30/2007 @ 9:49 pm

  82. AF – Dude, have you ever heard of trying to stay on topic?

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 7/30/2007 @ 11:00 pm

  83. Get a grip pat.

    Man, that AF. . . always coming up with a clever bon mot. How is it that he isn’t celebrated in high society right now, just like a Cole Porter of yore?

    Comment by JVW (6a3590) — 7/30/2007 @ 11:07 pm

  84. Jack:
    Let’s be honest, if it was Earl Warren or other criminal-loving justice, many of us would be thinking that.

    Even if this was true, we would have the good taste not to say it out loud.

    Comment by gahrie (56a0a8) — 7/31/2007 @ 12:02 am

  85. # 60 Can we question their humanity?

    Comment by Perfect Sense

    This make me wonder if SC Justices have secret service protection? Sounds like they need it.

    Comment by papertiger (0b0c9a) — 7/31/2007 @ 2:39 am

  86. [...] thanks to Patterico, I learned that our friends on the left were not unanimous in their good manners: Wonkette: Chief [...]

    Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Chief Justice Roberts has a seizure — and Wonkette hopes that it kills him (819604) — 7/31/2007 @ 3:46 am

  87. #56

    Do you really think that is correct? All one has to do in a roomful of Republicans to get a similar reaction BLAH BLAH BLAH

    constant knee-jerk tu quoque replies
    constant knee-jerk tu quoque replies
    constant knee-jerk tu quoque replies

    Comment by Jeff R (e2034f) — 7/31/2007 @ 4:12 am

  88. Interesting how it’s always okay/special/different when lefties do it.

    This from the people who regularly remind us how much more intelligent, sensitive and tolerant they are than the rest of us.

    How can anyone possibly be so full of crap?

    Comment by jblog (bf276f) — 7/31/2007 @ 4:54 am

  89. What is telling is the necessity of the left to use the invectives when making a response.F*ing this etc. Shows a lack of education and being termilogically deficit. Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are their counter point, but I have never read either one wishing the opposition were dead. Isn’t that subtle difference lost on the left?

    Comment by RLH (14b9a1) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:06 am

  90. Wonkette is a for-profit scandal & rumour site by Gawker Media. It is not a liberal/progressive site any more than Perez Hilton or Page 6 are righty sites.

    Comment by not the senator (fd15c9) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:17 am

  91. I’m so sick of both the left and the right pointing out each other’s hypocrisy. Can’t we all just get back to some real Christian values and just start turning the other cheek a little more (alot more!)? We are all Americans, we have much more important issues to discuss and these cute little solipsistic, ad hominem attacks you bloggers wage on each other are serving you readership no better than the mainstream media’s banality and bias are. Shape the heck up, we’re relying on you.

    Comment by I am full of it (07e720) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:18 am

  92. Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson are their counter point, but I have never read either one wishing the opposition were dead

    The fact you’ve never read about something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:19 am

  93. I don’t know what the problem is. You want Osama bin Laden dead, don’t you? If you say so, you’re not accused of “hate speech,” merely a realistic worldview. John Roberts is in a position to harm a lot more Americans than Osama is and has shown an inclination to do it.

    Further, considering a desire for some death has nothing to do with hate. I felt that way about my ailing father at the end of his illness. Even with enemies, it’s not necessarily about hate. I actually like a lot of things about John Roberts. His likely to be disasterous effect on our country is not one of them. I don’t hate him. I want him off the Supreme Court. You are guilty of lazy (or, more likely, dishonest) thinking.

    Comment by TQ White II (ad8366) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:20 am

  94. actually, as the child of a holocaust survivor, i find the right’s sudden interest in (and appropriation of) “hate speech” obnoxious. Hating Dick Cheyney because he developed a wildly unsuccessful and deadly foreign policy is simply not the same thing as hating someone because of their race or religion. Put another way, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to hate Clarence Thomas because he’s an originalist; it’s not okay to hate him because he’s a black man. In practical terms, we all know that hating someone’s policies rarely leads to the same outcome as hating someone because of their identity.

    So keep discussing civility in the blogosphere if you like. But lay off the casual use of the term “hate speech.”

    Comment by lbr (3c6d44) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:22 am

  95. Lbr

    As a child of a victim of hate as your moral authority to pass judgement, you seem to harness hatred as a useful weapon

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (92aae0) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:27 am

  96. Blue Texan,
    I hope you are making yourself feel better, because you just look more an more ridiculous to the rest of us.

    Comment by Red Vermonter (567223) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:28 am

  97. remember something people…liberals live by double standards and are allowed to live by a different set of rules (ie. jefferson’s $90,000 cash filled freezer and he is still in office). The mainstream media will not hold liberals accountable.

    Comment by traceman (ea1310) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:39 am

  98. The fact you’ve never read about something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Comment by Nikolay — 7/31/2007 @ 5:19 am

    So you molest young children, and eat puppies raw?

    I mean, I haven’t read that you do that, but that doens’t mean you don’t.

    Right?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:49 am

  99. As usual, Patterico engages in some out-of-context dishonesty in reporting this comment, failing to see it for what it was, a snark at a very few individuals on the far left who might actually wish this.

    That’s par for the course for Patterico and nothing new.

    Indeed, it doesn’t even make sense, since Bush would simply put another Roberts on the court, regardless of Democratic control – the Senate voted 78-22 in favor of his nomination.

