Liberal hypocrisy for dummies
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?
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.
i think that covers it for now, Tom!!
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.
No, I referred to Bill Maher’s use of the c**t word to describe Sarah Palin. Thanks for writing. Come again.
Ah, I see. I had missed that one, thanks for clarifying. I’ll need to look into that incident.
It was easy to miss. The mainstream media tends to focus on conservative misogyny than liberal.