Friday, February 15, 2008
Dear Sandy: What the fuck ... ?
It was just yesterday that I was perusing the Blogging Tories, looking for more dumbassitude to mock, when I ran across a new piece by Crux-of-the-Matter's "Sandy" -- she of the gushing, adoring, moist panty worship of Prime Minister Angry -- pondering what it meant to be a "non-partisan" blogger, and oh, how I remembered that piece and promised myself I'd get back to it.
But, lo and behold, after sharpening my wit, I return to the scene of the crime to find ...
Huh?
What the hell?
That didn't last long, did it? And it just gets better.
Witness the devastation here, where both links to Sandy's blog dump you into the cybervoid. Apparently, BT Sandy is not that big a fan of ... of ... what's the word I'm looking for ... oh, yes ... "accountability." As in, being accountable for what you once wrote.
Let's all remember this, shall we, the next time Sandy laments how hard it is to have a civil conversation with all those angry, leftard moonbats, but will happily disappear the evidence whenever it becomes ever so slightly inconvenient and she'd rather it just went away and I guess that's what that tempting "Delete post" button is all about.
Blogging Tory Sandy Crux: Because some people just don't have the willpower.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Sandy Crax?
I think they have some ointment for that now.
The link seems to work. It's a piece about being "non-partisan" asking why it's okay for David Suzuki to criticize governments for their inaction on the environment, but every time Sandy writes one of her adoring articles about how absolutely wonderful and completely fantastic the STEPHEN HARPER Party is, people call her "partisan"... Or something like that.
That link works for you? How odd ... when I go there, I get a mostly blank screen stating, "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria, please try and search again."
Can anyone else verify this weirdness?
Well, isn't that the weirdest thing. It worked just a few minutes ago, but now I also get the "Sorry, no posts..." thing too.
That was the gist of the piece wasn't it though? About being "non-partisan" and relating it to Suzuki with the anchor being a column by Goldstein... Or did I just dream that?
Now you see it, now you don't. I copied it this time:
What does it mean to be non-partisan?
Posted on February 14th, 2008 in Canadian Politics by Sandy
I think it’s time we bloggers tried to define what it means to be non-partisan. I have always been open that I am a conservative. Yet, I try to be balanced in what I write. But, whenever I criticize the opposition, whether in Ontario or federally, I am jumped on by partisans who cry “partisanship.”
Well, how come it is that David Suzuki can run a charitable organization and it is okay to criticize Ed Stelmach and Stephen Harper?
So, I can hear it now. But, that is different. Why? Why is it different? Suzuki goes around giving speeches where he says, literal or not, that anyone who disagrees with his science should be jailed. Here is a man who is the headline for his organization — one which is supposed to be truly non-partisan — and yet he is free to go around and criticize high ranking politicians.
Read what Lorrie Goldstein has to say in today’s Toronto Sun.
So, at the end of the day, what does it mean to be non-partisan? And, is it possible to be non-partisan and still have political opinions?
[…]
Note: It’s a busy day. The thread is open. Will check back later.
Post a Comment