RX: "Let me see if I have this right: A politician can exploit dead kids to make a political point and that's okay, and a politician can exploit live kids to make a political point and that's okay, but a private lobbying organization exploiting the politician's kids to make a point is Just Not Done and is reprehensible and beyond the pale?"
Me: "Yup, that's about the size of it."
RX: "Okay. Got it."
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Overheard in the Hallway...
Roomie's voice wafts into the hallway as I walk by, over the sound of the running shower:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Said politician has exploited his own kids in political ads so all bets are off when they get used by others. Fair play and precedent, not to mentioned hoisted on his own petard.
Hypocricy, now being served for breakfast at the WH by David Gregory.
Gmac
The District of Corruption has for at least all of my life wallowed in the belief that we the people, should do as they say, not as they do.
You only missed one small point. It's also perfectly fine when one is cut of the correct (I almost typed "right") political cloth. Said lobbying organization is not cut of the correct political cloth, and therefore cannot engage in such, and any attempt to do so is a foul. Were an opposing political lobbying organization to engage in such activities, it would be ignored, or shouted from the rooftops as TRUTH, depending upon the urgency of the message.
It also helps when the lapdogs run the MSM. Oh, and ...RACIST!!11!... for even bothering to think about the entire idea.
I don't understand how there can be any confusion on the subject. It's all very clearly spelled out in the rulebook.
Glad y'all have your liberal-decoder rings on, because I'll be darned if I can keep it straight.
H
Yes, that's correct. Because shut up, racist.
H: The liberal decoder ring is very simple. If an action is undertaken by a liberal for any reason (but especially if for "A Good Cause"), it is always a meet and right thing to do. If it is done by a conservative for any reason whatsoever, even if either the action and/or the reason is one with which a liberal would normally agree, it is *always* A Bad Evil Thing which is Beyond The Pale.
Or so I have gathered from reading comments by my crazy sister in Seattle.
Thanks for clarifying. I was a bit confuzzled by the outcry yesterday.
Heh. Well, as me sainted Grandma used to say; "eff 'em if they can't take a joke".
Emphases on the "Eff".
As presented by your friends at NBC last night:
"Today the President has taken sweeping and historic action aimed at curbing the epidemic of gun violence, as the NRA takes heat for using the President's children in a new attack ad..."
Seems fair and balanced, if you're a shameless sham of a journOlist.
PB
PB,
"your friends at NBC"
Do you just show up here anymore to be a dick in comments, or what?
"...or what?"
what.
I was being ironic, or so I thought.
But yes I am the occasional dick, as some of us are the occasional twat.
PB
Now the fact check places are saying that the Friend's school has no armed guards (according to interviews with the principal). I guess concealed is concealed.
PB,
Hadn't recalled a single non-critical or -condemnatory comment in a while, so I thought I'd check...
"Four legs good,two legs bad."
Eric, considering the source (not you, your source) and how they're a bunch of lying leftists, I would want to see the interview and look at the licensing and expense records for the school.
At the very least, the Principal (the most important part? But that's another rant for another day)may have dissembled as part of the security program.
But I wouldn't trust the New York Times to out and out lie about what was or was not done or asked.
Post a Comment