Slate magazine attacks Bushs service dog, Sully.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

In reading it again, where is the criticism of the bush family? I saw the article commending them for allowing sully to go to Walter reed and help someone else. I did see context of a service dog and explanation of how long sully had been with HW. I also saw it as pointing out how everyone had become sentimental about a picture of a dog laying down. We should be discussing the touching moments of Dole saluting his friend of GWB holding it together when they were bringing the casket to the capital. Much more real moments.

Slate had some much harsher criticism of HW that I only saw when I went looking for the sully piece. If you want to criticize slate those would be real targets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your reading comprehension is sufficient to see that she didn't attack Bush in the article, it's interesting that your reading comprehension isn't up to the task of seeing that I never claimed she attacked Bush in the article. I said she wouldn't have felt the urge to write an article (the sole, stated purpose of which is to get people to stop feeling good about a service dog) if Bush wasn't a Republican. I can't offer any irrefutable proof of that, yet I'd bet my life on it. You know of any liberal magazines that took offense to the nation feeling good about the pet of a democrat President? I couldn't find any.

"We should be discussing the touching moments of Dole saluting his friend of GWB holding it together when they were bringing the casket to the capital. Much more real moments."

Tell the Slate reporter that. She's the one who tried to take us off course, not me. You're smart enough to know that.

The Bush family, once again showing their dignity, is making it clear that unlike the McCain services, this isn't going to be a Trump-bashing party.

Bryan, what do you think of Newsweek calling Bush a wimp, and of the NYT and Donna Brazile pushing a fake story that he had a mistress? The Democrats were so offended at Brazile doing that to a war hero, that they gave her the vice-chair position at the DNC, and was chair of the DNC for awhile. I'm not saying that kind of smear doesn't happen on my side, tragically it does. I'm saying it should be punished, not rewarded.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If your reading comprehension is sufficient to see that she didn't attack Bush in the article, it's interesting that your reading comprehension isn't up to the task of seeing that I never claimed she attacked Bush in the article. I said she wouldn't have felt the urge to write an article (the sole, stated purpose of which is to get people to stop feeling good about a service dog) if Bush wasn't a Republican.

this is true...if Bush was a democrat it would have been one of the most touching photographs in American history

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is true...if Bush was a democrat it would have been one of the most touching photographs in American history

Of course it's true.

Bry told me to concentrate on the Slate pieces attacking HW himself. But this is more deranged. I expect high profile politicians to get roughed up, it's a rough business they choose to enter. It's especially un-surprising, when liberal reporters resort to yellow journalism when covering Republicans, we all expect that. But to write a hit piece on a Republican's service dog? Imagine how truly miserable and hate-filled you have to be, to feel THREATENED when large numbers of people feel good about the idea that a service dog cares about his partner. She called it "demented" to think that there was any emotion or affection or awareness displayed, when Sully laid in front of the casket. It's "demented" to see that, and feel good about things.


"Wait! Stop feeling good about that! It's not real! He's just lying down, nothing special to see here!"


Has any liberal ever criticized PETA, when they constantly anthropomorphize all living things, including plants and mold? That's OK, even heroic, to liberals. But God forbid we ascribe a speck of humanity to a Republican's service dog.

Hope this bitch never watches Old Yeller, she'll really blow a gasket. "Stop saying that he attacked those hogs to save his boy! That's not why he did it, he was just displaying canine toxic masculinity!" Come on, that's funny right there.

[JohnR]

The author is likely a radical feminist.

She probably has cats, or at least did until she joined PETA.

Since joining PETA she probably has middle-age BETAmales as pets in conversion therapy (not making this @#*&$ up ; ) ).

She erroneously believes that Cat Humans > Dog Humans. This is clearly false.

Unless, all the above is wrong, and the Article was Penned by a CAT

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Unless, all the above is wrong, and the Article was Penned by a CAT

That's the most benign possible explanation, by far!

The Trump-inspired, liberal descent into the abyss of madness, continues...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The author is likely a radical feminist.

She probably has cats, or at least did until she joined PETA.

Since joining PETA she probably has middle-age BETAmales as pets in conversion therapy (not making this @#*&$ up ; ) ).

She erroneously believes that Cat Humans > Dog Humans. This is clearly false.

Unless, all the above is wrong, and the Article was Penned by a CAT

How else are they going to keep Canine Privilege in check?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How else are they going to keep Canine Privilege in check?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t read the article but I’m sure they were just trying to generate Clickbait hits by writing something that would infuriate a lot of people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I didn’t read the article but I’m sure they were just trying to generate Clickbait hits by writing something that would infuriate a lot of people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's nothing particularly infuriating in the piece, but the theme about people needing to project their own emotional needs onto animals is pretty observant if a bit cold.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There's nothing particularly infuriating in the piece, but the theme about people needing to project their own emotional needs onto animals is pretty observant if a bit cold.

She called it 'demented' to be moved by the sight of the dog in front of the casket. The word she used, was demented.

The title, also says explicitly, that it's 'wasteful' to spend emotional energy, feeling good about this Sully.

Naturally none of this is insulting to you. The entrance to liberalworld, requires one to leave their soul and conscience at the door.

Not ong ago, before the national Democratic party lost its mind, Donna Brazile was fired by Michael Dukakis for promoting the fake story that HW Bush had a mistress. In today's democratic party, she is rewarded for that kind of thing, with the office of chair, and vice-chair, of the DNC.

Hooray!

Anyone with a soul was moved by the photo of the dog laying by the casket. Only a completely broken person without a soul, would be offended by people rallying around something so pure, so innocent, and so touching.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I didn’t read the article but I’m sure they were just trying to generate Clickbait hits by writing something that would infuriate a lot of people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And by that I mean troll the masses.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I didn’t read the article but I’m sure they were just trying to generate Clickbait hits by writing something that would infuriate a lot of people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ohhh, absolutely true. Total clickbait. Breitbart meet Slate, Slate, Breitbart

Originally Posted by spence

There's nothing particularly infuriating in the piece, but the theme about people needing to project their own emotional needs onto animals is pretty observant if a bit cold.

Not entirely true, the author exhibits needs that might be allayed with a good dog, though that might not be good for the dog.