North Dallas Thirty provides this roundup of much vileness from the anti-Bush left about Mary Cheney and Heather Poe's new arrival, mainly from comments on lefty blogs (rather than by the bloggers themselves).
Colorado Patriot makes the point that:
if the Gay Left were as dedicated to forwarding the message that gay and lesbian parents are just as loving and deserving of rights because they're just like any other family, they'd be praising the birth and looking for fans of the Vice President and his family to follow his loving example.
But that would be way too constructive and deviate unacceptably from the one true correct party line.
On the other hand, criticism of the exclusion of Mary and Heather from the widely disseminated grandparents + new baby grandson photo seems to be a valid point.
65 Comments for “Baby Cheney”
posted by Timothy on
I was pretty disgusted at some of the comments. It’s amazing how the anonymity of the internet lets people spout out the most vile and evil things – stuff they would probably never say in public lest they be rightly villified as slime.
You see it on the left and you see it on the right. And it is as shameful in either case.
posted by Jorge on
That page was one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen in my life. It has nothing to do with “left” or “right”. I take some solace in the fact that some people distanced themselves from the worst comment, but I wonder at the judgment of people who would post on the same site as someone so venomous. I’d want to take a bath.
I wish I knew how to read the exclusion of the baby’s parents from the photo… with no one asking about it, we can only assume the worst. I know Mary and Heather are very private people, and that the Cheneys are rather Victorian, but still, the media has the right to ask.
posted by Roy on
It is a sad day when Freepers have much kinder things to say about the Cheneys than some of the “open minded” “tolerant” wing of the gay community.
I’ll even admit that I post under a pseudonym here, because I just don’t want to hear it from fellow “liberals.” These pieces of trash are instrumental in holding us all back from legitimacy by handing the anti-gay crowd ammunition to use against us on a silver platter, and they give liberals a bad name. C’mon liberals – let’s clean up our house!
posted by Richard on
I figured this would be a question asked by many where Mary Cheney and her partner are…but if you took a look when the other Cheney gave birth to her fifth child in 2006, it was also only the grandparents and the baby that got released. It could be the Cheney’s don’t want their lives to be more public fodder, but I think it’s just standard for the White House to only release photo-ops with the grandparents. Either way I am very happy for the Cheney’s, may God bless them!
posted by TomChicago on
The baby Samuel may grow up one day to wonder why his mommies were so quiet. He may learn about Candice Gingrich who didn’t let her dad’s politics keep her own mouth shut.
posted by Fitz on
Parents want grandchildren, its a universal. Mary Cheney “aquiring” a child manifestly deprives that child of her Father.
Were not talking about adoption even, were a child is already born and whose parents abandon it or are unfit, and another couple steps into the breach.
No, we are talking about intentionally conceiving a child with the express purpose of its natural father abandoning it. To make matters even worse, no male is made the Father of this child.
Shameful.
posted by ETJB on
Yawn. This is pretty much old news and gay conservatives are treating like a big deal.
I suspect that people on the ‘gay left’ are upset over the hypocriscy involved and not that fact that the babies grandparents can pose for a photograph.
You know? Kinda of like the hypocrisy involved in gay people supporting the Iraq War in the name of democracy and freedom and then getting awful quite about what is happening to gay Iraqs post-liberation…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, we are talking about intentionally conceiving a child with the express purpose of its natural father abandoning it. To make matters even worse, no male is made the Father of this child.
I also dealt with that concern elsewhere.
Gist of the argument, Fitz; concentrate on making heterosexual parents better, not homosexual ones nonexistent.
posted by Lori Heine on
“It’s amazing how the anonymity of the internet lets people spout out the most vile and evil things – stuff they would probably never say in public lest they be rightly villified as slime.”
How very true. I think we should consider a move to bring back civility and personal accountability for the remarks made about others in cyberspace and by “journalists.”
Let’s bring back dueling.
Even in its heyday, there was never very much of it. But when the decency of decent people was offended, it provided an excellent means of taking out the trash.
As for why Mary and Heather aren’t in the baby photo, considering how soon it was after the birth I wouldn’t make too much of it.
And no matter what you think of the Cheneys, this is light years away from disowning their daughter and calling her names (as Alan Keyes did).
And as far as there being “no male” to be the father of this child, I doubt very much that Mary Cheney put a gun to anybody’s head to get the sperm. The donor was, undoubtedly, a grown man who knew what he was doing and gave his blessing to it.
As for whether he’s going to be a part of the child’s life or not, it’s stupid to jump to the conclusion (A) that he automatically isn’t or (B) that this baby will have no important male figure in his life.
posted by Roy on
And no matter what you think of the Cheneys, this is light years away from disowning their daughter and calling her names (as Alan Keyes did).
