|
::fuzzy and blue --political musings by a proud Democrat::
::Author::  Name::Tina From::United States Married college graduate and parent who lives in the Mid West View my complete 
::Recent Entries::
::Archives::
::Daily Reads::
::Spare::
|
Monday, September 25, 2006 Why is it ok for Falwell but not Chavez, and Wallace but not Clinton? Maybe I just don't get Repuke/Wingnut hypocrisy, but could someone please explain to me why it is fine and dandy for Jerry Falwell to call Hillary Clinton "Lucifer" but it is not fine for Hugo Chavez to call Bush "Satan"? And if you can explain that, could you also explain why it is fine for Chris Wallace to be angry when the film, "The Path to 9/11" quoted and portrayed his father incorrectly and spread untruths about his dad, but when former prez Clinton is rightfully angry at being portrayed incorrecty and having untruths spread about him in the film, Cinton is smeared by Wallace and called "crazed"? Never mind.. I already know the answer: IOKIYAR. 
|
::Tagboard::
::Spare::
::Links::
::Spare::
::Credits::
::Redent Visitors::
|