New: Hillary doll hits market

I heard a toy company has a new promotional doll planned of Hillary Clinton. It was something like this:(Satire – older post)

Gearing up for summer release

Hillary — a doll whose time has come.

She walks, talks, cries and lies, and raises money too. It comes preloaded with 25 scandals, more than enough to get started. Think of all the fun kids — lets be honest girls — can have acting out some of the famous scandals they’ve only seen on tabloid magazines at the grocery store.

Cultivate your child’s imagination on rainy day play dates. White House and accessories sold separately. They’ll want to hold on to this one for years and never grow tired of it, because there’s always something new! Kids can create their own scandals too.

It’s scalable and you can add as many interactive staff and advisers as you like. Develop their own story lines just like in real life. What child could resist all those possibilities?

Set comes with the original White Water one all the way to Benghazi – many accessories available now and more on the way. And remember Hillary is always busy, which means there will be plenty more to add later. Kids can have even more fun guessing what scandal Hillary will create next? Parents might be tempted to play along for hours of wholesome family fun. Comes with lots of “Democrat voter” stickers, plus  #ReadyForHillary tags.

There will be a limited amount of dolls in the 1st edition, so get them while you can. We will try to keep up with demand but cannot guarantee it as early shipments are selling fast.

There will also be a Bubba doll roll out, so you can mix and match your choices of advisers and interns with Bubba Clinton to find which are the best fit, or just try them all one by one. The hours of enjoyment you will have from him alone will be priceless for any aspiring child. All Bubba pieces sold separately, so collect them all…if you can! Sure to be worth more over time. Sit back and just watch the story lines develop, and their value increase. Your child’s closet will not be big enough to hold it all — Hillary’s is not.

Don’t be the last on your block to order yours, they’ll be the talk at school. Made right here in USA by Blue-Dress Toy Inc. (must be at least 18 to purchase — wink, we won’t tell)

(published 3/16/2015)

RightRing | Bullright

Hardly a choice for the NYT

NYT faced a tough choice on Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Twitchy has this entertaining back and forth between NYT editor and a professor. (I say entertaining for lack of adjectives)

The guy, Marc Cooper, calls out the Times for not showing the cartoon culprits from Charlie Hebdo that caused 11 people to be executed. Fumbling around, the editor finally mentions being “open minded”, calls him an A-hole and storms off. The irony of lecturing him on open mindedness when being so close-minded about showing cartoons.

Then there was a rationale piece in NYT about its decision. As usual the explanation sounded as bad as their decision. The title was appropriately called:

A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

Mr. Baquet [editor] told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.

He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

“I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”

Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers.

See Public Editor’s Journal

Okay, so the NYT was actually on the fence about publishing but then decided no it wouldn’t. So did that count for a ‘we almost did publish it, but decided not to? We were very close, and seriously considered it.’ Two points to NYT, for almost publishing it. It is the thought that counts, right? So he did it to protect….

But Twitchy captured the back and forth PC theatrics of the editor trying to rationalize it. Now maybe the NYT should have first consulted with their gal Hillary Clinton, who wrote a book on the topic called “Hard Choices”? Then again, maybe not. Scratch that…lol

Ref: Facebook page Marc Cooper

White people: get with the program

I’m starting a new thing and going to roll it out soon. This is a combination of things I have already seen done. It’s a proven formula. (slightly satire)

I want to find a select few people that speak for all whites. Now I know plenty will want to but you can only have a very few. It defeats the purpose if there are a lot of them. They will operate as the spokesmen and be entitled to raise money, promote, extort, or speak on behalf of the “white community”.

I know there may be some objections. Some may resent a few single individuals vested with the responsibility for white people at large. But I see it done with blacks and there is no problem. In fact, I think every race et al should do the same. Like Asians for instance. Look at the poo-bah of the Islamic State (ISIS) that speaks for Muslims.

I just think whites are way behind in this. So I want to start a National Association for the Advancement of White People. (NAAWP)

The idea is whenever there is an event like a crime involving a white person, the spokesmen will be dispatched. They will also have carte blanche to organize white people for protests or demonstrations, or fundraising. They will speak for the White victim or his/her family in all public events.You can’t expect dumb families or “victims” to speak for themselves. They also can inject themselves between families and the attorneys. Look, this is how it works. I’m not making this up, you know.

See it is much simpler if a couple Whites are designated to speak for all. Don’t make it complicated, so people can understand it, keep it simple. Press will be glad to deal with and speak only to those people. See how simple that is?