Yep, they even welcomed Mary AND Heather onstage after the Vice Presidential debates.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
How exactly does what someone says on someone’s blog equate to “leftist” evilness and Democratic “vileness?” From ND30’s links to his blog that links to other entries on his blog that links to a random blog that has some assorted and untraceable talkbacks I can’t quite wrap my mind around it. Certainly I can find links to blogs that link to blogs that link to talkbacks that reference blogs that link to other blogs that show support for the Cheneys…why not report on the cheerful happy comments made by “leftist” gays instead of the unverifiable and distant “vileness” left on someone’s blog that links to a blog that links to a blog that once visited a blog that had a blog-cast of someone’s cousin’s aunt’s husband’s brother-in-law’s blog who faxed a copy of a recipe to someone’s work-machine that mistakenly forwarded to someone’s palm-pilot which was used to access a blog?
posted by Jorge on
Probably for the same reason the media covers catastrophies that take place half a world away. It’s that shocking. I think the blog postings are a relevant part of the way this country (let along a particular segment of it) is and the way it’s changing. The posts are part of something that those of us who care about this country have a responsibility to take sides on, else we’ll end up with a world we don’t want.
And the point I think Stephen is trying to make is that too many people on the left and on the gay left have deliberately chosen not to take sides, silently excusing this behavior that is intended to hurt others so deeply. That is what I see as the most dangerous thing. You try to balance out the good and evil, and what you’re left with is an acceptance of evil.
posted by Craig on
Brilliant, Colorado.
posted by Huh? on
Is the Coloradopatriot that comments above attacking North Dallas Thirty a different person altogether from the blogger ColoradoPatriot who praises NDT at: http://gaypatriot.net/2007/05/25/mailroom-error-misdelivery-of-left-and-right-wingers-talking-points?
If so, should someone be allowed to use the name of a known blogger if they are not that person?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How exactly does what someone says on someone’s blog equate to “leftist” evilness and Democratic “vileness?”
A better question: why are people going to such lengths to avoid saying that it was wrong?
Perhaps because, given their past records, they really don’t see anything wrong with it, and consider it completely acceptable to wish a baby or another person dead because they don’t like their family or political affiliations.
posted by Colorado Patriot on
No, I am not the idiot known as ColoradoPatriot. I am the REAL Colorado Patriot…lol. But seriously, I started using the CP moniker before I’d even hear of the dreadful gaypatriot site…so I claim innocent on that one.
“should someone be allowed to use the name of a known blogger if they are not that person?” – I don’t know an answer to that one…should someone call the internet police? haha
Moving on to the point of ND30’s bizarre “roundup” of anonymous and unsourceable blog-postings…I won’t even tell you what some of the people I work with and my customers have to say about the Cheney’s and their offspring…but I can tell you that their vile comments mean a lot more than some vague “leftist” posting on the internets.
posted by Brian Miller on
they’d be praising the birth and looking for fans of the Vice President and his family to follow his loving example
By supporting, as Cheney did, a Constitutional amendment stating that Ms. Poe, Ms. Cheney and their son isn’t a family and never will be?
Curious, this partisan myopia (on both sides).
posted by Brian Miller on
why are people going to such lengths to avoid saying that it was wrong?
The ND-30 answer: Because they are all evil, hateful people who lack the purity of spirit and love that ND-30 and conservatives in general all have for their fellow man!
The real answer: Because it’s a stupid, manipulative and boorish (read: common for ND-30) tactic to demand that a third party take “responsibility” for the comments of another person.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The real answer: Because it’s a stupid, manipulative and boorish (read: common for ND-30) tactic to demand that a third party take “responsibility” for the comments of another person.
Funny, Timothy, Lori, Jorge, and Roy didn’t have any trouble meeting the comments head-on, making it clear that these statements were vile, disgusting, and wrong, regardless of who was making them.
Meanwhile, Mr. Miller, you and ColoradoPatriot make excuse after excuse after excuse for why you aren’t doing the same.
For ColoradoPatriot, we understand why; as I pointed out, he surrounds himself with people who make vile comments about the Cheneys and wish young Samuel dead, and he himself has no qualms about wishing another human dead either.
What’s your reason?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “For ColoradoPatriot, we understand why; as I pointed out, he surrounds himself with people who make vile comments about the Cheneys and wish young Samuel dead, and he himself has no qualms about wishing another human dead either.
What’s your reason?”
WTF? I would be happy to answer your question if I could figure out what the hell you are rambling on about.
Oh, and by the way…
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You may wish to reread to whom that statement is addressed, ColoradoPatriot.
Meanwhile, Mr. Miller, you and ColoradoPatriot make excuse after excuse after excuse for why you aren’t doing the same.
For ColoradoPatriot, we understand why; as I pointed out, he surrounds himself with people who make vile comments about the Cheneys and wish young Samuel dead, and he himself has no qualms about wishing another human dead either.
What’s your reason?
Basically put, we already know what your reason is, ColoradoPatriot; we’re just waiting for Mr. Miller to tell us his.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Basically put, we already know what your reason is, ColoradoPatriot; we’re just waiting for Mr. Miller to tell us his.”
Again, WTF? My reason for what?
ND30: “Meanwhile, Mr. Miller, you and ColoradoPatriot make excuse after excuse after excuse for why you aren’t doing the same.”
Where and what am I making “excuse after excuse after excuse” for? I honestly have no idea what you are blathering on about. Maybe you are just spreading more lies and obfuscation (as usual)?
posted by Brian Miller on
Mr. Miller, you and ColoradoPatriot make excuse after excuse after excuse for why you aren’t doing the same.
I speak for myself. I don’t speak for Harry Browne, or Hillary Clinton, or Tom DeLay, or anonymous bloggers, or Lee Iacocca, or my next-door neighbor.
The culture of perpetual outrage — and your own anonymous yet nontheless peacockish preening within that culture — says nothing.
Just what is the conclusion supposed to be, ND-30? That you and your “team” are perfect, loving and welcoming of Mary Cheney, and that your opponents du jour are hateful?
That all people who don’t think exactly the way you do are hateful and misguided?
How childish.
I have no need to “explain myself” because my positions on the issues are clear — and in no way influenced, articulated by, or established by third parties. If you have a problem with something I (or someone else) says, then by all means criticize.
Your tedious insistence that everyone who doesn’t engage in your shrill chorus of condemnation of everyone you don’t like is, ironically enough, identical to the PC leftists you claim to abhor with such vigor.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, the irony. (emphasis mine)
Just what is the conclusion supposed to be, ND-30? That you and your “team” are perfect, loving and welcoming of Mary Cheney, and that your opponents du jour are hateful?
So just after insisting how wrong it was to lump people together and hold them responsible for the statements of others…..you do precisely that.
Perfection is unachievable by a human being, but I am quite loving and welcoming of Mary and Heather, their respective families, and their newborn child — and am more than disgusted by the statements of gay liberals who, because they dislike Mary, Heather, and their families, are hoping that the child dies or is bullied and abused. Furthermore, I don’t think there’s anything unusual or particularly victimization-oriented about being outraged over people wishing a helpless baby dead or that he would be beat up and bullied because they don’t like his family’s politics or history.
And no, your position on the issues isn’t clear — because you have never once said whether or not it was right or wrong to wish that a newborn baby dies or is bullied and abused because the person(s) making the wish are against his family’s politics.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Could someone please define irony for the poor idiotic troll known as ND30? He is helplessly lost as usual.
posted by Brian Miller on
So just after insisting how wrong it was to lump people together and hold them responsible for the statements of others…..you do precisely that.
In the form of a question rather than a declarative.
You *do* know the difference, right?
I am quite loving and welcoming of Mary and Heather, their respective families, and their newborn child
Too bad a great deal of your party’s leadership is openly hostile — which is, I believe, the original point.
Given that your position is that one couldn’t possibly hold a different view from the rest of his “team” without thoroughly repudiating them utterly in the strongest terms, you’re awfully silent though. Why not hold yourself to your own standards and attack the detractors of Ms. Cheney’s child with equal vigor?
So far, your venom is flowing *only* towards the liberal trogs attacking her family and not the conservative ones — in fact, you’ve been rather quick to defend them. Please, follow your own standards first before breathlessly demanding others follow them.
your position on the issues isn’t clear — because you have never once said whether or not it was right or wrong to wish that a newborn baby dies
I’ve also never specifically said that it would be bad if a nuclear device destroyed Baltimore, or if San Francisco was swallowed up by a fault line, or if 1/2 the residents of Alabama died from trans-fat-induced heart attacks in the next two weeks.
Using your “standards,” I must therefore be in favor of all of those things as well!
define irony for the poor idiotic troll known as ND30
It requires a sense of humor, and I don’t believe they’ve perfected that transplant yet! 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In the form of a question rather than a declarative.
Why would you be asking a “question” in a way that makes it obvious you’ve already concluded the answer?
Too bad a great deal of your party’s leadership is openly hostile — which is, I believe, the original point.
Considering that neither the President or Vice-President is, for starters, who exactly are these “leaders”?
So far, your venom is flowing *only* towards the liberal trogs attacking her family and not the conservative ones — in fact, you’ve been rather quick to defend them. Please, follow your own standards first before breathlessly demanding others follow them.