    Thus, to think that anyone on the left believes there is something to be gained by Roberts’ death, much less wishing it, is purposeful dishonesty by Patterico in order to paint the left as being for something they clearly have no motive in the first place to be for.

    Comment by anonymous (b86f0b) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:59 am

  100. liberals live by double standards and are allowed to live by a different set of rules (ie. jefferson’s $90,000 cash filled freezer and he is still in office). The mainstream media will not hold liberals accountable.

    What a nonsense. Democrats worked against Jefferson in the elections — both the party and DailyKos-like grassroots. Too bad he still got reelected. They would gladly kick him out, he’s an embarrassment and his district is safely Democratic anyway. And do you really mean to say that MSM gave Jefferson a pass?

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:00 am

  101. lbr:

    Hating Dick Cheyney because he developed a wildly unsuccessful and deadly foreign policy is simply not the same thing as hating someone because of their race or religion. Put another way, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to hate Clarence Thomas because he’s an originalist; it’s not okay to hate him because he’s a black man.

    It doesn’t matter what the motivation is. Those who hate act the same way no matter what their reason. You have to learn to disagree with someone’s foreign policy or constitutional viewpoint without resorting to hate.

    The people who hated your parents were just as convinced that their hatred was justified.

    Comment by Fco (201cb0) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:00 am

  102. What a nonsense. Democrats worked against Jefferson in the elections — both the party and DailyKos-like grassroots. Too bad he still got reelected.

    Who got him reelected? Space Aliens? Republicans?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:08 am

  103. I mean, I haven’t read that you do that, but that doens’t mean you don’t.

    You’re right, it doesn’t. The only difference is that I, in fact, don’t molest children and eat puppies, but Ann Coulter did call for killing of Justice Stevens.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:10 am

  104. Fco,

    The people who hated your parents were just as convinced that their hatred was justified.

    Right. It wasn’t because they were Jews, mind you. It’s because they were greedy thieves who were destroying the German economy. They were bankers, moneychangers, usurers. They had to be rounded up and slaughtered to prevent them from doing harm to the Volk.

    Ain’t rationalization grand?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:11 am

  105. “But so long as they’re not completely corrupt, lying, war mongering corporate cronies, looks like that House majority is only going to grow. Thanks for lowering the bar, Karl.”

    Patterico has been sucked into the ‘singularity’
    of right wing BlowHoles.

    The Left doesn’t want any of these creatures
    dead, except metaphorically. They become sacrosanct martyrs when they die young.

    We want them to live
    to enjoy the fruits of their labors, but if the
    people insist, they can remove them from office.

    Comment by Semanticleo (4741c2) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:13 am

  106. Wonkette likes the buttsecks.

    No, not referencing her website. Speaking from personal experience.

    Comment by Some DC Manatee Guy (e3b96c) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:17 am

  107. Who got him reelected? Space Aliens? Republicans?

    Sheriff Harry Lee who had a personal beef with the Democrat who ran against Jefferson. And the voter turnout was very low.
    He’s still an outcast in the House.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:22 am

  108. DU response to Roberts
    Another DU response

    Daily Ramble with link-through to Texas Rainmaker who has more.

    Comment by Lord Nazh© (899dce) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:26 am

  109. It wasn’t because they were Jews, mind you. It’s because they were greedy thieves who were destroying the German economy. They were bankers, moneychangers, usurers.

    Right. And their hatred of Hitler was caused solely by their vile nature. See #17:

    Lefties really rejoice over death, don’t they? Terri Schiavo, Dick Cheney’s close calls, unborn babies…… they are truly the authors of the culture of death and depression.

    Since most of the Jews are “lefties”, it’s obviously just the same murderous and vile attitudes.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:31 am

  110. This kind of commentary — wishing someone dead (or in this variant, saying your readers wish someone dead) — is always inappropriate. Left or right, humorous or serious or in between, always wrong.

    Comment by Crust (399898) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:32 am

  111. [...] catches Wonkette in an exceptional display of bad taste.  Watch as all the usual suspects line up to defend her, or – if not – challenge Patterico’s [...]

    Pingback by *Sigh* - Neptunus Lex - The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy. (b4835e) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:41 am

  112. i disagree, fco. i think you dumb down the concept of “hate” to say that hating someone for a policy is the same as hating an identity. after all, one form is excercised in a voting booth, and another is excercised through violence. As a result, to say that all people who hate behave in the same way is disingenous. Or maybe this is just a semantic debate about what hatred means– I am not sure that it is always a negative, even in public discourse. Why can’t there be rational and irrational varieties of hate?

    Comment by lbr (3c6d44) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:44 am

  113. [...] Patterico has a great discussion going on this topic.Last 10 posts by DavidLNAA[L]CP on Duke and VickA twit with a camera is still only a [...]

    Pingback by Snark of the Day: Wonkette | BitsBlog (33ff78) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:54 am

  114. Since most of the Jews are “lefties”, it’s obviously just the same murderous and vile attitudes.

    Tell it to Lieberman, Dershowitz, etc…

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:03 am

  115. i think you dumb down the concept of “hate” to say that hating someone for a policy is the same as hating an identity. after all, one form is excercised in a voting booth, and another is excercised through violence. As a result, to say that all people who hate behave in the same way is disingenous.

    And what is saying that all who hate because of identity do so through violence and that those who hate because of ideology (which is what you mean when you say policy) don’t? Other than completely, entirely, absolutely wrong?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:06 am

  116. Pablo, #114, how is the proposition that most Jews are “lefties” (and IIRC that is backed up by polling data) inconsistent with the fact that some are not?

    Comment by Crust (399898) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:24 am

  117. Why can’t there be rational and irrational varieties of hate?

    Hate is always rational to the hater. Always irrational to the victim.

    As Pablo suggested re: #104.

    Comment by Fco (201cb0) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:27 am

  118. Blue Texan: I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right

    Tu Quoque fallacy

    X said something bad
    But Y did the same thing
    X is excused

    BTW Blue, any chance you have enough principle to condem Wonkette without qualifiers? Typical liberal.

    But I love your “logic”…lets see, if I believe you’ve done something wrong, I’m justified in doing the same to you. Hmmm, I could have alot of fun with that one….

    Comment by Fen (790a97) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:42 am

  119. #55

    What Jeff describes is a trait of narcissism.

    There’s a lot of narcissism among the “progressives”, judging by those who get in the news.

    The diagnostic criteria are five or more of the following:

    1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance

    2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

    3. Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

    4. Requires excessive admiration

    5. Has a sense of entitlement

    6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends

    7. Lacks empathy

    8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

    9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

    Comment by LarryD (feb78b) — 7/31/2007 @ 7:42 am

  120. Pablo, #114, how is the proposition that most Jews are “lefties” (and IIRC that is backed up by polling data) inconsistent with the fact that some are not?

    Good question, Crust. How is the proposition that lefties have ultimately lethal social attitudes (and IIRC that is backed up by the history of every socialist regime ever) inconsistent with the fact that some do not?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:05 am

  121. BTW Blue, any chance you have enough principle to condem Wonkette without qualifiers? Typical liberal.

    Hey, again, what should Wonkette be condemned for? For suggesting that its readers would be so vile as to want Justice Roberts dead?
    Or do you want to condemn Wonkette for wishing Justic Roberts would die? Patterico’s post title is misleading — they did no such thing.
    Also do you think he should condemn Wonkette claiming that John Kerry has joined cult, that Harry Reid is insane and Mike Gravel will kill again?

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:06 am

  122. Hey, again, what should Wonkette be condemned for? For suggesting that its readers would be so vile as to want Justice Roberts dead?

    No, for knowing they would by virtue of them being of the same mind. And for being truthy enough to say so. That is, they should be condemned for that by those who make a grand habit of condemning such things, like the Ellensurg-Wilsons.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:10 am

  123. [...] Tip to Patterico. [...]

    Pingback by Re: Pray for a Roberts Recovery | PAWaterCooler.com (acd9fb) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:11 am

  124. “John Roberts is in a position to harm a lot more Americans than Osama is and has shown an inclination to do it.”

    And people who say things like this wonder why nobody likes them.

    I’m reasonably certain John Roberts won’t be smashing any airliners into skyscrapers or strapping explosives onto children and sending them into crowded markets.

    Comment by jblog (bf276f) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:14 am

  125. It’s not a political issue. It’s an example of using shock value for attention.
    From Ann Coulter to Wonkette, the ‘carnival’ is trying to get as many patrons to its booth as possible.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (95b069) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:32 am

  126. Boy, the Wonkette thing stirred up a lot of heat and very little light–124 plus posts in a very short time.

    I think the Wonkette blog was originally written by a young woman of the sort that gives “silly twits” a bad name. Very light in her intellectual loafers and vapid in the extreme.

    If I’m not mistaken, when the original Wonkette left, her place was taken by a man or a couple of men. They continue in the previous glorious tradition. They manage to “channel” her voice in a pitch perfect fashion.

    Was the Wonkette post in bad taste? Absolutely. The discussion should end there.

    Comment by Mike Myers (2e43f5) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:34 am

  127. I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?

    This is the “WAAAAH! Everbody ELSE gets away with it, why can’t WeEEEEeeEeEEEEeE???” defense. Entirely aside from the fact that “everybody else”
    doesn’t get away with it – examples have been provided of right-wing sites criticizing these two for similar statements – we are all morally responsible for our own actions; because someone ELSE says something shitty doesn’t give anyone a pass for saying something shitty. And anyone, regardless of ideology, can call them out on it.

    Comment by Orion (1f854d) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:40 am

  128. Nikolay wrote:

    You’re right, it doesn’t. The only difference is that I, in fact, don’t molest children and eat puppies, but Ann Coulter did call for killing of Justice Stevens.

    Nikolay, since you have been so insistant that Wonkette’s message was a snark, and not meant seriously, would you be so kind as to post Miss Coulter’s words and tell us why Wonkette’s were just snarky humor, and Miss Coulter’s were a call for an assassination?

    Thanks in advance! :)

    Comment by Dana (3e4784) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:45 am

  129. I think the Wonkette blog was originally written by a young woman of the sort that gives “silly twits” a bad name. Very light in her intellectual loafers and vapid in the extreme.

    And now writing for Time.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:47 am

  130. No, for knowing they would by virtue of them being of the same mind. And for being truthy enough to say so.

    Oh sure, the gossip-mongers at Wonkette just spend days wishing that this guy would die.

    That is, they should be condemned for that by those who make a grand habit of condemning such things, like the Ellensurg-Wilsons.

