Gay Patriot Header Image

Is this inflation?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:15 pm - June 30, 2013.
Filed under: Economy

Via Zero Hedge, and from Intuit /, comes this darling infographic – click to get a bigger version:

inflation in various household expenses

We must stop to think about what it means. It’s not saying that, say, health insurance prices are up 111% in the last two years, or that housing prices are down 27%. No, it’s saying that household spending on health insurance is up 111% in the last two years; household spending on housing is down 27%.

Is this what ‘hidden’ inflation (inflation not noticeable in the government CPI figures) looks like? Because it could mean that people have less discretionary income: instead of spending on vacations or on nicer homes, perhaps they are forced to spend more on monthly basics like utilities, health insurance, education and kids’ expenses, etc.

I mean, I don’t think anything has happened in the last two years to make people want to spend more on health care, education or utilities. And I don’t think there are any important areas (even housing) that got much cheaper, in the same time.

How telling stories helps us define the meaning of marriage

Back in February and March when I was re-reading and reading* Madeline L’Engle’s Time Quintet, I recalled the author’s bittersweet Two-Part Invention.  The subtitle helps show my interest in the book:  “The Story of a Marriage.”

At the time, I thought it was the best book on marriage I had ever read.  Later, when I re-read the Odyssey, I realized Homer’s epic still holds that title.  (And perhaps always will.)

Given that I underline in my books and often write notes in the margins and fly-leaves, I thought that by reviewing this book, I might quickly locate a few insights, a few conclusions she has made about that ancient and honorable institution to help me craft a post on gay marriage similar to that Megan McArdle, as Jane Galt, wrote eight years ago, A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other.

But, L’Engle’s book was about marriage primarily in the sense that she reflects on her life, her relationship with her husband Hugh, farmed in part around his death from cancer in 1986 .  To write movingly about marriage, she deals not in abstractions, but in anecdotes, sharing certain experiences with us as she recalls her feelings and her reflects on her and her beloved’s interactions.   And as I reviewed my notes, I wondered if what has been bothering me so much about the debate on gay marriage is that most people do the opposite of what L’Engle did in this book, that is, they talk mostly in abstractions.

Marriage is about love, say the advocates.  Gay marriage will destroy the institution, say the opponents.  The former hardly discuss how love can sustain a life-long partnership.  The opponents don’t tell us how exactly same-sex unions will undermine the institution.

And their tired cliches sound increasingly empty each time another individual repeats them anew.   What L’Engle teaches us is that to really get at the meaning of marriage, you need do more than recite rehearsed bromides, you need to tell stories.

No wonder that when Homer reunites Odysseus and Penelope after twenty years of separation, he has Athene delay the dawn so that the married couple can both delight in the pleasure of love-making and share each other’s stories. (more…)

Thoughts on Rubio’s Rationale for pushing the Schumer Bill

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:09 pm - June 28, 2013.
Filed under: Marco Rubio,Random Thoughts

Should the Senate immigration bill (or something similar) pass the House and be signed into law by President Obama, Marco Rubio’s political career will likely end with the 2016 elections. Conservatives in the party will be upset and will likely put up a candidate to oppose him the 2016 GOP primary (for the charismatic incumbent’s U.S. Senate seat).

Should Congress fail to pass comprehensive immigration reform, by the time the 2016 elections roll around, most people will have forgotten the past few months of negotiations and debate (on this issue) and will remember Senator Rubio for his conservative record and his Reaganesque manner of speaking.

My sense (and this is just a sense) is that Rubio is banking on the House to hold the line and not pass an immigration bill as sweeping as that he championed in the Senate.  (Watch him in the coming weeks; if he puts pressure on the House to move, then it will show that there is little substance to this sense.)

He championed this issue not so much because he wanted to see the Schumer bill pass, but to break ranks, on a major issue, with the conservatives who have embraced him  He wanted to present an image of a politician willing to work in a bipartisan manner, one who does not march in lockstep with his party.

And the man whom the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media recently (ridiculously) derided for drinking water has now earned respect in their circles.  Oh, they’ll pull out the knives again as soon as the Floridian points out flaws in Obamcare or challegnes the administration on its foreign policy (or lack thereof).

But, for now these purveyors of public opinion see him as a principled reformer willing to buck his party.

And Marco, bear in mind, what happened to the media’s favorite Republican when he secured his party’s presidential nomination back in 2008. (more…)

Gallup: Majority of Americans Oppose Obamacare

As the full implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act nears,” writes Elizabeth Mendes of Gallup,

Americans remain wary of the law and of what kind of impact it will have on their family’s healthcare situation and the nation’s overall healthcare situation. Those without health insurance — a group that most benefits from the new law — are slightly more likely to see it as having a positive effect, but even they are not ardent supporters.

52 percent of Americans disapprove of the “Affordable Care Act,” with solid pluralities (47-34 and 42-22, respectively) believing it will worsen both the healthcare situation in the U.S. as well as that of their own family.

No wonder the “White House is working to recruit Hollywood stars for efforts to promote the healthcare reform law“. Wonder if they will do a better job selling the bill than the president himself has done.

Despite the Democrat’s years of salesmanship, only a handful of polls have shown the health care overhaul enjoying a plurality of popular support, with many, like this Gallup survey as well as those from FoxNews and CNN showing majority opposition.

H/t RealClearPolitics where their poll average has consistently shown more people opposing than favoring the legislation:

Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 4.06.34 PM

ADDENDUM:  Interesting to note how opposition to the policy has shot up in recent days.

Huffington Post Forgets a Word in article on Corzine charges

And it’s not just in this image from AOL’s home page:

Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 12.37.26 PM

The editors also failed to include that word in the linked article.  Mr. Corzine, as you may recall, the immediate past Governor of the Garden State, is a Democrat.

Vice President Biden said that the Obama team called Mr. Corzine for economic advice during the transition.  “We,” the Delaware Democrat said, “trusted his [Corzine’s] judgment.” (Just after 1:00 in the video at the link.)

Do you think that if Mr. Corzine had been a Republican who had advised George W. Bush or Mitt Romney that his partisan affiliation would not have gone unnoticed?

UPDATE (from Jeff): Dan, GMTA. I was going update my earlier post on this theme. For the detail-hungry, Zero Hedge has the CFTC statement and complaint. Charges at last! But (again as ZH notes, as well as our commentors) only civil charges: why not criminal?

The brand new politically correct meaning of hate

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:25 pm - June 27, 2013.
Filed under: Free Speech,Gay Marriage,Misrepresenting the Right

Perhaps the greatest difficulty of having a civil debate about gay marriage is the readiness of all too many (but fortunately not all) gay marriage advocates to label those who oppose gay marriage (or just state recognition thereof) as “haters,” or recalling Prop 8, h8ers.

Today, in a post at pjmedia (the Glenn linked), Roger Kimball finds that gay marriage advocates aren’t the only ones to define their ideological adversaries as haters. Reporting on the decision of the government of the United Kingdom to ban Pamela Geller and Robert Geller from visiting that nation, Kimball comments:

A spokesman for the Home Office welcomed the ban on Geller and Spencer, explaining: “The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate.” Hmm — “who promote hate.” Query: do Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer “promote hate”? Or is that just a rhetorical epithet employed by ideologues bent on advancing a certain politically correct agenda in order to stifle criticism? (Another question: what is a “hate crime”? Is a crime more of a crime because it was committed by someone who dislikes the victim? Or is it like the term “social justice,” a piece of rhetorical legerdemain intended to lend gravity to a noun by the act of prefacing an emotionally charged but irrelevant adjective?)

The point is that the metabolism of liberal democracy depends upon the free exchange of ideas, which means, in part, a vigorous circulation of competing ideas. No less a figure than John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, pointed out: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” There is plenty to criticize in Mill, heaven knows (and I’ve done my bit to criticize him), but he was surely right that liberal democracy depends in part upon fostering the “collision” of competing ideas.

Emphasis added to elucidate the brand new politically correct definition of hate.

Read the whole thing.

So, it’s not obstruction when a Democrat does it?

Brit Hume just made my job a lot easier:*

Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 11.17.56 AM

Yesterday, Anderson Cooper all but drooled over the Texas Democrat.  And my left-of-center Facebook friends are making her a hero.  Should remind them of their support for this woman blocking a bill with majority support in the Texas Senate the next time a Republican blocks a bill with similar support in the U.S. Senate.

*I had planned a post wondering if Democrats’ love for Davis signaled a change of heart on the filibuster.

My USA Today Column on DOMA & Prop 8

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:20 am - June 27, 2013.
Filed under: Gay Leftist Lickspittles,Gay Marriage

I’m sure this is what resulted in the aforementioned hate mail this morning.  Here’s a sneak peek.

