The far Left blogosphere in Virginia has made much of Attorney General Robert McDonnell's response to a question asked by a supporter of sodomy. I saw another reference to it just the other day.
In light of their support for this question, shouldn't Conservatives ask prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "Spit, or swallow?"
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I really don't want to know.
UPDATE 2: Well, it seems Vince wants to stir the pot, too. Given his number of hits, I suppose I should be grateful. Oh, and Shaun has it exactly right in his comments (hence, showing it to my friends here). I'm reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago, with a wonderful old lady named Ruth Fry. Long-time PWC Republicans will remember her as a Gold Star mother who, at 88, tragically lost her life in a traffic accident on Minnieville Road, broadsided by a truck going too fast just after George Allen's election as Governor in 1993 (an event that made her giddy). One time, my wife and I were giving Ruth a ride to a political event, and completely out of the blue, she raised the issue of condom distribution in the schools. Ruth was a few years older than my grandmother (still kickin' like an Army mule at the time, at 79), and it was an entirely uncomfortable conversation to have with that wonderful woman.
And who did we have to thank for that privilege? The far Left and the licentious society that they are trying to/have created.
12 comments:
Mr. Young, this post is below you.
Okay...I am done with this blog for good. NOVA Democrat and others...we should really boycott this blog. By continuing to read it we are enabling his vicious ways. I am done. Tony Ares
Jim: this doesn't even begin to make sense. What the hell are you talking about? Even a conservative McDonnell supporter like me thinks it's absolutely hilarious that he denied knowledge or recollection of whether he had ever violated Virginia's totally anachronistic sodomy laws. It has to be one of those "worst moments in amateur politics" highlights. Even a passionate Hillary opponent like me has to wonder how the inside of your head works to take the old and largely forgotten McDonnell gaffe and equate it to her, particularly in such crude terms. I thought the guy with the problem you allude to was her husband and his office squeeze. How did you get from point A to point B on that? Then how did you get to the point where you thought you should share that with anyone who has the misfortune or curiosity to stumble into your blog? It is disturbingly bizarre. You may want to just take the comment down with the same sort of censure that you usually apply to Willis.
Perhaps, NoVA Democrat. Thought occurred to me. Call it a bad day. Or response in kind. I am equally disinterested in both.
As for you, Tony, someone who smears with as broad a brush (i.e., support for school choice equals racism), that just breaks my heart.
nova scout, you seems to have forgotten that this is the woman whose husband answered the question "Boxers or briefs?" That's what the hell I'm talking about.
Not even a good try, James. YOur post still doesn't make any sense and is still gratuitously vulgar. Until now I would have thought it impossible for anyone to make me feel a bit of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. I'm sure I'll get over it as soon as I think back on some of her recent pandering over the Dubai ports issue. But, James, I think you've gone totally 'round the bend. This is disgusting and gives aid and comfort to people who might be inclined to think that opposition to the Clintons is based on sexually deviant psychoses held by overly repressed fringe Republicans. Thanks a lot. Also many thanks for reviving the McDonnell story, a story that had largely been forgotten until you revived it to provide a predicate for your gutter talk.
Are comments like this truly Conservative? I thought Conservatives were supposed to hold the moral high tone?puw
puw: you're thinking of traditional conservatives of the old school. It's pretty hard to imagine William F. Buckley saying something like what Young has posted here. But this is a somewhat endangered (or at least very quiet) species these days.
...as opposed to liberals, who can get away with saying this and worse because hey -- you're progressive!
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Is NOVADemocrat the only one among you with an ounce of common sense?
James' point is well taken. If questions of oral sex and sodomy are fair game against AG McDonnell, why the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tables are turned?
Pathetic... all of you... which is precisely the point (and the trap) James wanted to make. Some intelligence would have sniffed that out, but at least three of you didn't make the cut.
I plead with my fellow Progressives. We are empowering these people by reading their stuff. Have you noticed that they won't read/watch our stuff but we read/watch theirs. Our open- mindedness is killin our cause. We help the ratings of Fox because while we know they are evil...we are curious. They won't watch CBS. They are closed-minded bigots. They won't read Arriana Huffington but we typically will check out the Neo-Con Matt Drudge. I am guilty too because I am reading this blog! Why do I keep reading? I guess it's like peaking in on a Klan rally. Watching pure evil is scary but interesting. We need to stop.
TooConservative is back from his trip, and he just noticed this. So he posted a comment over at his site to drive up his numbers again.
Of course, most people over there (which include nova democrat) are very upset.
I find it funny though, given that one of their listed contributers goes by the pseudonym of "Mitch Cumstein", i.e. "Mitch Cum-Stain".
Of course it isn't spelled that way, but everybody who understands the source of that name knows exactly what it was supposed to mean, which was why the name was funny in the movie.
TC seems to be deeply distressed by your language, Jim. Maybe you have to remember that sometimes children read your blog.... :->
Well thanks for the psychoanalysis, nova scout! My degree is in law, not psychology, so I won't respond in kind, save to note those "who might be inclined to think that opposition to the Clintons is based on sexually deviant psychoses held by overly repressed fringe Republicans" are as eager to belittle with amateur psychology as you are.
And Shaun, thanks for the comments. Amazing, isn't it, how our incredibly-earnest friends on the far Left are upset when someone attempts (with tongue firmly in cheek) to turn the tables on them?
And as for you Anon 1:53, I would note that I link to a number of "Progressive"/Liberal/Far Left websites which don't return the courtesy. There are some notable exceptions (VC comes to mind, as does Ben Tribbett), but by and large, those to whom I --- and other Conservatives --- link do not link to me.
charles-
my hits are already up.
This helps Jim Young
Post a Comment