    Greenwald’s response was provoked by O’Reilly’s crusade to “destroy” DailyKos, which is “just like the Nazis and KKK”. He doesn’t have a habit of going after “hate speech” just for diversion.
    BTW, do you agree that DailyKos should be destroyed? Haven’t seen anything but cheers for this on rightosphere. But mostly it’s just crickets. But OMG Democrats are definitely going to shut down Rush Limbaugh!

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:51 am

  131. Just wanted to let you know that I found a few choice comments from the HuffPo (and yes, this is after Arianna told Sean Hannity “If anybody wishes harm, or death, or any kind of harm to anyone, I will take it down”)

    http://truthmattersfa.blogspot.com/

    Comment by truthmattersfa (88b239) — 7/31/2007 @ 8:58 am

  132. Oh sure, the gossip-mongers at Wonkette just spend days wishing that this guy would die.

    What is the requisite, or shall we say maximum allowable amount of time to be spent expressing such desires?

    Greenwald’s response was provoked by O’Reilly’s crusade to “destroy” DailyKos,

    Gleen(s) have been playing this game for evah, while O’Reilly has been on his Kos jihad for a week or two. That’s like saying that 9/11 was retribution for taking Saddam out, though I realize chronology doesn’t hold much sway in leftyland.

    BTW, do you agree that DailyKos should be destroyed?

    No, I think it provides a valuable service and a great deal of entertainment. I also don’t believe it’s O’Reilly’s argument that it should be destroyed, only that people who want to be POTUS or otherwise be in the favor of sane people ought not be soiling themselves by associating with the not-yet-committed-to-mental-institutions.

    Mental institutions, Nikolay. Might be something you ought to think about.

    But OMG Democrats are definitely going to shut down Rush Limbaugh!

    Oh, that’s not just Democrats, and we’re not just talking about expressing opinions. Now we’re talking about legislation. And Trent Lott comes to mind.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:11 am

  133. Am I seriously the only one to notice that wonkette said “you” and not “we”?

    Comment by amarc (1fb024) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:21 am

  134. amarc,

    Actually, they also said “we.”

    Here’s a thought experiment. Take the quote and imagine that it’s Ann Coulter saying it. Instead of “Roberts” read “Stevens.” Instead of “we” read “I.”

    Now read it out loud, with those substitutions.

    Would that sound like Ann Coulter wishing for Justice Stevens’ death? Or joking about the evil thoughts of her audience?

    In my example, it would be *both*. Nobody would doubt that, in noting how she believed her audience felt, she would really be saying “This is how *I* feel.”

    Comment by Patterico (189c31) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:31 am

  135. Blue Texan has ignominiously disappeared.

    Having changed the subject from a 1) hateful lefty wish for Roberts’s death to 2) a question whether I ever criticized similar comments by righties, Blue Texan got pwn3d by proof that I had. I then asked for examples of Greenwald (for whom he has guest-blogged, if I’m not mistaken) unreservedly criticizing lefty hate.

    Cue the crickets!

    Heck, I’d even settle for an example of such condemnation from the hackish Blue Texan himself. He’s the one who claims that denouncing hate speech from your own side is necessary to show integrity. I proved I have that integrity. Since he can’t possibly show that Greenwald has such integrity, can he show it about himself?

    Cue the crickets!

    Blue Texan, pathetic hack, has been shown up.

    And the funny part is, he brought it on himself.

    Comment by Patterico (1f5029) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:40 am

  136. Or joking about the evil thoughts of her audience?

    If she were to say it, out loud, we would be able to tell whether she was joking or chastising. Whether she was sympathetic or superior to her audience. Whether she was commending or berating. Whether she meant for them to feel bad or good. In writing, on wonkette? we’d have to look at how else wonkette interacts with their audience, what else they have written, to say.

    Do you regularly read wonkette? how did you come to this one?

    I’m sure it helps if “you” becomes “we.” But that doesn’t change that it is not.

    Comment by amarc (6623fa) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:16 am

  137. So if I said:

    I know that you, the readers here, are keeping your fingers crossed that amarc walks in front of a Mack truck so you don’t have to read his tripe anymore.

    You wouldn’t take that as wishing for your death, eh, amarc?

    Comment by Patterico (d75f96) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:23 am

  138. The desperation is palpable.

    Comment by Patterico (d75f96) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:23 am

  139. My goodness. What a thread. And I thought watching cock-fighting was fun.

    Comment by Russell (a32796) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:30 am

  140. You wouldn’t take that as wishing for your death, eh, amarc?

    It would depend on your relationship with your readers. You don’t sound like the sarcastic type. But I haven’t read you that much. Which is why I ask how much you read Wonkette.

    Do you agree that there are ways of saying these words: “I know you wish him dead” that are not sympathetic? I think so. What if I wrote here “justice stevens has fallen, I know you wish him dead.” Those exact same words now have a different meaning than the one you want them to have, no?

    I think those words can have several meanings. You picked one. One that requires that the word “you” mean “we.” And I don’t think you’ve made a good case for why your meaning is the one we should take.

    Comment by amarc (830161) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:43 am

  141. Gleen(s) have been playing this game for evah, while O’Reilly has been on his Kos jihad for a week or two.

    I haven’t read Greenwald’s complete works, but as far as I know, most of his posts on these subjects were in relation to similar stories, like when the rightosphere demanded that the left denounce some obscure crazy troll on Protein Wisdom.

    only that people who want to be POTUS or otherwise be in the favor of sane people ought not be soiling themselves by associating with the not-yet-committed-to-mental-institutions.