As a gay conservative, I’ve always been conflicted about the issue of gay marriage. I guess it is because my political and moral philosophies are not dictated by the desire to be loved by the president or the federal government. I believe that my rights as an American citizen come from my Creator, not Barack Obama, John Roberts or Nancy Pelosi. But the reaction from most gay liberals today to theoverturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and reversing the California voters’ decision in Proposition 8 has been the opposite. The gay political class is celebrating Big Government waving its haughty approval like King George III waving his hand over his colonies.

So for those of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who needed the federal government’s emotional approval of their relationship: Congratulations. I just hope all gay and lesbian Americans take a moment to stop and thank Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for nominating Justices Kennedy and Roberts so the Clinton era of discrimination could come to an end Wednesday.

Read the whole thing!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Hate Mail from a Hate Male!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:13 am - June 27, 2013.
Filed under: Gay Leftist Lickspittles

I think this was in response to my USA Today column this morning…

Subject:  Thank you!

From: Mark Whitebear <>
Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 9:44 am


“Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.”

What a load of horseshit. Spinning the freedom to legally marry into some kind of liberal conspiracy is a testament to your own self-loathing, pathological mindset.

Ah…. ignorant gay progressive hate.  So much better than morning coffee to get my engines going!

The funny party is, based on his frothy attack, it doesn’t appear he even read my column.  Or suffers the usual gay progressive reading comprehension problems.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

DOMA & Prop 8: Elections Have Consequences

The gay marriage decisions & the gay marriage debate

I find it a somewhat delicious irony that on the day the Supreme Court hands down its gay marriage decisions, a day I had planned on blogging about the debate on gay marriage.  But, I had been planning that before knowing that on the actual day, I would be more focused on writing the first chapter of the second part of my epic.

I have long thought the debate on this important issue, this fundamental social institution, has long been particularly lame.  And from reading my Facebook feed, see that it has become ever more so, with all too many (but fortunately not all) treating the decisions not so much as constitutional interpretation and social policy, but as personal validation — as if they needed some government body to decide the “right” way so they can feel recognized.  But, that feeling of approval will fade.

That said, I have seen two statements on Facebook which do get at the meeting of the decision, from people on opposite sides of the political aisle.  And I’m sure that in due course, I will discover some thoughtful blog posts and editorials.  But, for now, while I have much to say about marriage, my mind is on my book.  At the end of May, I finished the first draft of the first part of the book (over 150,000 words) and spent the better part of this month revising it, having intended today to print out the whole thing and take it to a printer (so I can share it with friends).  (As I begin serious work on the second part.)

So, let me offer the meaningful Facebook post for your consideration.  My friend Harmeet Dhillon (my predecessor as president of the U-VA Federalist Society) offered this on the standing issue which served to overturn Prop 8:

As a political law practitioner, the broader implication of today’s Prop 8 ruling is 1) a narrow interpretation of standing and 2) apparently there is no recourse by the citizens if their elected constitutional officers (here, the Attorney General) simply refuses to enforce a law passed by the majority of voters. The former is likely an artifice of the Court trying to dodge a merits decision on a very controversial issue, but the latter severely undercuts the power of the citizen-sponsored proposition in California, regardless of subject matter or what political persuasion is affected. A sobering reminder that your vote on propositions sort of matters sometimes, while your vote on who is the Attorney General matters a whole lot. And not enough of you vote!

Our left-of-center reader Rob Tisinai gets that state recognition of marriage is about more than just “rights”: (more…)

State Rep. Winkler: It’s Okay to say “Uncle Tom”

Last week, I posted on Barbara Walters’ and Whoopie Goldberg’s bizarre defense of Bill Maher, who had apparently called out Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome child as “retarded”. A quick refresher:

Walters speculated that Maher did not know the word [ed: “retarded”] could be hurtful…

Goldberg lamely tried to assist Walters, saying “we, society took the word ‘retarded’ and made it into something derogatory…When I was a kid, it wasn’t derogatory…”

Now MN State Rep. Ryan Winkler (D/Labor Party) has called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” His defense? Guess.

[from Twitter] I did not understand “Uncle Tom” as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it…

[from Winkler’s weak ‘apology’ statement] I was very disappointed today in the Supreme Court decision…In expressing that disappointment on twitter, I hastily used a loaded term…

I see a trend!

Now, let’s be clear. Winkler didn’t use “a loaded term”, he used a racial slur.

Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act Finally Overturned By Roberts Court

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:11 am - June 26, 2013.
Filed under: Equality (Real or Faux?),Gay Marriage

I was asked to do a play-by-play on the morning’s SCOTUS rulings at  So I present you a somewhat truncated version of that post.  Mostly because I’m lazy and do this for free.

As I expected, the Supreme Court has just issued its opinion that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional.

The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the liberal justices and Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

From SCOTUSblog:

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

The opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

More on DOMA from SCOTUSblog:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.
An aside: This is vintage Kennedy.

I was wrong on the Prop 8 decision, though.  I thought the Court would uphold the California voters’ decision.  But ultimately, they ruled on standing not merit of the case.

From Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed (who is also a lawyer) has this to say about Prop 8 decision:

Today’s decision means the trial-court decision striking down #Prop8 stands. Questions remain whether that can & will be enforced statewide.

Here’s an attempt at interpretation on Prop 8 ruling from SCOTUSblog:

Here’s a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

So there you go.  As we’ve said all along here at GayPatriot, this should be a state issue.  Now jubilant low-information gays prancing around Chelsea and The Castro agree with us, even though they don’t know why!

YAY, America!

Reminder: We have the worst economic conditions since 1939.  Priorities.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

One person, one vote

A democratic republic is not honest or fair unless it upholds the principle of “one person, one vote”. All Americans should want to uphold that principle, strictly.

But not all do. Both historically and today, some may benefit from the principle’s two enemies: discrimination and fraud. How do we best combat both discrimination and fraud, in our voting processes?

The Supreme Court has just struck down part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Superficially it sounds like some people could have just lost their voting rights or something, and Yahoo!’s coverage starts out in a mournful tone. But let’s consider the substance, on both sides.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress for an additional 25 years in 2006, gives the federal government the ability to pre-emptively reject changes to election law in states and counties that have a history of discriminating against minority voters. The law covers nine states and portions of seven more, most of them in the South. The formula used to decide which states are subject to this special scrutiny (set out in Section 4 of the law) is based on decades-old voter turnout and registration data, the justices ruled, which is unfair…[because] many of these states now have near-equal voter turnout rates between minorities and whites.

“The coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The Justice Department used Section 5 of the law to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina last year…

The court has effectively now put the ball back in Congress’ court, writing in its decision that it is up to Congress to write a new formula that is based on current data. States or counties that fit the new formula could still be subject to federal “preclearance” of changes to their elections procedures…

The story there seems to be: In the 60s, they were justly worried about discrimination and passed a law giving the federal government a great deal of power over some States. Today, fifty years later, much (if not most) of the discrimination problem has receded, the States are worried about fraud, and have begun to pass voter ID laws to combat fraud. The Obama administration has used the 1965 law aggressively to block those fraud-fighting efforts. And Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a SCOTUS majority, has just said to knock it off; do a fresh study of the real problem.

For completeness, let’s look at Justice Ginsburg’s objections. The Yahoo! article continues:

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes the “sad irony” of Roberts’ decision is that it strikes down the key part of the Voting Rights Act because it has been so successful at preventing racial discrimination. “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” she writes. Ginsburg also slams the court’s majority for relying on turnout and registration rates “as if that were the whole story” and ignoring so-called second-generation laws and regulations designed to make it harder for minorities to vote…

But Roberts didn’t throw out preclearance; he only said, re-validate its basis to make sure it’s fair, before you use it again. Ginsburg’s imagery, of throwing out your umbrella in a rainstorm, is vivid but possibly misplaced. She assumes that we live in a racial “rainstorm” whose intensity is virtually unchanged from the 1950s/60s. But if that were so, we would not have an African-American President.

On the above information, I’m with Roberts: while problems of discrimination may remain, and any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress should indeed take a fresh look at the real problem. Congress should not make a lazy assumption that this is still the 1950s or 60s, nor that efforts to fight the problem of voter fraud must automatically be illegitimate.

Why release global warming speech to liberal supporters (before delivering it)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:02 pm - June 25, 2013.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming),Random Thoughts


The public won’t officially see or hear President Obama’s climate change speech before he delivers it this afternoon at Georgetown University, but liberal supporters already have it — and are even commenting on it hours in advance.

Did W ever release a speech to conservative supporters before delivering it?  Just askin’.

Wouldn’t have thought a post-partisan kind of guy would do a thing like this.

As Gabriel Malor notes at Ace:

The President, still in search of a topic change, will today give a speech about global warming. He’s going to sidestep Congress and crack down on power plants via the EPA.

