Dishonest But Important

Time magazine has declared the sleazy ad accusing Romney of killing people with cancer to be “dishonest but important.”

So let me get this straight. We have an attack ad saying how someone died of cancer for reasons completely unrelated to anything Romney ever did, but somehow it illustrates a substantive point? If the point is so substantive, wouldn’t it be easy to make a non-sleazy ad that involved actual factual points? So why didn’t they make that?

It makes me think of how when the left attack conceal carry, they mention all these horrible things (“It will be like the Wild West!”) that could happen but never point to any actual examples of those — because there aren’t any. But I guess those are substantive arguments.

So the main problem here is that the left doesn’t really understand what the word “substantive” means. And they’re okay with dishonesty. Great combo.

9 Comments

  1. Right Blarg,
    Obama is Pres of the United States.
    Children living in the United States have been molested since he ‘became’ president (and will be after).
    Therefore, Obama is responsible for their molestation.

  2. So the way I’m reading it, this makes Obama actually systematically in charge of a vast gang of pederasts. I should think we could get the Court of International Justice involved in this. Love to see the SOB in a cage at The Hague.

  3. Isaiah 5:20 (750 BC- that would be Before Christ)
    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    Isn’t it an amazing coincidence that we’d be having the problems that a made up book highlighted over 2500 years ago? Inconceivable.

Leave a Reply to 4of7 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.