Our Moral Superiors™

Posted on Comments

Liberals are better than you and me because . . . they’re liberals.

So after Sarah Palin said something about the national debt comparing its burden on future generations to slavery, Martin Bashir read from the diary of an overseer on an 18th-century plantation in Jamaica (??) to justify saying something very hateful:

Despicable: MSNBC’s Bashir Wishes Sarah Palin
Would Be Defecated, Urinated On
— Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters

Martin Bashir says someone should defecate
in Sarah Palin’s mouth. Has MSNBC gone mad?
— Tim Stanley, London Telegraph

Martin Bashir is better than you and me, and so is Alec Baldwin.

You know why. And also, shut up, hater.

UPDATE: Good news for c*cksucking fags:

So I guess that whole “threatening to sue TMZ” thing didn’t work out so well. Ed Driscoll has related thoughts.

 

54 comments

  5. Why is it that when I’m reading this, or otherwise dealing with liberals, I get the feeling that I’m dealing with spoiled 14 year olds? Or am I being too generous with the age?

  11. What the hell has happened to this country? When I was a kid, or even twenty years ago for that matter filth like this would never have been broadcast.

  14. Anyone who thinks Baldwin was punished because he used vulgar language is kidding themselves.

    Jennifer Keaton, Julea Ward, Crystal Dixon, in the US, and Owen Johns (UK), to give but a few examples, were all persecuted because they do not submit to a sexually perverted liberal worldview.

    I just posted a comment on this on another blog:

    The Johns case is a great example of a ruling that institutes the criminalization of Christianity in England, while claiming its ruling has nothing to do with religion!

    In other words, it’s a blatant attack on religious liberty that does not acknowledge that is exactly what it is doing.
    It directly relates to the US because it signals a major change in cultural hegemony. Liberalism is being implanted here by suppressing the rights of socons/religious folks through similar legal and other practical maneuvers. One case that seems very parallel to me is the Crystal Dixon case:

    http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2620/Univ-Administrator-Fired-for-Views-on-Homosexuality-Denied-Supreme-Court-Appeal.aspx

    She was persecuted out of her job because of her sound beliefs, which are social conservative. It’s the same conundrum as the Johns case: if Dixon is unfit to have a job in HR, so is every other social conservative – her views are obviously too criminal to allow her to have an HR job. Why can she be singled out for discrimination then, and not everyone else who thinks the same? Why should anyone ever employ her again? And notice she has no further recourse through the legal system.

    Between the SSPX and the liberals in Dixon’s university, or the liberals who want to deny the Johns’ their right to be foster parents, who would you say is the most close-minded and bigoted?

  15. The Telegraph article you linked contains a huge error. The very first sentence is:

    It’s been a bad week for MSNBC, and a bad week for serious journalism.

    “MSNBC” and “serious journalism” cannot be used, legitimately, in the same sentence.

  21. The people who hired him are exactly like him. Did you notice how tepid the gays are in admonishing him? If he weren’t a sleazeball liberal they would be talking the same way as Bashir.

Comments are closed.