    Do you think that Republicans that want to be POTUS should stop talking to Hannity and Limbaugh? The picture mocking Lieberman that was supposed to “finish DailyKos” — you can find dozens of similar pictures on Limbaugh’s site.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 11:07 am

  142. # 103

    You’re right, it doesn’t. The only difference is that I, in fact, don’t molest children and eat puppies, but Ann Coulter did call for killing of Justice Stevens.

    Comment by Nikolay — 7/31/2007 @ 6:10 am

    I’m not disputing that she did. It’s Ann. I put little past her, honestly.

    But your statement was, to put it bluntly, ignorant.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 7/31/2007 @ 11:13 am

  143. I’m not disputing that she did. It’s Ann. I put little past her, honestly.

    But your statement was, to put it bluntly, ignorant.

    In what way was it ignorant? I said “just because you never read about something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”. Is it wrong? Do you claim that only things that you’ve read about exist?
    You are right to say that “the fact that I’ve not read about it doesn’t prove you’re not a child molester”. Theoretically it is possible, though not highly possible — child molesters don’t frequently hang around political blogs. On the other hand, Coulter frequently says outrageous things — such as wishing her opponents would die. “I’ve never heard about that” is not a good way to prove that Coulter didn’t wish this particular person would die.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 11:32 am

  144. As though *anybody* really gives a shit about this man personally.

    What a bunch of grade school bullshit.

    Comment by Angryflower (5c9f66) — 7/31/2007 @ 11:33 am

  145. I hope Blue Texan finds the time to denounce this comment, which is currently hosted by his blog:

    i personally am only hoping for the death of patterico.
    skippy | Homepage | 07.31.07 – 2:17 am | #

    Comment by Patterico (2e0489) — 7/31/2007 @ 12:18 pm

  146. We taking any bets, Patterico?

    Comment by Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/31/2007 @ 12:28 pm

  147. Do you think that Republicans that want to be POTUS should stop talking to Hannity and Limbaugh?

    So now it’s Hannity and Limbaugh? Why not throw Chris Wallace in and make it a trifecta? And while you’re at it, I’d like those goalposts on the 3500 Block of Wilshire, if you don’t mind.

    The picture mocking Lieberman that was supposed to “finish DailyKos” — you can find dozens of similar pictures on Limbaugh’s site.

    Who said “finish DailyKos” and where are the links for those pictures on Limbaugh’s website? And where are the Republican candidates sucking up to him?

    It’s an internet age, Nikolay. Like it.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:07 pm

  148. Doh! “Link it” not “Like it”.

    So, make with the links.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:07 pm

  149. You’re asking for Blue Texan to find someone else’s voice, which is a bit unfair, don’t you think? But be that as it may…

    I’m confused as to how Greenwald criticizing the left for hate speech gives him any more credibility than if Greenwald didn’t.

    After all, if I’m an expert in marine biology, no one would expect me to know specifics of avian biology, except to observe that some principles cross over. Presumably, Greenwald believes the same thing, but his focus is on the right, not the left.

    Or could it be that y’all are just a tetch thin skinned? Or maybe comedy doesn’t land quite as well in the Blogosphere as it does in Blogtopia (© Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo, and yes, Pattsy, that’s the same Skippy that commented at Instaputz!)

    I’d bet money on the latter graf. I’d even ask Bill Bennett to take the short money!

    Comment by actor212 (5dfea4) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:10 pm

  150. @149

    My God, it’s finally happened… a poster more incoherent than Carol Herman.

    Comment by DubiousD (5c5d94) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:14 pm

  151. What drivel! Why hope for what is inevitable for all of us? I suppose that IS easier than Wonkette or her ilk attempting to actually come up with an intellectually honest rebuttal to any of Roberts’ legal opinions. I sentence Wonkette to a lifetime incarceration on the East Coast. [shudder] Now back to my excellent luncheon of carnitas.

    Comment by Californio (b4db1f) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:20 pm

  152. Pablo:

    And where are the Republican candidates sucking up to [Limbaugh]?

    Limbaugh has interviewed President Bush and Limbaugh is one of Cheney’s favorite venues. So Limbaugh is an establishment figure in Republican circles, like it or not.

    Comment by Crust (399898) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:24 pm

  153. @149

    My God, it’s finally happened… a poster more incoherent than Carol Herman.

    … but arguably not as long-winded.

    Comment by DRJ (bea74b) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:28 pm

  154. Boy, I haven’t seen this much spinning and dancing since “Fame.”

    Comment by Paul (8077b1) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:31 pm

  155. Woah, crust.

    Let’s not smear all Republicans with the Limbaugh-lover brush, okay?

    Think of the last 6 years as one crazy, drunken night in Vegas…the party of Lincoln will return soon.

    Comment by alphie (015011) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:32 pm

  156. So now it’s Hannity and Limbaugh? Why not throw Chris Wallace in and make it a trifecta? And while you’re at it, I’d like those goalposts on the 3500 Block of Wilshire, if you don’t mind.

    Did Chris Wallace write a book equating terrorism with liberalism?

    Who said “finish DailyKos”

    OK, it was phrased: “the final nail comes on Monday”.

    and where are the links for those pictures on Limbaugh’s website?

