It's About Time: Autotrader Announces it Will No Longer Advertise on Samantha Bee's Show #BREAKING: Autotrader drops their sponsorship of Samantha Bee's show. pic.twitter.com/wNH1neSymR — Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) May 31, 2018

Rules, New https://t.co/cqNDLOhMyd — Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) May 31, 2018



We need more of this. A lot more. We need to start punishing media companies and, more importantly, media companies' advertisers, just like they do to us, until the Balance of Terror is equal on both sides. We need more of this. A lot more. We need to start punishing media companies and, more importantly, media companies', just like they do to us, until the Balance of Terror is equal on both sides. Jim Geraghty posits this theory -- which seems kind of obvious to me -- about the right's growing rejection of alleged "rules" which are only applied to harm the right: Jim Geraghty posits this theory -- which seems kind of obvious to me -- about the right's growing rejection of alleged "rules" which are only applied to harm the right: Half-formed thought, forgive me: what we�re seeing on the Right regarding discourse and decorum is sort of like �jury nullification.� They see such a glaring double standard in the way �beyond the pale� is defined that they no longer want to enforce the rules for anyone. — Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) May 31, 2018



Something like that, yeah. We cannot have Two Americas where one America is speech-patrolled and scalp-hunted and lives in constant fear, and the other can do or say whatever they like and only suffer the consequence of having their arms weighed down by too many industry awards. Something like that, yeah. We cannot have Two Americas where one America is speech-patrolled and scalp-hunted and lives in constant fear, and the other can do or say whatever they like and only suffer the consequence of having their arms weighed down by too many industry awards. If there is going to be a law, then the law shall apply to all. If there is going to be a law, then the law shall apply to all. If the law does not apply to all, then there shall be no law at all. If the law does not apply to all, then there shall be no law at all. This is not a novel, hard-to-understand, or revolutionary idea. We demand that we be treated equally. If a rule shall be inflicted on us, then we demand it be inflicted on the High Caste as well. If it is not to be inflicted on the High Caste, then we reject the rule as not a rule at all. This is not a novel, hard-to-understand, or revolutionary idea. We demand that we be treated equally. If a rule shall be inflicted on us, then we demand it be inflicted on the High Caste as well. If it is not to be inflicted on the High Caste, then we reject the rule as not a rule at all. A rule which does not bind all men equally is not a rule. It is merely a partisan weapon. A rule which does not bind all men equally is not a rule. It is merely a partisan weapon. It is, in fact, a marker of Caste privilege on the positive end and Caste disfavor on the negative end. It is, in fact, a marker ofon the positive end andon the negative end. Why should anyone arbitrarily pushed into a Deplorable Caste willingly prop up the system of burdens and forbiddances which define the caste? Why wouldn't someone suddenly made into a member of a newly-invented Deplorable Caste by a newly-invented Media Aristocracy Caste reject the badges and markers of the Caste system wholesale? Why should anyone arbitrarily pushed into a Deplorable Caste willingly prop up the system of burdens and forbiddances which define the caste? Why wouldn't someone suddenly made into a member of a newly-invented Deplorable Caste by a newly-invented Media Aristocracy Caste reject the badges and markers of the Caste system wholesale? If the Media Aristocracy Caste decides that only Deplorables should have to pay federal taxes, while they will claim their lordly right of immunity to federal taxation (which is indeed a right claimed by the nobility in times past; this is part of what sparked the French Revolution), should we go along with that as well simply because Our Betters have instructed us to? If the Media Aristocracy Caste decides that only Deplorables should have to pay federal taxes, while they will claim their lordly right of immunity to federal taxation (which is indeed a right claimed by the nobility in times past; this is part of what sparked the French Revolution), should we go along with that as well simply because Our Betters have instructed us to? At what point do demands to make ourselves servile and compliant end? At what point do demands to make ourselves servile and compliant end? At what point does bourgeois compliance with evil become evil in itself, and at what point does revolt become a moral necessity? At what point does bourgeois compliance with evil become evil in itself, and at what point does revolt become a moral necessity? But they wan, fey cuck "Hashtag Griswold" sees it differently: But they wan, fey cuck "Hashtag Griswold" sees it differently: No, I think it's cynical and partisan. I think most just want the opposite double standard, where conservatives get a pass and liberals don't. — Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) May 31, 2018



The Washington Free Beacon really is a garbage-tier website at this point. With some notable exceptions like Liz Harrington and Adam Kredo, it's almost completely manned, if I can use that word, but liberals who conned their way on to a semi-conservative/neocon website, who are all diligently padding their Twitter resumes to make themselves acceptable for employment by the Daily Beast or CNN. The Washington Free Beacon really is a garbage-tier website at this point. With some notable exceptions like Liz Harrington and Adam Kredo, it's almost completely manned, if I can use that word, but liberals who conned their way on to a semi-conservative/neocon website, who are all diligently padding their Twitter resumes to make themselves acceptable for employment by the Daily Beast or CNN. Some cucks on Twitter are praising Bee's apology -- whereas they rejected Roseanne's out-of-hand. Some cucks on Twitter are praising Bee's apology -- whereas they rejected Roseanne's out-of-hand. Yet: Samantha Bee's joke was scripted and rehearsed, whereas Roseanne's was clearly tossed off spontaneously. Yet: Samantha Bee's joke was scripted and rehearsed, whereas Roseanne's was clearly tossed off spontaneously. I think it's pretty obvious that something that's scripted and rehearsed has much more time for reflection and evaluation, and something tossed-off without thinking has almost no time for reflection and evaluation. I think it's pretty obvious that something that's scripted and rehearsed has much more time for reflection and evaluation, and something tossed-off without thinking has almost no time for reflection and evaluation. Until you start catching heat for it. Until you start catching heat for it. Bee, on the other hand, calculated that the publicity and praise she'd garner would exceed the heat she'd catch, and so made the decision to use her stupid clapper potty-mouth "joke." Bee, on the other hand, calculated that the publicity and praise she'd garner would exceed the heat she'd catch, and so made the decision to use her stupid clapper potty-mouth "joke." Bee thought about the right insult and workshopped it. Her fucking producer bragged about it on Twitter as she was saying it, trying to get people to tune in. Bee thought about the right insult and workshopped it. Her fucking producer bragged about it on Twitter as she was saying it, trying to get people to tune in. So actually, an apology from Roseanne is in fact more plausible than Bee "apologizing" for something she did not only with malice aforethought, but a writers-pitch-session and pre-show run-through aforethought. So actually, an apology from Roseannein fact more plausible than Bee "apologizing" for something she did not only with malice aforethought, but a writers-pitch-session and pre-show run-through aforethought. But CNN and the other keepers of Liberal Law say that Roseanne's apology is phony and inadequate, whereas Bee's is genuine and fully exonerating, and those who wish to prove to their Masters that they can be One of the Good Ones will have to bow to masters' commands. But CNN and the other keepers of Liberal Law say that Roseanne's apology is phony and inadequate, whereas Bee's is genuine and fully exonerating, and those who wish to prove to their Masters that they can be One of the Good Ones will have to bow to masters' commands. Posted by: Ace of Spades at 03:31 PM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat