"BTR1701" wrote in message
news:btr1702-D93DE9.20314829072006@news.giganews.com...
> In article ,
> "MikeC" wrote:
>
> > "BTR1701" wrote in message
> > news:btr1702-CF9577.17180129072006@news.giganews.com...
> > > In article <5hPyg.7357$uH6.629@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> > > "MikeC" wrote:
> > >
> > >> "BTR1701" wrote in message
> > >> news:btr1702-B860AB.16032029072006@news.giganews.com...
> > >> > In article ,
> > >> > Abe wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> >It sets a very bad precedent. Once you start opening the cockpit
> > >> >> >door for Katie, next time it will be some businessman, the time
after that
> > >> >> >it may be somebody else of more dubious credentials.
> > >> >
> > >> >> There is no evidence that an exception made for a well known
celebrity
> > >> >> will creep into broader use.
> > >> >
> > >> > The question is why exceptions are made for well-known celebrities.
Why
> > >> > does being a celebrity give you exemption from rules that everyone
else
> > >> > has to live by?
> > >>
> > >> Because Couric and CBS no doubt spends a lot of money each year on
> > >> airline tickets.
> > >
> > > So do my bosses. Why don't I get that kind of exception?
> >
> > I guess you're a nobody.
>
> So it's not the money spent on tickets but the celebrity status that's
> the real issue after all.
>
> So we've come full circle to my original question: why are exceptions
> made for well-known celebrities. Why does being a celebrity give you
> exemption from rules that everyone else has to live by?
Welcome to the world of Lefty Liberal circular reasoning. Don't expect a
straight answer from those who think they are on a higher moral plane from
the rest of us.
|