Comments on: Karl’s Roving Standards

By: madkane

madkane — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:58:48 +0000

Thanks mw. :)

By: mw

mw — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:44:44 +0000

Madeleine,
I love your work, even when I disagree with your politics. Included your marginally on-topic limerick in my latest carnival. However, I have to say that whenever a partisan accuses another partisan of hypocrisy, as *ahem* the talented Ms. Kane does here, the riposte is always absurdly easy to craft - just flip-flop the argument or in this case - the verse:

Citizen Kane’s Court
by mw

Kane’s memory is equally short.
Back when dealing with names for the Court,
She demanded Dems nix
Any Bush judgeship picks
Based on views that she failed to support.

But now that the tables are turned,
She feels no nominee should be spurned
as long as Madeleine is feeling
their politics are appealing.
Consistency? Mads? Unconcerned!

By: madkane

madkane — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:12:55 +0000

Thanks so much Tumblewords. I like your point about my double style tying in with two-faced, though I can’t take credit for thinking of it. :)

You make a good point, Avedon.

And Charles, thanks for joining in on the limerick fun.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:05:03 +0000

Tis not hypocrisy, Madame Kane
For the man who serves as reality’s thane.
His job it is to say what’s true
And what is not is et by grues,
Then rinse, repeat, and turn again.

By: Avedon

Avedon — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:09:22 +0000

Actually, he’s perfectly consistent - all arguments support one consistent theme: Only conservatives should be allowed on the court.

By: Tumblewords

Tumblewords — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:51:38 +0000

Because his memory’s short, he’s betting ours is, too. What a buncha jokers. Great limerick! I like your double style which ties in with two-faced - so much to be said!