    You can only see the current content on his site, so I can’t give a link to a lot of nasty pictures I’ve seen there. But check out this nice Osama picture. And to think that MoveOn is still being fried for a video comparing Bush to Hitler that was submitted by a user and quickly removed!

    And where are the Republican candidates sucking up to him?

    What do you mean by “sucking up to him”? Guiliani goes on his show regularly. Same for Bush and Cheney. (Or are you out of bounds once elected?)

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:35 pm

  157. Hate speech for me, but not for thee, or something along those lines. It is a felony and torture to flush a Koran, but speculating as to the death of a Supreme Court Justice, President, and Vice President is just fine. Black is white. Up is down.

    Comment by JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:38 pm

  158. I believe the right’s new hero actually crapped on a stolen Koran, JD.

    Perhaps “What can brown do for you” should be the Chickenhawk’s new battle cry?

    Comment by alphie (015011) — 7/31/2007 @ 1:51 pm

  159. # 158

    Two-drink minimum and parking on the roof!

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor (95b069) — 7/31/2007 @ 2:22 pm

  160. Haha, VN,

    How about:

    “Excretion in the defense of liberty is no vice…”

    *rimshot*

    Comment by alphie (015011) — 7/31/2007 @ 2:32 pm

  161. This comes from all those liberals inter breeding within their own family.

    Comment by JamesA. (0cabd5) — 7/31/2007 @ 2:46 pm

  162. Nikolay,

    You can only see the current content on his site, so I can’t give a link to a lot of nasty pictures I’ve seen there. But check out this nice Osama picture.

    What about it? Pretty mild stuff, given the substantive correlations.

    Crust,

    Limbaugh has interviewed President Bush and Limbaugh is one of Cheney’s favorite venues. So Limbaugh is an establishment figure in Republican circles, like it or not.

    One, that doesn’t answer the question I asked, and two, so has Matt Lauer. Is he an establishment figure in Republican circles too?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 3:06 pm

  163. What about it? Pretty mild stuff, given the substantive correlations.

    OK, so you have no problems with pictures painting Bush in Hitler’s likeness? There are some correlations there as well, you know. Or would you say that Osama is just not really evil compared to Hitler?
    And here’s a picture that was to be the final nail for DailyKos. Would you claim that Osama picture is mild compared to that? Are you freaking kidding?

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 3:35 pm

  164. Moby found time to leave the studio again?

    Comment by Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/31/2007 @ 3:51 pm

  165. actor 212 wrote: Or could it be that y’all are just a tetch thin skinned?

    Ho hum…wake me up when you say that sort of thing to an Islamist whining to the ACLU.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (6bc4b2) — 7/31/2007 @ 4:28 pm

  166. Moby found time to leave the studio again?

    Nowadays, Two-hit wonder Moby’s got nothing but time.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (6bc4b2) — 7/31/2007 @ 4:29 pm

  167. OK, so you have no problems with pictures painting Bush in Hitler’s likeness?

    Um, Osama is not the POTUS. You know that, right? Wake me up when Bush starts talking about final solutions.

    Would you claim that Osama picture is mild compared to that?

    Yes, but you’re welcome to explain why you think otherwise.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:43 pm

  168. Patterico: The desperation is palpable.

    Not quite as palpable as your intellectual dishonesty.

    patterico: I hope Blue Texan finds the time to denounce this comment, which is currently hosted by his blog . . .

    I hope Patterico finds the time to denounce every comment that appears on his thread that anyone might possibly find offensive in any context they wish to impose on it, regardless of intent.

    —-

    We won’t hold our breath on that one though.

    Comment by anonymous (1f3e33) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:43 pm

  169. I denounce Greenwald’s failure to denounce the gibberish posted by Andy Sullivan, the inanity posted by alphie, and the malicious lies posted at Wonkette. Until all on the Left denounce this, we will have to assume that they approve of same.

    That is the standard that they have chosen.

    Comment by JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:51 pm

  170. Patterico: You did. I have railed about Ann Coulter on this site in many posts, including the one where she talked about poisoning Justice Stevens’s creme brulee.

    Railed?

    How humorous.

    Calling her comments “tasteless” is hardly “railing” unless you are working from your own unique dictionary.

    Note that Wonkette’s lame attempt at humor qualifies as “hate speech,” but Coulter is just “tasteless.”

    And not a single slam of any of the comment writers for that post who defended Coulter, but plenty for those who “defend” Wonkette, eh?

    More proof of your intellectual dishonesty and you provided the proof yourself.

    Thanks for the link.

    And, btw, please don’t “rail” at me – I don’t think I could stand the blistering assault.

    rail = to express objections or criticisms in bitter, harsh, or abusive language.

    Better stick with “I mildly criticized Ann Coulter when it became apparent that her comments were indefensible to the vast majority of the public.”

    Comment by anonymous (1f3e33) — 7/31/2007 @ 5:57 pm

  171. Is it fair to suggest that the Blue Texan is too embarassed to put his name to his posts, and now is hiding behind anonymous. Coward.

    Comment by JD (26820f) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:03 pm

  172. Wake me up when Bush starts talking about final solutions.

    Wake me up when Democratic party starts talking about killing Americans.

    Yes, but you’re welcome to explain why you think otherwise.