You really, really need to read my posts — and the linked items within them — before you start drawing conclusions of what I have and haven’t done.
I’ve also never specifically said that it would be bad if a nuclear device destroyed Baltimore, or if San Francisco was swallowed up by a fault line, or if 1/2 the residents of Alabama died from trans-fat-induced heart attacks in the next two weeks.
You’ve yet to be confronted with anyone saying that these would be good or desirable things. When that happens, then it will become relevant.
But you have been confronted with the fact that gay leftists are wishing death and harm on Mary Cheney, Heather Poe, and their baby, and you seem completely unable to answer whether this is right or not.
posted by Lori Heine on
I keep hearing it said that the Cheneys “represent” this or that, and that “the party’s leadership” does this or that.
Although I must admit to being a Libertarian rather than a Republican myself, I fail to see why people keep insisting that ALL gay Republicans must support every single thing that is done by “the party,” the Cheneys or anybody else.
Gay Republicans, for the most part, are working for change in their party. Which means (duh) that they do not agree with every darned thing the party does.
It would have to come along quite a good deal before I would be willing to join it. But I do understand and respect the fact that in working to change the Republican Party from within, many gay conservatives and libertarians are making a valid and (hopefully) constructive choice.
Change does not come easily, nor does it happen overnight. Those who are too impatient, and perhaps even addicted to immediate gratification in all their political doings, are merely posturing when they flog gay Republicans for not being superhuman and magically making everything hunky-dory in the blink of an eye.
If childish and self-indulgent expectations like those continue to carry the day, then THAT will be the reason the dastardly Republican Party remains dastardly. Many straight people are fed up with all the whacko nonsense going on in the GOP, too. They would appreciate a little help.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “and you seem completely unable to answer whether this is right or not.”
You’ve been unable to prove if “gay leftists” have ever done such a thing. And, no, anonymous postings on obscure blogs is not proof of anything other than that anonymous posting on obscure blogs exist.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ColoradoPatriot, I repeat what I have said above; people like Timothy, Lori, Jorge, and Roy didn’t have any trouble meeting the comments head-on, making it clear that these statements were vile, disgusting, and wrong, regardless of who was making them.
It’s only you and Mr. Miller who have done everything in your power to avoid having to admit that fellow gay leftists and gay leftist blogs were publishing comments wishing death on the Cheneys.
Why is that?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
So now its “publishing” anonymous statements on obscure blogs that gets you all worked up…you are a slippery little twerp, ND30. But, sadly, still no proof though…why is that? Could it be that you are a liar? BINGO!
PS
The SIDS comment was left by 1 (one!) person on a random blog. Said person was condemned almost immediately by others on the blog. I see no proof that said person was a “leftist gay.” Care to weasel your way out of this one?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..and again, ColoradoPatriot, you try to deny, spin, ignore, and minimize the statements, which are clearly referenced and linked, quite obviously do exist, and quite obviously were supported by several on those blogs, rather than confronting them.
The reason why is obvious; like I demonstrated above, you see nothing wrong with wishing death on someone because of their beliefs or their family’s beliefs — evidently even a newborn baby.
The problem here is that for you to admit that wishing death on someone is wrong would indicate that you were wrong when you told me to commit suicide. And you simply aren’t capable of doing that.
posted by Fitz on
NDT
?I also dealt with that concern elsewhere.
Yes I read your link.
“Gist of the argument, Fitz; concentrate on making heterosexual parents better, not homosexual ones nonexistent.”
Well first of all I do, and we have.
In our obvious list of priorities, before we can make a parent “better”, they have to be a parent to begin with.
One aspect of being a good parent (and an obvious and long held normative ethic) is that one does not bare children outside of wedlock.
In this traditional understanding, Men & women should be first married & then have children.
Ms. Cheney having a child by choice as well as the movement for same-sex ‘marriage” helps make a muddle of this standard.
If we are to continue to uphold, promote and indeed advance the most basic “good parenting” then it requires that we first defend the norm that children are born into households of their married Mother & Father.
posted by Al on
First off, I’m not buying the contention that the “majority of those who left comments” on the thread in question supported the offensive comments made by less than a handful of those commenting. In fact many, including myself, strongly condemned the comments.
Secondly, if the argument is to say that those who did not voice objection lent a tacit support to the comments, that just doesn’t make sense. If that analogy worked, I would be making blog comments 24/7, as there are an infinite number of things, both left and right based, that I have considered. Some offend me, others do not. It’s not the job of those who identify left of center to police the comments sections of liberal blogs. Just like it would be unfair to expect you to do so on liberal or gay bashing right wing sites.
