11 Replies to “Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors”

  1. I’ll suspend reality for a minute or two and pretend Sullivan, a self described “conservative commentator” wasn’t one of the ones who helped usher in the era of in your face, smash mouth progressivism that we now find ourselves.
    “soft liberal bias”. Hilarious. Is that like “mostly peaceful”?

    1. And he just realized the veil slipped following Kirk’s assassination.

      He obviously hasn’t been paying attention.

      1. Again … how odd you speak of finally suspending your own soft-embrace of the LGBTQueer-mutant mutation of our culture. You obviously embrace the WONDERFUL Gay Republicans … who are the ones who will SILENCE free speech if anyone criticizes the pushing of Gay imperatives into every nook and cranny of our culture and governance.

        Yet … only upon the murder and consequent ‘celebration’ of Kirk’s murder … do you finally recognize the imminent danger your embrace of the LGBTQueer-mutant culture puts us all in? Ohhhhhh why can’t we just get along with nice Gay Republicans … they just want what we want. Uh … No. No. they. don’t.

        1. The only danger anyone hereabouts faces is your recuring displays of rampant stupidity and bumptiousness.

  2. Andrew Sullivan is a conservative in the same vein as Ana Navaro and David Brooks.
    They’re not Conservative, they were paid to pretend to be Conservative. Think RINO or less so.
    He wrote for The New Republic, Time, The Atlantic, NY Times and The Daily Beast.
    He supported Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
    He’s as fake as they come. Maybe he’s pissed that the Left supports trans men(who were formally women), as now gay men?

    1. Yeah, there’s a lot of them around- it seems to me even Andrew Coyne was once branded a small C “conservative” back in the day when his mug was on a CBC TV political show, the name of which escapes me.
      Unbeknownst to quite a few folks, he’s a lunatic.

  3. I’m a rule of law kind of person. I’m also the sort of person who will complain if “you” do the right thing for the wrong reason.

    So I’m completely ok with Kimmel using his job, and my understanding is that affiliates decisions not to carry his show was because they were tired of fielding calls from their customers.

    I do not think that the FCC should have threatened licenses. Giving the govt the authority to choose winners and losers isn’t something I will ever be comfortable with, even if today they act more out less how I’d want them to. My confidence in that a govt will oppose my views on some tomorrow is near infinite.

    The best response to “they did it to us” is not “let’s do it to them” but “burn it to the ground and salt the ashes so it can never happen again”.

    This is, more or less, what Trump did when he forbade debanking groups for what they say.

    1. “I do not think that the FCC should have threatened licenses. Giving the govt the authority to choose winners and losers isn’t something I will ever be comfortable with, ”

      In this case, they had no choice. Being licensed by the FCC means you agree to a set of broadcast standards, one of which is not airing deliberate disinformation (as Kimmel clearly did). Cable networks are not bound by this and can say pretty much anything they want, within reason.

      1. Some in this country have found out they can’t say whatever they want in a public forum.
        The Libs are coming for the rest of us with C-5.
        It’s been this way forever.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation