Slate magazine attacks Bushs service dog, Sully.
 

Those deep thinkers at Slate are at it again. i’m sure i took it all out of context, or that there’s a Snopes piece which explains it all in some favorable light, or else it’s really all Trumps fault.

These people are consumed with hate. And they’re not considered the lunatic fringe by the left, are they?

They couldn’t handle the favorable ways that the nation is remembering Bush, she had to piss on the parade somehow.

liberal=good, conservative=bad, always, no exceptions, say all the bleating sheep. conservative b-a-a-a-a-a-a-d.

Newsweek said Bush was a wimp, the NYT said he had a mistress, now Slate says his service dog is a phony. Not even a little bit crazy, nope.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/geor...-to-attack-him

Perhaps these articles are what set you and the attack dogs at State News off
I couldn’t find a dog story
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sla...ling-lies.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sla...ade-talks.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sla...y-freedom.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when obama gets a service dog, a designer poodle named Abu Mumia, a male dog which identifies as a female cat, lets see if Slate magazine has issues with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She wrote that dogs like to lie down – so there was no special significance to Sully doing so near the casket.

or
But Sully is not a longtime Bush family pet, letting go of the only master he has known. He is an employee who served for less than six months.

It’s wonderful for Bush that he had a trained service animal like Sully available to him in his last months. It’s a good thing that the dog is moving on to another gig where he can be helpful to other people


wow thats some evil attack against Bush so much hate in the story so much for 2+2 = 4 again you should read the article not Fox's version ..

Service dogs are tool they are not pets.. i have no issue with the picture in front of the casket its touching .
.
But conservative writer Dan McGlaughlin compared the dog to a Marine.

Now that goes to Far !!!!! LOL

Did you read the original article?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes...Graham sounds like an ahole

i did.

At a time when everyone else was talking about the decency of the deceased president, Slate had to tack a different course and find something critical.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the title of the article is ‘don’t spend your emotional energy on Sully’.

who the hell is she to tell us not to feel emotional about the idea of a beautiful dog, trained by prisoners trying to improve themselves, dedicated to helping a beautiful man with disabilities? that’s not something we can all come together, feel a bit of warmth, and go ‘awwwww’? it’s more important to ‘set the record straight’ and point out why it’s a character flaw for us to feel good about the picture of this happy animal? She couldn’t just leave it alone and let people feel good about it?

Answer: no.

Reason: the Bush family are republicans. we aren’t supposed to feel good about them.

to even have the idea pop into your head, of seeing the reaction to Sully as some problem that needs liberal fixing, is sick.

Do you ever get tired of defending these people? is there anything they could
ever do, that you’d be able to criticize?

she points out that sully wasn’t a lifelong pet, but a companion animal he had for a short time. and if someone did make that mistake, what’s the harm? is anyone harmed by such a mistake?

She called it ‘demented’, that’s the word she used, to assume that the dog lying in front of the casket implied any loyalty to Bush, because he was more likely simply lying there. Demented. How does she know? It’s ‘demented’ to hope that the dog was feeling love and concern for Bush? That’s ‘demented’ to liberals? not surprising. Wouldnahe ever claim that PETA is demented for the elevated status they constantly bestow on animals?

She’s a disgustung bitch. Maybe next she can write an article telling 5 year olds hiw stupid they are for believing in Santa Claus.

You can’t have a soul and embrace this ideology, you just can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Victimized again
SAD
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

Not victimized. Empowered by pointing out the ugliness.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Would be good for Cujo.

I think you just made her case. It’s a picture of a dog by a casket. You have no clue what the dog is thinking. It’s your projection. Nice job Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know what the dog is thinking. I never said I did.

Here's what separates me from you, so pay attention.

It's comforting to me, to hope that the dog is thinking something about th person he was charged with serving, at that moment. It's not something I can prove, it's not tangible, but it's hopeful and uplifting to consider the possibility.

You just see a dog who felt like taking a load off.

I like what it triggers in me. I feel sorry for what it doesn't trigger in you.

Same thing that happens to each of us when we look at an ultrasound of an unborn baby. I see a miracle. You see nothing worth wasting emotional energy over, which was the title of that Slate hit piece.

Devoid of soul. Horrifying.

you know GWB is good when he has you laughing and crying at the same time

Are you talking about his eulogy? It was perfect. This family is do decent, they care so much about one another.

I watched Bush finish his eulogy, he sat down, and a few rows behind his left shoulder, was W's new son-in-law who married his daughter recently, and the kid (Bush's new son-in-law) was crying.

I love these people, always have. They are made of Clinton anti-matter.

Yes, HW is such a man of integrity he became best friends with the devil. Good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re putting a hell of a lot of pressure on that dog and reinforcing the author’s point once again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Talk about the tail walking the dog here.

All I see is a photographer had the dog lay down next to the coffin and he took a picture.
Maybe I am just a deeper thinker than most. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device