Seems like the guy is trying to rally his liberal base.  Wonder why that is.

Even if you like you health care plan, you might not be able to keep it . . .

Been noticing that on its homepage, Yahoo! has lately been featuring a number of articles addressing the flaws in Obamacare.  Last night, they linked this article, Dear Entrepreneur, We Are Canceling Your Health Insurance:

As President Obama’s health care overhaul begins to change how Americans get their health insurance, the nearly 22 million people who are self-employed will see some of the most dramatic changes, with perhaps half of them headed for the new health exchanges in the fall.

I’m one of them – I recently received notice that the insurance I had been buying for three years would “terminate.” I will be shopping for coverage on one of the new health insurance exchanges.

Guess the article’s writer Amy Feldman didn’t like her plan because during the 2008-09 transition, the Obama team promised:

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

And President Obama himself said as much — on more than one occasion. FoxNews was on this over three years ago. What was it Jay Leno said about the news network?


Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:52 pm - June 24, 2013.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse

Just because Barack Obama won the 2012 election, in large part, by dishonestly portraying Mitt Romney as a cold, uncaring, out-of-touch plutocrat does not mean our readers have grounds to level similar personal charges against our (and their) critics.

And please do not make assumptions about my left-of-center friends.

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, take issue with the arguments they raise, but do not level personal attacks on the individual making them.  You don’t know that person.  You don’t know why he has made the case that he has.

I do not check the comments all that regularly, but in the past few days, have received repeated reports from readers about commenters using ad hominem attacks in exchanges with their adversaries.

More on this after I’ve discussed the matter with Bruce.

Obama’s Constant Strawman Shell Game

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:08 am - June 24, 2013.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Immigration Reform

Quick guess!  Did Barack Obama make the following remarks about  (A) his beloved Obamacare legislation, or (B) the Gang of Eight immigration legislation?

“[It] would reduce our deficits by almost a trillion dollars over the next two decades. And it will boost our economy by more than 5 percent. . . .”

If you said (B) — you win!

But if you said (A), you’d be right too.  You see,  Barack Obama has consistently governed by OVER-promising and UNDER-delivering in magnitudes of distances that the solar system would be proud of.

And now the Illegal Immigrants Get A Pass Bill of 2013 has become the new panacea for all of America’s economic woes.

I call bullshit.

RELATED QUESTION WHICH I WOULD LIKE ANSWERED: “Why Are Illegal Immigrants More Important Than American Citizens?

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Let us not forget, protestors once compared Bush to Hitler. . .

Back in 2009, at the outset of the Obama administration,when  a few Tea Party protestors compared the President of the United States to Adolph Hitler, the blogger Zombie, in this retrospective, reminded us how regularly liberal protestors did the same thing when George W. Bush was president. “One”, that blogger observed,

. . . would think that this would not be particularly newsworthy, but Democrats, the White House and their supporters are expressing outrage at this “horrifying” and “menacing” turn of events. (Or faux-outrage, at least.) Pundits, bloggers, media outlets and even top politicians like Nancy Pelosi are claiming that such signs are unprecedented, racist, and even that anyone who brings a swastika to a protest must be self-identifying as a Nazi (instead of accusing their opponents of being Nazis).

This all came to mind when, over the weekend, a left-of-center friend posted on Facebook that she was appalled

. . . to see a group of anti-Obama protesters with slur written signs towards our President as well as signs using the Nazi sign – I believe everyone has a right to their beliefs but the amount of disrespect towards this President is unfathomable and disgusting…what made it worse was the number of people cheering them on or honking their horns in agreement – a sad state of affairs we have reached in America…

She is right to be appalled.  It is wrong to compare the President of the United States to the “Führer” of the Third Reich.  That said, the amount of disrespect shown toward Mr. Obama is no less disgusting than that shown to Mr. Bush.

One only wonders why some only started speaking up against such slurs after George W. Bush left office.

We have indeed reached a sad state of affairs in America when people slur the President of the United States as do those who compare him to Hitler.  But, we had reached that state of affairs long before Barack Obama took office, indeed, long before George W. Bush took office.

Let us hope that in the next Republican administration, those who today express such concerns about civil discourse will continue to do so.

NB:   (more…)

The Food Network has fired Paula Deen; Will HBO fire Bill Maher?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:45 am - June 23, 2013.
Filed under: Food,Liberal Hypocrisy,Mean-spirited leftists

Both used ugly epithets to describe other individuals.