Friday, October 14, 2016

Liar, Liers

... on top of a telephone wire
I'm surely not the only person who's noticed the "coming out" of publications that were generally reliably conservative that now,  in the matter of Trump, are dancing with the New York Times.  One is the Washington Examiner. Example:

Carney: The death of Republican outrage?

It's well and good to point out the inconsistency of liberals who defended Bill Clinton in the 1990s and are attacking Donald Trump now. But sometimes inconsistency means moving from error to correct opinion. The Clinton-defenders-turned-Trump-attackers might be partisan hacks, and they might be insincere in their concern for women, but this time around they are correct. The important thing is, we conservatives were right back then. And we should have the same standards today.


This is freaking bizarre.  The below mentioned WaPost's "no, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms Clinton's chief opponent is dreadful" reasoning is typical. No argument advanced that delves into Trump's inadequacy as a leader of men, failed business acumen, lack of success, or any other reasonable measure executive ability.  Instead we get feigned outrage over locker room "grab'em by the pussy" talkthat every man in the world has engaged inand used as a disqualifier.  In the next breath we are told that Hillary history isn't worthy of discussion. Why? Ask.

Our Future?

—  You Utter Berks            

The University of Florida wants students to know that if they’re offended or scared by Halloween, there’s counselors on hand to walk them through the traumatic experience.

“October brings fall weather and Halloween,” the university wrote in a blog titled “Halloween Costume Choices” posted to its website Monday. [I am not making this up]]
Tommy Lee Smith

The Washington Post on Thursday became the latest ...

We’re way beyond media bias. They are all-in. The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. There’s not even a pretense of objectivity. It’s so bad, the New York Times had to write a front-page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate. They’ve never done that before, and since they’ve had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they’re pro-Hillary, and they’re so uncomfortable with this! 
(Rush Limbaugh 8/15/2016)

TheWashington Post on Thursday became the latest US newspaper toemphatically endorse Hillary Clinton for the White House, saying it wasswayed as much by her competence as by the alarming specter of a DonaldTrump presidency.

Rush Limbaugh- 16 hrs ago
Never been through anything like this before, except that we all think we have. This is topping anything. I think it's establishing my point that we don't have a media, folks. There's no media. And we're so far beyond bias to describe what's going on here, that doesn't even get close to touching it.
"Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation," the influential US daily wrote, adding, "no, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms Clinton's chief opponent is dreadful."

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee "is dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart," the newspaper wrote while acknowledging her many political and personal missteps of the past -- failings it said are outweighed by her strengths.

"She has executive experience. She does not let her feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get something done," the daily wrote.
Under the stewardship of owner Jeff Bezos (Amazon), the WaPost has gone  from being reliably liberal to full fledged New York Times clone. I think what Rush is saying in the insert is, we're at a point where it's possible for Hillary forces to blatantly steal the election and the media would refuse to question it. The solution?  A groundswell of Trump votes so great that they would fear for their lives to even try. I'm just saying. Say Amen.