Not speaking out on a given issue implies absolutely nothing with regard to specific belief, and to state otherwise makes for unfair and unwarranted assumptions about those who for whatever reason are not engaged in the discourse. When you comment or answer a question with your voice, written or spoken, that is when you establish your stance on an issue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Fitz, I am perfectly fine with stating that the ideal is a two-parent, mom and dad structure — especially since the odds say that 95% of kids are heterosexual, and will likely grow up to duplicate that. Furthermore, I have no problem with you discouraging out-of-wedlock births or deliberate single parenting; I also think they have a potentially deleterious effect on society, and by sheer practicality, having two parents is going to be a much better situation for kids on average.
Believe me, you don’t need to defend good parenting from gays. One, we constitute a tiny, tiny fraction of the population; there’s simply not enough of us out there to make a dent in global family structures. Two, we can’t make a baby without some significant and expensive outside help, and even when it happens, that’s only one parent. That leads to three; we can’t adopt or foster a kid without having to jump through umpteen gazillion legal hoops to prove that we are indeed fit, that we aren’t child molestors, that we know what we’re doing, and so forth. Trust me, if heterosexual parents had to go through the same level of screening and pain that homosexual ones do to get their children, society would be far better for it.
Where I think you’re missing the point is that life is not ideal. We could stop people from single, unmarried, or gay parenting by forced abortion or requiring them to give up the baby on birth, but I don’t see that flying in this country.
Furthermore, I have serious qualms about saying that marriage is a requirement for good childrearing. The relationship that we want a marriage to be — two adults committed to each other, committed to their promises, and committed to their children — should indeed be our ideal and best practice for good childrearing, but that’s not synonymous with the legal bond or structure of marriage. We all know of cases where the child born out of wedlock ended up being better off than the child born in formal wedlock; indeed, if it forces people to marry who aren’t ready or committed to it, I think it quite counterproductive to say that you can only have children born in wedlock.
The other question I’m going to ask, Fitz, is this; when Sam Cheney turns up as a classmate of your child, or on the Little League team you coach, how are you going to treat him? Are you going to ignore or be different to him than you would the other kids because you know he doesn’t have a dad? Are you going to tell him how it’s not his fault his moms did something wrong?
Or…..and I hope this is your answer….you’re going to treat him like any other kid, and show him how a Christian, male role model treats everyone with respect and dignity and models Christ in every fashion?
The whole point of this thread is really that; gay leftists, who claim to be “tolerant” and “respectful” of others and their choices, are castigating a newborn baby and hoping he dies, or grows up to get beat up, because they don’t like his family.
Are you going to treat Sam the same way because you don’t like the fact that his moms are lesbians?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Dear ND30, please note the time/date stamp on my response.
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
You sir, are the definition of a troll AND a fuckface.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “The reason why is obvious; like I demonstrated above, you see nothing wrong with wishing death on someone because of their beliefs or their family’s beliefs — evidently even a newborn baby.”
Where do you get off lying like that? What am I supposed to see in the link you provided that would condemn me? Your continued lying and slander on this board is beyond reproach. Please stop lying on this board.
posted by Brian Miller on
Too bad a great deal of your party’s leadership is openly hostile — which is, I believe, the original point.
Considering that neither the President or Vice-President is, for starters, who exactly are these “leaders”?
Both the president and the vice president are openly hostile to gays and lesbians.
Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush alike supported a constitutional amendment that would use government power to inform Ms. Poe and Ms. Cheney that they are not, nor ever will be, parents.
Seems pretty hostile to me.
I do understand and respect the fact that in working to change the Republican Party from within, many gay conservatives and libertarians are making a valid and (hopefully) constructive choice.
I don’t see any results whatsoever. Whenever I ask for evidence of “progress,” the best gay GOPers can present to me is a Guiliani (who subsequently renounces his support for NH civil unions), or the fact that Cheney is unwilling to condemn his own daughter publicly (yet certainly happy to pass laws that would make her and her partner legal strangers).
That’s not progress, that’s a pair of rose colored glasses.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Reprinting your previous response only makes one thing more obvious, ColoradoPatriot; nowhere in it do you say that your telling me to commit suicide was wrong.
Just as you’ve twisted yourself into knots to avoid saying that a gay leftist wishing Sam Cheney dead or beaten up is wrong.
Meanwhile, to Al:
It’s not the job of those who identify left of center to police the comments sections of liberal blogs.
And no one is expecting that you do so.
However, when an example of this nature is brought to your attention, a response would be warranted, wouldn’t you think?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush alike supported a constitutional amendment that would use government power to inform Ms. Poe and Ms. Cheney that they are not, nor ever will be, parents.
Actually, the FMA doesn’t say anything about parenting. It only says that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.
