[Jim in CT]

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