The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 2012 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Republicans won the 2014 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as associate justices.
New York Times, 5 October 1987, with names and years changed to reflect present circumstances
Category Archives: presstitutes
QOTD
Seen in a comment section somewhere:
Journalistic integrity is like virginity. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.
She could’ve just said “SJWs always project.” It would’ve been shorter.
Bill and Hillary Clinton ought to be radioactive to any of the usual suspects who screech on about “rape culture,” but consistency has never been their strong suit:
Coulter Lambastes Media Over Epstein Rape Case: This Is What Media Thought UVA Rape Case Was
Ann Coulter says the Epstein rape case is “not just a Clinton sex scandal,” but the “elites” “covering up and protecting one another.” “This is what MSNBC and the rest of the networks have been describing what they thought these fraternities, what they thought the [Duke] lacrosse rape [case was],” Coulter said on FOX News’ Hannity. This is the elites circling the wagon and protecting a pederast. It’s a shocking case and that’s just the known facts.”
Upper-class (in his own mind) twit gets schooled
QOTD
Vox Uses Hilariously Inaccurate Photo On NRA Hit Piece
Vox Uses Hilariously Inaccurate Photo On NRA Hit Piece
Vox attached the logo of a New Deal agency to an NRA hit piece on Twitter Thursday, apparently confusing the National Rifle Association with the National Recovery Administration established by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.
“The NRA’s president supported ‘sharply restricting’ guns in 1934,” Vox tweeted, with a photo of the National Recovery Administration logo attached. “Then things changed.” The story the tweet linked to was of course referring to the National Rifle Association.
“Journalism is dead,” remarked one twitter user who saved the tweet before it was deleted.
Once more for Vox’s edification: This:
is not the same organization as this:
Is Gawker Destroying Itself From The Inside? Let’s Hope So.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe MSNBC will follow Gawker into oblivion next:
Is Gawker Destroying Itself From The Inside? Let’s Hope So.
Because what may have seemed like a shocking new low was really just the inevitable trajectory of one of the most toxic cultures in all of media. It was the natural extension of a media empire with an editorial mission that owes far more allegiance to bullying and bitterness than it does to accuracy or ethics. This most recent scandal—which seems to have suddenly woken up the general public—is not an anomaly. It’s exactly what you get when you mix bad leadership, bad incentives, and selfish, self-loathing people.
Just look for a second at some of Gawker’s biggest stories over the years. There was the time they stole an iPhone prototype and nearly faced criminal prosecution for it. There was the time they ran private nude photos of quarterback Brett Favre to his objections and the objections of the recipient. There was the nude video of Dov Charney. There was the time they published an anonymous source’s recounting of a supposed one night stand by a female Senate candidate. There was the time they ran humiliating commentary against stolen footage of a sex tape featuring Hulk Hogan.
…to mention nothing of this Wonkette excrescence (link is to archive.org) which they attempted to memory-hole sometime in 2012 or 2013:
wonkette: OMG I AM WATCHINGMICHELLE MALKIN’S INTERNET VIDEOS FOR THE FIRST TIME
operative: she has internet videos?
operative: does she do the thing with the ping-pong balls?*
wonkette: SHE HAS A WHOLE FUCKING INTERNET VIDEO NETWORK THIS SHIT IS BANANAS
The turd burglar responsible for that made #5 on this list of “the ten most heinously unpleasant Gawker writers.”
“First Amendment? Never heard of it.”
The week that cable news failed free expression
“There’s no justification for violence. But…”
“I’m a First Amendment absolutist. But…”
“You have every right to do what you did. But…”
Though perhaps not verbatim, those are the sentiments that have spilled from cable airwaves — and, for that matter, non-cable airwaves — in the days since Sunday’s violent incident in Garland, Texas. Two gunmen were shot dead by a police officer as they attempted to mount a terrorist attack on a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest — an event whose by-product is offensive to many Muslims. The Islamic State terrorist group claimed responsibility for targeting the contest, which was organized by Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).
Authorities are investigating ISIS’s claim of responsibility; they’re checking the electronic communication histories of the attackers, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi; the White House has called the episode an “attempted terrorist attack.”
And who’s being treated as the public enemy on cable? The woman who organized a cartoon contest.
Liars gonna lie
It’s what they do:
Hacks Still Pushing the “Ted Cruz Is a Hypocrite” Line
Some guy named Igor Something or Other has a post at ThinkProgress titled Ted Cruz Wants You To Believe He’s Legally Required To Sign Up For Obamacare. He’s Not.
Yes, he is.
If I were to str-e-e-e-tch to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, I guess I would say that it depends on what you mean by “sign up for ObamaCare.” Cruz is legally required to obtain an insurance plan that meets the ridiculous one-size-fits-all “minimum” standards of an ObamaCare plan, or pay a penalty. Sorry: a “tax.”
He doesn’t have to do this on an exchange, but apparently, he will (while getting zero benefit from the exchange). So what?
If he complies with this law, which he hates (as I do), and which he wants to repeal (as I do), that does not mean that he is endorsing ObamaCare because he is signing up for a plan that he is legally required to buy. And nobody is denying that he is legally required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty (sorry: “tax”). They just seem to think he is a hypocrite for doing so on one of the exchanges. What the holy f[vowel deleted]ck does it matter whether he gets his overpriced plan on an exchange or not? He is getting no subsidy. He is entitled to one under a Harry Reid “don’t make us follow our own law” provision and is rejecting it. How in the name of all that is holy does this make him a hypocrite???
ThinkRegress is just one of the sources of this smear…there are others detailed in the post.
On the bright side, they’re being somewhat honest with their intentions
…not that that makes those intentions any better:
Quote pulled from the Politico article in question (no links for liars…click through if you want it):
But if he runs for president, the national media may not be so careful to make such distinctions–between Walker and his associates, and between allegations that have stuck and those that haven’t–that Wisconsinites have grown used to.