Slate magazine attacks Bushs service dog, Sully.

[Jim in CT]

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

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[wdmso]

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

yes...Graham sounds like an ahole

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[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]

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by 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

Victimized again
SAD
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Victimized again
SAD
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not victimized. Empowered by pointing out the ugliness.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not victimized. Empowered by pointing out the ugliness.

I can tell by how many times you posted in this thread, that you need an intervention.
I thought the eulogies were all great, most of the articles I read also, you can tell he had good friends and family, a great sense of humor and didn't take himself too seriously.
Look for something good, Jim.
The dog moved on, you should too.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I can tell by how many times you posted in this thread, that you need an intervention.
I thought the eulogies were all great, most of the articles I read also, you can tell he had good friends and family, a great sense of humor and didn't take himself too seriously.
Look for something good, Jim.
The dog moved on, you should too.

so you post incessantly about what a demonic figure trump is. but because i’m simply responding often here, i need an intervention. okee-dokee.

the eulogies were great. it was all great, the sendoff he deserved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

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.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/..._ayfOMtJxw8_84


but this story will get no coverage here

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/..._ayfOMtJxw8_84


but this story will get no coverage here

start a thread and walk us through it. you like to tell me to stay on topic so right back at you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

start a thread and walk us through it. you like to tell me to stay on topic so right back at you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no just pointing out a story about a dog outrages you more than a party changing the rules in a lame duck session because they Lost Hint Hint they aren't liberals

what that statement elections have consequences

[scottw]

this thread has gotten weird

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

......because they Lost Hint Hint they aren't liberals

If they were liberals, they'd be looking to abolish the Electoral college, Don Pussy hats, Call everybody Nazis, Change the voting age to 16, smash store windows, and scream "Not My President" incessantly

[Nebe]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/slate/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Who cares about a service dog in the grand scheme of things? If someone is so petty to talk about a dog (and I didn't read the article) I could care less.

I think you posted a picture of the Clinton's sitting in church - big deal. It would be like my posting the picture I saw of all the Pres/families reading aloud from the Bible or the program and Trump standing there like he is bored out of his mind. I couldn't be bothered doing that bc I'm not petty (or angry) enough to start a thread about it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Who cares about a service dog in the grand scheme of things? If someone is so petty to talk about a dog (and I didn't read the article) I could care less.

I think you posted a picture of the Clinton's sitting in church - big deal. It would be like my posting the picture I saw of all the Pres/families reading aloud from the Bible or the program and Trump standing there like he is bored out of his mind. I couldn't be bothered doing that bc I'm not petty (or angry) enough to start a thread about it.

once again, the character flaw is mine. and another diversion to Trump. How original.

apparently the Slate author cared enough about the dog, to feel obligated to put a stop to the goodwill we all felt because of the images of the dog. On my side, we like that stuff. your side calls it “demented.”. That’s why i like my side.

i do take it personally, i guess, i had an amazing golden retriever many years ago who was a certified therapy dog. I took him to Newtown a couple of times after the Sandy Hook shooting. Maybe that was ‘demented’ and ‘wasteful’ of me, Slate magazine would
say so, and none of the liberals here seem to have an issue with it.

Again, thankful for my side.

one of the best gifts of dogs, is that occasionally, they remind us what it is, to be human. I’d say liberals could use a reminder.

Here let me respond for you, save younthe teouble.

Why are you so angry? And did you see what Trump did yesterday?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and another diversion to Trump.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the whataboutismists do a lot of whataboutisming

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

the whataboutismists do a lot of whataboutisming

But it's brilliant and pertinent when THEY do it. Only a character flaw when we do it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

once again, the character flaw is mine. and another diversion to Trump. How original. The character flaw is yours in posting about the article. Trump really hasn't been discussed in this thread other than my giving you an example above.

apparently the Slate author cared enough about the dog, to feel obligated to put a stop to the goodwill we all felt because of the images of the dog. On my side, we like that stuff. your side calls it “demented.”. That’s why i like my side.isn't that what you did in the modified tribute thread where you added things about the Clinton's even after Bruce made a new thread and asked everyone to not do that. You did it in the very next post I believe. So you stopped the good will and caused a diversion to the Clinton. Pretty funny you complain about that here but just did the same exact thing in the other thread.

i do take it personally, i guess, i had an amazing golden retriever many years ago who was a certified therapy dog. I took him to Newtown a couple of times after the Sandy Hook shooting. Maybe that was ‘demented’ and ‘wasteful’ of me, Slate magazine would
say so, and none of the liberals here seem to have an issue with it.

Again, thankful for my side.

one of the best gifts of dogs, is that occasionally, they remind us what it is, to be human. I’d say liberals could use a reminder. I think we see what it looks like to be human when Conserv. try to cut taxes where the primary benefit goes to the rich, run up the deficit and then propose to cut benefits like food stamps for poor people.

Here let me respond for you, save younthe teouble.

Why are you so angry? Why am I angry? And did you see what Trump did yesterday? You mean when he didn't read from what everyone else was reading and stood there looking bored?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

NM

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

NM

"isn't that what you did in the tribute thread where you added things about the Clinton's even after Bruce made a new thread and asked everyone to not do that"

The original tribute thread was my thread, so I'm not sure I see how I can be accused of hijacking my own thread. But if it makes you feel better, OK, that's what I did.

"So you stopped the good will and caused a diversion "

Sure. I did that, and I got criticized here by all the liberals for doing that. Yet those same liberals, cannot criticize a fellow liberal for doing that. It's only bad when I do it. Why? Can you tell me why that is?

"I think we see what it looks like to be human when Conserv. try to cut taxes where the primary benefit goes to the rich"

And what happened to black unemployment, and Hispanic unemployment, after that tax cut? How come you left that out. I agree with you 100%, that the tax cut should have been more focused on middle class and below. Where you and I differ, is that I don't have to pretend that there was no benefit to the middle class and below.

You're saying the GOP tax cut was "inhuman". Interesting. I'd say it was imperfect, not aimed enough at the people you and I both want to help. But those people were helped by the tax cut, just not as much as they could have been. Is that true or false?

"run up the deficit "

And where was your concern over the deficit, exactly, from 09-16? I agree the deficit and debt is a MAJPOR issue. But again, the difference between us, is that my concern doesn't depend on the party of the sitting president. Yours does. Which means your concern is selective, which means it's fake.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"isn't that what you did in the tribute thread where you added things about the Clinton's even after Bruce made a new thread and asked everyone to not do that"

The original tribute thread was my thread, so I'm not sure I see how I can be accused of hijacking my own thread. But if it makes you feel better, OK, that's what I did. So ignore the mods. here bc why? It made you feel good to get one more dig on the Clintons?

"So you stopped the good will and caused a diversion "

Sure. I did that, and I got criticized here by all the liberals for doing that. Yet those same liberals, cannot criticize a fellow liberal for doing that. It's only bad when I do it. Why? Can you tell me why that is? It certainly is different doing it in a tribute thread than a thread about a dog.

"I think we see what it looks like to be human when Conserv. try to cut taxes where the primary benefit goes to the rich"

And what happened to black unemployment, and Hispanic unemployment, after that tax cut? It pretty much continued on the same trajectory as it was going on before. I've said here many times lower unemployment (black or othewise) is good for all us How come you left that out. I agree with you 100%, that the tax cut should have been more focused on middle class and below. Where you and I differ, is that I don't have to pretend that there was no benefit to the middle class and below. The benefit was minor to the middle class and that is why the Repubs. didn't run on it in the elections.

You're saying the GOP tax cut was "inhuman"Tax cuts are not inhumane (I think that is what you mean - hopefully Scott won't read it) but when the deficit balloons as many people said and the reaction is to cut spending for the poor- that is inhumane. . Interesting. I'd say it was imperfect, not aimed enough at the people you and I both want to help. But those people were helped by the tax cut, just not as much as they could have been. Is that true or false?

"run up the deficit "

And where was your concern over the deficit, exactly, from 09-16? You mean when the economy was in the crapper? Different times need different measures. I agree the deficit and debt is a MAJPOR issue. But again, the difference between us, is that my concern doesn't depend on the party of the sitting president. Yours does. Which means your concern is selective, which means it's fake.

Just proved that last statement wrong.

[Sea Dangles]

Don’t sell yourself short Paul, you are certainly petty enough...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device