Now it is a lifetime appointment. No one can revoke that authority and you cannot lose it by, ah, misbehaving. Everyone must bestow their faith and trust in them, no questions asked. Again, this just how it works. Members of the NAAWP will have the ability to choose their president and spokesman, who will speak for the organization. But the speakers’, let’s call them “organizers”, authority trumps all.

In a rare conflict, the NAAWP shall line up to stand behind the spokesperson. Whites cannot speak for themselves, you know. That only creates chaos and division, and white people do not need that! Trust me. Well, there should be “consequences” if they do not line up behind the leaders. Let’s call them “leaders of the White community.”

Even if a leader does something underhanded or illegal, they remain a de facto “leader”. Actually that is considered a good thing. (ha ha — fringe benefits) Obviously, they will be designated — but not by a democratic process. We’ll let everyone know who they are.

You get the idea. Anytime something happens, call in the pros to handle the details. If there is any negotiation, call them. When he puts out the word, just fall in line and repeat what he says. No, it doesn’t have to be true. No one cares about that, just repeat it — loudly and often. Don’t think outside the box.

Along those lines, we push the narrative: blame black privilege for all the problems. Talk about “fair” or “unfairness” of the system a lot. Say you are being discriminated against for living while white. From now on, everything is the Black man’s fault. (Or others, if need be. Defer to the leader’s script) Say you want a fair dialogue then turn it into an argument. Claim you want fairness and blame them for discriminating.

In Congress we need a “White Caucus,” which all whites will be obligated to support and stand with. One message, in lockstep, don’t confuse the system. It would defeat the purpose if we all stand up individually. This is the way it works. Get with the program.

There are still a few minor wrinkles to iron out, like what names to call those who don’t fall in line. There has to be a punishment for that. The Spokesmen can single them out, too.

I would ask for your opinions, suggestions, and approval except it is not necessary. Once this system is in place, your opinions are irrelevant anyway. Disagreement will earn you the label of traitor and a disgrace to your race. You have no veto power, that’s part of the genius. I hope you will like it, just don’t get in the way if you don’t.

RightRing | Bullright

Thoughts: crisis control

 

THOUGHTS

by

Just Gene

about

CRISIS CONTROL

I had the lucky opportunity the other day to slip a tape recorder into an administration emergency meeting called to address an unexpected immediate crisis. Here is the meeting, verbatim.

There’s a hole in the bucket, Mister President, Mister President. There’s a hole in the bucket, Mister President, there’s a hole.
Then fix it, Secretary Holder, Secretary Holder. Then fix it, Secretary Holder, then fix it.
With what should I fix it? Ms. Jarrett, Ms. Jarrett. With what should I fix it, Ms. Jarrett, with what?
With a straw, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Kerry. With a straw, Secretary Kerry, with a straw.
But the straw is too long, Secretary Lew, Secretary Lew. The straw is too long, Secretary Lew, too long.
Then cut it Secretary Hagel, Secretary Hagel. Then cut it, Secretary Hagel, cut it!
With what shall I cut it, Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Vilsack. With what shall I cut it, Secretary Vilsack, with what?
With an ax, Secretary Pritzker, Secretary Pritzker. With an ax, Secretary Pritzker, an ax.
But the ax is too dull, Secretary Foxx, Secretary Foxx. The ax is too dull, Secretary Foxx, too dull.
Then, sharpen it, Secretary Duncan, Secretary Duncan, Then sharpen it Secretary Duncan, sharpen it!
With what should I sharpen it, Secretary Jewell, Secretary Jewell. With what should I sharpen it, Secretary Jewell, with what?
With a stone, Secretary Cohen, Secretary Cohen. With a stone,Secretary Cohen, a stone.
But the stone is too dry, Secretary Riley, Secretary Riley. The stone is too dry, Secretary Riley, too dry.
Then wet it, Secretary Sebelius, Secretary Sebelius. Then wet it Secretary Sebelius, wet it.
With what should I wet it, Secretary Perez, Secretary Perez. With what should I wet it, Secretary Perez, with what?
With water, Ms. Jackson, Ms. Jackson. With water, Ms. Jackson, with water.
But how shall I get it, Secretary Glickman, Secretary Glickman. But how shall I get it, Secretary Glickman, with what?
In the bucket, Secretary Mineta, Secretary Mineta. In the bucket, Secretary Mineta, the bucket.
But there’s a hole in the bucket, Secretary Moniz, Secretary Moniz. There’s a hole in the bucket, Secretary Moniz, a hole.

Ms. Rice interrupted – “Why don’t we just make a video”.

I was able to get the tape out while they were still discussing the problem by constantly repeating the above – ad infinitum – or maybe AD NAUSEUM!

luvya