THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

 

Republicans: Defending the Indefensible

The first ever "Think Flag" award for excellence in bog commenting is hereby presented to the following comment.

Face it, the current Administration has led principled conservatives into defending the indefensible day after day. Conservatives now find themselves justifying behavior and policies they would hang a Democrat for. If you still want to be a Republican, the only way you can keep your integrity now is to wish for a completely different set of Republicans.

And when you do install your principled conservatives in office, and you finally succeed in balancing the budget over the corpses of Social Security and Medicare: Swarms of aging baby boomers will attack your mansions by night, bearing patio torches and Weed Whackers.


Well done.

Comments:
Conservatives now find themselves justifying behavior and policies they would hang a Democrat for.

And Democrats find themselves trying to hang a Republican for behavior and policies they would justify for a Democrat.

Anyone here heard of politics??
 
The GOP better get the investigation of themselves going pronto, because if they wait until after 2006 they might just find it chaired by a Democrat.
 
And Democrats find themselves trying to hang a Republican for behavior and policies they would justify for a Democrat.

Simply not true. Democrats are much harder on other democrats than republicans are on republicans. For example, I did not vote for Bill Clinton when he ran for re-election because I thought that he broke a number of campaign promises in his first term. I also thought that lying to cover up a romantic affair disqualified him from holding office.

In the prevailing republican view, there are no number of broken promises and no number of lies that Bush could tell that would disqualify him from holding office.
 
Nonsense. There are plenty of Repulicans that are not exactly 100% behind Bush. Here's an example. Your man Bob Barr is another example.

Clinton proved that telling the truth is not a prerequisite for holding elective office. I find myself defending Bush because the attacks are outlandish.

If someone were to say, "You know, I'm not sure this is legal. I sure am glad the President is trying to keep people from killing me, but this may be a bit too far," I'd reply with "you may be right." But when it's "that lying drunk dictator Bush is trampling on rights to justify his vanity oil war," it's too much, so I defend.
 
But when it's "that lying drunk dictator Bush is trampling on rights to justify his vanity oil war," it's too much, so I defend.

I don't think Bush is drinking anymore...
 
Okay. You just want to be on the side of the little guy, the poor powerless president who is suffering these unwarranted attacks. You are just pulling for the underdog.

That makes sense.
 
But when it's "that lying drunk dictator Bush is trampling on rights to justify his vanity oil war," it's too much, so I defend.

Darn it jason, I just denied the DRINKING part. If I have to explain it, it's not funny anymore :-)
 
It was funny.

I was going to make the same whimsical observation but got carried away by the overall f'ed-up-ed-ness of the justification for STILL supporting Bush.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]