By Tom Quiner

Acceptable ad to run in liberal newspaper

I hate to use the word “hypocrisy.”

There is no shortage of it in politics on both sides of the aisle. When one points the finger at one side, the other ramps up the debate by pointing at the other side’s even more outrageous hypocritical indiscretions.

Since this is a conservative blog, and since the Left has us outmanned in pointing out Conservative hypocrisy thanks to their alliance with the Mainstream Media (MSM), I feel it is my duty to point out the latest hypocritical assault on the sensibilities of normal people. Plus I am a proud and thin-skinned Catholic who takes any slight toward my Church personally.

Today’s liberal hypocrisy comes to us from the newspaper the Right loves to hate, the New York Times. In a nutshell, they took money from an atheist group that encourages Catholics to quit the Church.

Unacceptable ad to run in liberal newspaper

When approached by another group to run a very similar ad encouraging Muslims to abandon their faith, the New York Times refused.

Recap:

Anti-Catholic ad:  OK

Anti Islam ad: Not OK

Why:

Catholics won’t do anything to you except to pray for the salvation of your soul.

Some Muslims aren’t so nice.

In case you forgot last week’s episode:

Call a woman a slut if you’re a conservative:  BAD

Call a woman a c**t if you’re a liberal:  FINE, if the woman being called that is conservative.

Consequence:

Lose advertisers, if you’re a Conservative.

Get a million dollars from the c**t-caller if you’re a Liberal. C**t-caller gains White House access.

Did I miss anything?

6 Comments

  1. Embattled Farmers on March 15, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    The Times is scared of radical Muslims. Can’t say I blame them! We Catholics aren’t going to blow up their building for running that ad.

  2. Tom Maly on March 15, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    i think that covers it for now, Tom!!

  3. Rambling Democrat on March 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Question: For the conservative woman whom was called a c**t, are you referring to Ed Schultz? Because if you are (and I remember hearing about this and I watched his show the following day), Ed apologized for the language and for the act. Then, to show it, he stepped out of the show without pay for about a week. Rush Limbaugh only apologized for “those two words”, and not for the fact he was insulting degrading Ms. Fluke.

    What Ed Schultz said was also not acceptable, and he made apologies and took action to show that the very next day. Rush took a week and loss of advertisers before he made any attempt. If you’d like, Ed Schultz did his own comparison:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/46634637#46634698

    And his apology (which was not 9 minutes, 3:46. I assume a mistake made):
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/43176194#43176194

    Now, I do think it was good Rush made an attempt, but I also wanted to keep in mind an apology was made on both sides. There’s also a difference in them, though you’re free to determine if you agree or not.

    • quinersdiner on March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm

      No, I referred to Bill Maher’s use of the c**t word to describe Sarah Palin. Thanks for writing. Come again.

      • Rambling Democrat on March 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm

        Ah, I see. I had missed that one, thanks for clarifying. I’ll need to look into that incident.

        • quinersdiner on March 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm

          It was easy to miss. The mainstream media tends to focus on conservative misogyny than liberal.

Leave a Comment