Comments

1
It can always be worse.

http://selfiesatfunerals.tumblr.com/
2
Malaysian Airlines Flight 370?
3
@2 - We should BE so lucky...
4
Charles,
Obama et al, DeGeneres et al, Sotomayor et al and now Gingrich et al. Those are all published selfies that I've seen recently. None of these photos do anything for me. All are just trying to have some fun and document it quickly. Basically harmless.

There's no terminal point here. The fad will continue indefinitely. As for me, I don't recall ever participating in a selfie. There are photos of me with other people goofing off but I don't distribute them. I choose not to possess the technology.
5
Callista looks fantastic!
6
@5: She does. You can always spot the Stepford by the quality craftsmanship!
7
I thought that newt's partner was a mannequin!
8
Maybe people have forgotten that newt (piece of shit) was courting the mannequin when his wife was dying. This man was running for office, and made a run at the Presidency. I hope that the American voters remember these things. newt was the one who made a huge deal about Clinton and his fling with Lewinsky, and this was during the time when his own wife was dying of cancer and he was poking this bleach blonde mannequin, so talk about hypocrisy! republicans know no bounds when it comes to being tacky.
9
@8 and for fun, ask any republican you know what they think of that. Sadly, their answer will be some form of "it doesn't matter", followed by a specious attack on Obama, or Pelosi, or Reid. Goddamn hypocrites.
10
Speaking of adultery in front of a dying spouse, you can include John Edwards. And he was a hell-of-a-lot closer to the presidency than Newt ever could have been.
11
@10 - Quality deflection there, raindrop! But what about John Edwards??? He's not in the photo. Derp.
12
And Edwards didn't go after anyone for adultery neither.
13
Seflies were dead the day the first one was ever sent
14
@10 - No he's not in the picture, but I'm calling out the depravity in both parties.
@12 - Just because he didn't call out someone on their sins does not negate his sins. Edwards does not have better morals than Gingrich just because he didn't point the finger at another adulterer.

This illustrates how 'moral relativism' is such a fallacy.
15
Well Gingrich tried to use 'moral relativism' for political gain, so by your own definition he would be slightly worse.
16
@14: Please link to a news item exhibiting the time the Democratic party launched a full scale, taxpayer-funded assault on Newt Gingrich over his infidelity.
17
@15 says, "Well Gingrich tried to use 'moral relativism' for political gain, so by your own definition he would be slightly worse."

@14: Nobody cares and nobody should care about the "sin" of marital infidelity (except for those in the relationship). It's the moralizing hypocrisy we don't like. Get it?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.