Furthermore, what Mr. Miller forgets is that marriage does not automatically confer parenthood. A child who does not biologically belong to both parties in a marriage must be adopted by the non-biological parent to receive full recognition, which is another legal matter entirely.
The reason marriage exists in the form it does is because the union of a man and woman is capable of creating offspring without any additional legal requirement or outside assistance; thus, it facilitates the process of producing and raising those offspring.
And before you start the “sterile, elderly” whine, let me put it this way; the vast majority of heterosexual couples are perfectly capable of producing offspring that are biologically both theirs. No same-sex couple in existence can create offspring that are biologically both theirs.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “a gay leftist wishing Sam Cheney dead or beaten up is wrong.”
Please document a case of a “gay leftist” saying such a thing. So far you have failed to provide such a source. That makes you a liar.
posted by Bill From FL on
NDT
I can’t say I agree with you even most of the time, but am I glad to see your opinions on here! Very well put in your answers to Fitz! Such a fresh and conservative perspective.
Fitz, what other sites do you hang out at “defending marriage” and “promoting marriage between one man and one woman ONE time” and “kids being raised by their PARENTS”? Instead of wasting your time here, why not try most hetero porn sites-particularly “MILF” sites, sites that refer to women as “bitches and hoes” and that glorify men and women that make babies, squirt them out 6 or 7 times on welfare, or sites that glorify “lover’s lane” in your city. Why don’t you? Because you’d be talking to a WALL and look like the endless flapping mouth that you are! Like I once told you: GO BARK UP SOMEONE ELSES TREE! When a “city” like the traditional family-good for society-is on fire, you don’t pee on your fireplace!
P.S. I doubt the kids of a gay parent will ever jump into their hoopty, cruise from their projects and over to your part of town and break into your house as you sleep!
posted by dalea on
As a Pagan, I regard cursing, wishing ill on others, as not only ethically abhorent but dangerous for the curser. Everything one does comes back in some form or other. And the blowback can be hard to handle.
I personally wish Mary and Heather long life and prosperity with their son.
posted by Audrey B on
[sarcasm] North Dallas Thirty a lier, I perish the thought. [/sarcasm]
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Please document a case of a “gay leftist” saying such a thing. So far you have failed to provide such a source. That makes you a liar.
Exhibit A: the original statement.
Exhibit B: Google
Now, if you’re willing to say that every one of those postings referenced, including the multiple ones on Joe.My.God, the original source, were fake….as well as the entire blogpost referenced here…..then you can continue making your claims.
Or you can try cussing me out again.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
How can you draw the conclusion that this obviously deranged person is a “gay leftist?” And even if she is a lesbian, which I see no proof of, how is it possible that her lone voice (which was denounced by others on the board in question) speaks for the “gay left?” So far all you’ve been able to prove is that ONE person on ONE message board said something despicable…you do the same thing every day and no one blames the entire right-wing for your deranged babbling. I know it is anathema to your entire being, but a little honesty helps.
PS
My cussing you out was a reaction to your bull-headedness and utter lack of respect, decorum or humility. It felt good to do though and I stand by every word I wrote. So, unkind sir, go f*ck yourself and your deranged myopia.
posted by daveychuck on
You seem to forget how much we on the Left despise Cheney and everything he stands for. This tends to make us forget that we have our HateHats on when we comment about this incident.
Further, I think it’s a little tiresome the way that you constantly harp on the Left while you refrain from holding nuts on the Right to the same standard. Not very constructive and pretty devisive. If you’re really interested in Independent thinking (and I think you’re lying about that), you should refrain from the partisan whining altogether. And spare me the circular hypocricy accusations. Please.
posted by Fitz on
NDF
Well I have serious qualms about your analysis of what makes good parenting and what is a reasonable, ethical and humane standard (not ?ideal?) to expect from members in a civilized society.
You are correct however, that I have slid from the more specific thrust of this post. So I will answer the second part of your querry.
?The other question I’m going to ask, Fitz, is this; when Sam Cheney turns up as a classmate of your child, or on the Little League team you coach, how are you going to treat him? Are you going to ignore or be different to him than you would the other kids because you know he doesn’t have a dad? Are you going to tell him how it’s not his fault his moms did something wrong?
Or…..and I hope this is your answer….you’re going to treat him like any other kid, and show him how a Christian, male role model treats everyone with respect and dignity and models Christ in every fashion?
The whole point of this thread is really that; gay leftists, who claim to be “tolerant” and “respectful” of others and their choices, are castigating a newborn baby and hoping he dies, or grows up to get beat up, because they don’t like his family.
Are you going to treat Sam the same way because you don’t like the fact that his moms are lesbians??
The answer is an obvious (it really is almost second nature) Yes, I will treat Sam the same way as other kids. This is consistent with the way I would treat an illegitimate child, a child of divorce, or any child that was the result of a situation I find morally shiftless of the parent(s).
Interestingly enough, situations arise were a gay couple raising a child hope to get that child baptized within the Catholic Church. The official and proper response is that you accept this child with open arms into the Body of Christ.
The only conditions is that presents problems is #1) we obviously cannot include the non-biological partner of the Childs mother of father as that Childs ?2nd? mother or father. And #2) When the parents or godparents pledge to do their best to raise that child in a Christian way their consciousnesses ought be properly challenged as to the moral veracity of their decisions.(as are all)
Now neither of these represents any specific condemnation of the innocent child. As well they should not.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It is certainly reprehensible to wish baby Samuel, or any other baby, dead. But I also think it is disgraceful for ND30 to write as if “the Aravosis/ Spaulding/ HRC/ Stonewall Democrats” are collectively responsible for such comments, as opposed to the specific persons who made them. Come on, people, stop the false generalizations. There is plenty to criticize those persons and groups for, based on what they themselves actually sign their names to.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How can you draw the conclusion that this obviously deranged person is a “gay leftist?” And even if she is a lesbian, which I see no proof of, how is it possible that her lone voice (which was denounced by others on the board in question) speaks for the “gay left?”
ColoradoPatriot, if you believe this person is “deranged” and not representative of the gay left, then feel free to go to this post, for starters, and say so.
And that sort of leads us to Richard.
It is certainly reprehensible to wish baby Samuel, or any other baby, dead.
Very good.
But I also think it is disgraceful for ND30 to write as if “the Aravosis/ Spaulding/ HRC/ Stonewall Democrats” are collectively responsible for such comments, as opposed to the specific persons who made them.
Well, I don’t, for two simple reasons; encouraging and leaving up wishes of death and death threats is nothing new for these folks, nor is flatly-hateful harassment of gay Republicans, gay conservatives, and others who don’t toe the line.
My question, Richard; are you upset about the behavior itself, or about the fact that I pointed it out?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well I have serious qualms about your analysis of what makes good parenting and what is a reasonable, ethical and humane standard (not ?ideal?) to expect from members in a civilized society.
Then I will be more direct; I do not think that raising a child in a single-parent or gay parents household is automatically unreasonable, unethical, and inhumane, nor do I think that raising a child in a heterosexual two married parent household is automatically reasonable, ethical, and humane. The Lord is able to work in every family structure, as we saw in the case of Elisha and the widow or Lois and Eunice and Timothy, just to name two.
You of course may disagree. But I do find it rather odd that your focus is on legalities around gay couples, given our comparatively nonexistent presence in the world, and not around laws concerning single mothers/fathers and children born out of wedlock, which have at least as much potential to damage society, if not more, and outnumber us by the millions.
Rest assured that I have no intention of using Sam and other children of gay parents as ersatz shields in terms of levering good behavior out of you. But it’s very heartening to hear you state what really is most important here; that regardless of his or her family situation, each child is treated with dignity, respect, and fairness.
posted by Brian Miller on
It is certainly reprehensible to wish baby Samuel, or any other baby, dead. But I also think it is disgraceful for ND30 to write as if “the Aravosis/ Spaulding/ HRC/ Stonewall Democrats” are collectively responsible for such comments
Exactly. Such collectivist and politically-correct thinking is best relegated to the past.
Oh yeah, ND-30 (being a staunch Bush Republican) is part of the past! 😉
posted by Brian Miller on
I do find it rather odd that your focus is on legalities around gay couples
You find everything “odd.”
On a gay web site, gay issues are discussed.
Issues for single parents tend to be discussed on sites related to single parents.
Oh, alright, I’ll feed your fetish:
“Obviously, by not mentioning babies and single parents, Richard Rosendall shows that he hates both and wants them to die painful, horrible deaths.”
Ta dah! See, even I can be a Republican. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mr. Miller, will you do us a favor, and start reading my posts before you criticize them?
Because if you had, you would recognize that the post you are mocking is directed in response to this post, not to Richard’s.
But frankly, your idiotic reaction is fine ammunition to use against Richard, who demands that we gay conservative types work to advance the gay community, but says nothing about the hate and scorn heaped upon us by members of the “LGBT community” like yourself because of our political, philosophical, and personal beliefs even as we are answering, debating, and rebutting criticisms of gays by others.
posted by Brian Miller on
you would recognize that the post you are mocking is directed in response to this post, not to Richard’s
I’m just pointing out that you’re not holding yourself to your own standards of consistency. You seem to have a very harsh and uncompromising standard for some, but not others. That’s not principle, and certainly not principle that allows you to get outraged at others.
your idiotic reaction is fine ammunition to use against Richard
I figured you’d like it. And you’re correct that it is indeed idiotic, since it’s derived entirely from ND-30 “logic.” 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…..and when cornered on his own misreading, Mr. Miller whines that I’m wrong for answering, debating, and rebutting criticisms of gays by others because he doesn’t like it.