    A stupid rude picture is worse than the one that calls majority party a party of terrorists.
    Seriously, with such comments you’re not worth talking to.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:14 pm

  173. A stupid rude picture is worse than the one that calls majority party a party of terrorists.

    No, it called Osama a Democrat, as opposed to depicting a sitting United States Senator of their own party blowing the President. Seriously, with your complete and total obtuseness, you’re not worth talking to.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:20 pm

  174. No, it called Osama a Democrat, as opposed to depicting a sitting United States Senator of their own party blowing the President.

    And sex is so much worse than murdering thousands of people.
    OK, here’s a perfect inoffensive image for you: a scene a-la Triumph of the Will with thousands Nazis saluting Bush. It would not be claiming that Bush is like Hitler, merely that Nazis are good Republicans.

    Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:38 pm

  175. It would also be passe, thanks to your friends.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:45 pm

  176. Perhaps “What can brown do for you” should be the Chickenhawk’s new battle cry?

    Care to share your military record with us, Alphie? Or will you blame its absence on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? And isn’t “What can brown do for you” a pickup line in your circle?

    Comment by nk (173e2a) — 7/31/2007 @ 6:50 pm

  177. anonymous, you dumb prick,

    So you want to make the issue the vehemence with which I have denounced Coulter?

    You have no idea what you’re asking for, dumbass.

    Tell you what. Put some skin in the game. Show us how you can be humiliated if you turn out to be utterly, embarrassingly wrong.

    Give us your name, or a URL that we can associate with you.

    Do that, and I. Will. Bury. You.

    Otherwise, you’re not worth my time.

    Comment by Patterico (5d11a9) — 7/31/2007 @ 9:56 pm

  178. Malkin has a link to an LGF thread that has the name, phone number, badge number and a phony picture of the cop who arrested the Poopin’ Patriot:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/30/which-of-these-is-a-crime-in-america/

    If you support cops, I don’t think you could support this kind of behavior.

    Comment by alphie (015011) — 7/31/2007 @ 10:43 pm

  179. You’re referring to the publicly available criminal complaint?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/1/2007 @ 12:19 am

  180. I’d say they’re well beyond publishing the officer’s name, which is indeed on the complaint, Christoph.

    Some of the better comments Malkin has linked to:

    #194 faraway

    Ask Det Khan why he considers himself an American Muslim? Does he consider the Caliphate or Bush/Pelosi as his leader?

    #334 Ron(Ron)

    Faisal Khan: A big part of the problem.

    re: #306 zombie

    Do you have a counterpart operative in NYC? The next monthly meeting of the American Muslim Law Enforcement Officers Association (AMLEOA) is tonight, JULY 30, 2007. At 6:00 PM. Vicinity of Masjid Dawaud. At Hadramout Restaurant, Atlantic Ave, Brooklyn, New York.

    Seems like pretty shoddy treatment for a cop just doing his job.

    Comment by alphie (015011) — 8/1/2007 @ 1:38 am

  181. Some of the better comments Malkin has linked to:

    Alphie, you are such a dishonest turd. Where are Malkin’s links to those comments? Hint: They don’t exist.

    And with that out of the way, who died and put you in charge of deciding what is and isn’t a cop just doing his job?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 8/1/2007 @ 5:41 am

  182. Patterico: “Otherwise, you’re not worth my time.”

    Well, now that’s some railing.

    If I’m not worth the time, then why even bother with that comment?

    The truth is, YOU dumb prick, is that YOU picked the post of yours to link to in order to show yourself “railing.”

    If you had better stuff, and who has better access than you to your own writings, then why didn’t you link to that instead of a lame excuse for “railing?”

    You had the opportunity to rebut Blue Texan and YOU either dropped the ball or YOU simply exaggerated your own “vehemence.”

    YOU are the one who referred to Wonkette’s post as “hate speech” after referring to Coulter’s as merely “tasteless.”

    If you don’t have your own dictionary, you have access to the web and can look up the meanings of “hate speech,” “tasteless,” and “railing.”

    Patterico: “Do that, and I. Will. Bury. You.”

    With what?

    Even more links to faux “railing?”

    Now, that’s not worth anybody’s time.

    Patterico: “Give us your name, or a URL that we can associate with you.”

    http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

    Look for “Amendment I.”

    If you need futher explanation . . .

    http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/150376-ebook.htm

    Comment by anonymous (b86f0b) — 8/1/2007 @ 11:56 am

  183. Here’s another:

    http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

    Comment by anonymous (b86f0b) — 8/1/2007 @ 12:00 pm

  184. anonymous is a tool, Patterico. This is a bastardized version of Ellers McElleson’s trick of calling on people to denounce something that someone else said. In this case, the cowardly anonymous takes it one step further, and complains about the degree of condemnation. Pathetic. I still think it is Blue Texan.

    Comment by JD (f44699) — 8/1/2007 @ 12:03 pm

  185. Links to some Coulter rants collected here:

    http://patterico.com/2007/03/03/coulter-screams-for-attention-again-losing-whatever-supporters-she-still-had/

    anonymous,

    I didn’t see anything in the links you provided that requires me to provide a forum for your cowardly and fact-challenged rants. Now that I have provided the link that makes you look even stupider, I invite you to get lost.

    Comment by Patterico (d8ae13) — 8/1/2007 @ 12:19 pm

  186. The anonymous tool is obviously not a Craftsman.

    Comment by Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/1/2007 @ 12:25 pm

  187. Blue Texan/Instaputz was a miserable failure as a guest blogger for Greenwald. It was clear he didn’t know his material and was not accustomed to writing for an audience that was not merely an echo chamber. He is definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic to begin with and it was childs play to eat his lunch. Just check out the awesome depth and quality of his comment section.