And again, I particularly would like to call Mr. Rosendall’s attention to this, given that he supposedly opposes such petty and vindictive actions against gay conservatives by gay leftists like Mr. Miller who oppose their ideology.
posted by Brian Miller on
If that’s a “cornering,” I’d hate to see a miss-by-a-mile.
You can do whatever you like and say whatever you like, no matter how stupid or dishonest, ND-30. I’m merely pointing out that excessive useage of transparently dishonest “aha, gotchas!” and utterly manufactured outrage isn’t as effective in this age of new media as it was in the age of FOX News one-liners that you came of age within.
Change, or fade away, so they say. I sit and wonder what ND-30 will be doing in two years when the Bush administration is a blessedly dismissed memory and the dialogue of everyone, from all parties and perspectives, will revolve around undoing the decades of damage and trillions of dollars of waste perpetrated by that administration (and its unquestioning supporters like ND-30)!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Its always wrong to attack innocents when you’re fighting with someone. Its incredibly hypocritcal of Northdallass to decry people attacking the innocent child of Mary and Heather because they don’t like Dick and Mary Cheney, when he does the same thing by blindly blaming and attacking innocent gays because some anonymous people wished ill on the baby – he indiscriminately attacks and blames innocent “gay leftists” and “democrats” for the actions of isolated jerks, that’s no better than attacking an innocent baby for the actions of his relatives.
And talk about hypocrisy, Northdallass claims to have been “answering, debating, and rebutting criticisms of gays by others.” – what a laugh. If Northdallass has every done anything of the sort its been a damn rare event on this blog and overwhelmingly overshadowed by his non-stop insane hateful indiscriminate attacks on LGBTS.
posted by ETJB on
Am I the only one who sometimes feels that we are way too interested in public figures private lives?
posted by Brian Miller on
When public figures make their private lives part of their public credentials, it gets a bit unavoidable. Especially when they flip-flop between “proud parent of a great family that I am showcasing to underscore my commitment to family values” and “how dare you poke into my private life.”
If there’s one thing — and only one thing — that Howard Dean did properly in his ill-starred presidential run, it was preserving the privacy of his partner and family.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Its always wrong to attack innocents when you’re fighting with someone. Its incredibly hypocritcal of Northdallass to decry people attacking the innocent child of Mary and Heather because they don’t like Dick and Mary Cheney, when he does the same thing by blindly blaming and attacking innocent gays because some anonymous people wished ill on the baby – he indiscriminately attacks and blames innocent “gay leftists” and “democrats” for the actions of isolated jerks, that’s no better than attacking an innocent baby for the actions of his relatives.
Mhm.
Notice who Randi criticizes in that statement — not the people who attacked an innocent baby, but the person who held them, and the community that supports them, responsible for doing it.
Quite obviously she’s madder at me for pointing it out than she is at them for wishing death on a baby.
posted by Brian Miller on
ND, not to disrupt your self-immolation tantrum, but I do get quite a kick out of you talking about dead kids when you’re supporting a president (and a war) that has delivered thousands and thousands of dead kids (and tens of thousands more injured) in Iraq.
Something you might want to think about before hopping into your next self-indulgent tirade of faux-righteousness.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND, not to disrupt your self-immolation tantrum, but I do get quite a kick out of you talking about dead kids when you’re supporting a president (and a war) that has delivered thousands and thousands of dead kids (and tens of thousands more injured) in Iraq.
Mr. Miller, I believe you tried this tack already, and I responded there. As even you admit, doing nothing and maintaining the UN sanction regime had already killed at least 500,000 children alone, not to mention the proportionate losses you would expect among adults, and that is BEFORE one considers Saddam’s having continued on his merry genocidal way against the Shi’a and various other racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups.
Liberals have done a very good job of obfuscating what pre-war Iraq was like, for the same reason they completely forgot what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia after 1975; when one views those, the wars they were against look far better in comparison that the genocidal and repressive dictatorships against which they were fought.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
No, Northdallass, I have no problem with you pointing out the people who wished ill on an innocent baby, what I have a problem with is you indiscriminantly blaming ‘leftist gays’ and ‘democrats’ for actions they didn’t have anything to do with. You’re no better than those people attacking the innocent baby because they don’t like his relatives.
posted by Bill From FL on
Hey Fitz! How about an answer? Scroll up!