    Heh!

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 8/1/2007 @ 1:45 pm

  188. Yeah, Blue Texan ain’t too bright. He does follow in Greenwald’s footsteps, though. It’s a three-step plan:

    1) Try to make the issue about whether the other guy has sufficiently denounced something.

    2) Get that argument shoved right down your throat.

    3) Lie and say the *other guy* started the game of demanding denunciations of hate speech.

    Blue Texan has added a new dimension to the game:

    4) Knowingly host a comment that wishes for the death of a political opponent.

    From anybody but a fringe lefty, this sort of behavior would be considered prima facie evidence of mental illness.

    Comment by Patterico (8da7d4) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:15 pm

  189. In the words of the immortal Doc Holliday, their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    Comment by JD (26820f) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:26 pm

  190. NK: I’ve considered going into the military to become a JAG; my brother, who is career military, has half-jokingly suggested it.

    But I’m a happily married openly gay man; they won’t take me.

    As a result, I find the implication in #176 that DADT is *not* a legitimate justification for a lack of military service to be somewhat disturbing.

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:40 pm

  191. It is a felony and torture to flush a Koran, but speculating as to the death of a Supreme Court Justice, President, and Vice President is just fine

    Both are offensive and rude. Both are legal acts which participation in which suggests that one is unable to engage in civil political debate. Both are behaviors which, I think, call into question one’s adulthood.

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:42 pm

  192. aphrael, on nk’s behalf I plead provocation by a blogroach.

    Comment by Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 8/1/2007 @ 4:44 pm

  193. aphrael #190,

    I was yanking Alphie’s chain, as Robin #192 said. My view of DADT is here.

    One of the finest men I knew was a gay veteran. His mother got Alzheimers and he worked twelve hours a day to have home-care for her when he could have put her on public aid and a nursing home which would have killed her within six months. His worthless siblings did not lift a finger to help. He was killed in a car accident (after his mother had finally passed away). His worthless siblings did not allow his “boyfriend” to attend the funeral (Illinois). I oppose DADT and support same-sex marriage.

    Comment by nk (173e2a) — 8/1/2007 @ 8:43 pm

  194. Hey, this is pretty cool. All I have to do is mention Blue Texan in a comment (I wouldn’t waste my front page on this crap) and it shows up on his blog.

    It’s like having a ventriloquist dummy — except that this dummy is dumber than your average dummy.

    HEY INSTAPUTZ READERS! LISTEN UP! I want to provide an example of what a dishonest individual it is who writes the Instaputz blog.

    He asked me if I was equally outraged when Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson made comments about Supreme Court Justices. In fact, he snidely assumed that I hadn’t said anything about either. Then he looked like a total idiot when I shoved that right back in his face, and he has spent days trying to recover.

    Because, you see, I did express outrage when Ann Coulter made similar comments. And I have consistently criticized her on this blog. I have ranted against her here, here, here, here, here, and here.

    As for Robertson, when Blue Texan/Instaputz asked me about him, I said:

    I didn’t know about Robertson’s quote and you have provided no link. If he has said anything similar I’m happy to denounce it; I consider him a fool anyway.

    Now look how your honest Instaputz characterized my answer:

    I know it sucks for you Putzerico, but the only answer to my question, “I’m sure you were equally outraged at Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson suggesting the same thing, right?” is: no.

    No lies. No trying to do anything. A simple yes or no question. Everyone can read. And it was a big no. Thus exposing your outrage as the phony variety.

    Instaputz is a huge liar. I have expressed outrage at Coulter and think Robertson is an idiot whom I would denounce in a second. Instaputz just flat-out lies about my reaction. Because he is a lying liar who lies.

    He is also a lying liar who, by the way, is following this comment thread assiduously, and therefore knows — and has deliberately retained — a comment on his site that reads as follows:

    i personally am only hoping for the death of patterico.
    skippy | Homepage | 07.31.07 – 2:17 am | #

    Further down the thread, Instaputz objects to . . . the guy who wished death upon me? No: he read that comment and approved heartily. Instead, he objected to something sensible said by the Baseball Crank.

    Instaputz: proud keeper of comments wishing death on others.

    Naturally none of this will mean anything to the idiot crowd who reads him, but it’s still fun to know that everything I just said will show up on his front page in the next 24 hours.

    Now go be a good boy and publish this on your blog. Here’s a treat. Good dog.

    Comment by Patterico (2a65a5) — 8/1/2007 @ 9:34 pm

  195. Poor Patterico. You can’t answer simple questions, you get all testy, and now…*sniffsniff*…you seem to have peed your Depends…

    Comment by actor212 (5dfea4) — 8/2/2007 @ 7:10 am

  196. actor212 must be the instaputz equivalent of Ellers McEllerson.

    Comment by JD (26820f) — 8/2/2007 @ 7:57 am

  197. [...] Party of Hate (or was it rage) Update.  From Wonkette: Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you [...]

    Pingback by Sonoran Alliance » Random Musings (98837e) — 8/2/2007 @ 4:42 pm

  198. The Art Of War…

    …A post I read a while ago over at…

    Trackback by The Art Of War (b61e26) — 12/5/2010 @ 9:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6605 secs.