I couldn’t have said it better myself. Check out this article: http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/16/4031610513617
Is there any other way of saying that the Bush Administration is full of cronyism, and wants to have everything their own way? The conservative’s dilemma: consistency
Right-wingers use convoluted logic to try and have it both ways on every issue
by Kenneth Norris
Staff Writer
February 16, 2004
I grow weary of inundating conservatives with indisputable facts about President Bush’s lack of character and infidelity to conservative principles. I cannot count the numerous times I have cited irrefutable sources detailing how Bush abuses our nation’s veterans, or how the Bush administration has falsified taxpayer-funded scientific research in corrupt corporate cronyism, or how Bush has repeatedly appointed ideological hacks and corporate whores to positions of public trust. No, conservatives care nothing about any of these things as long as there is no semen-stained blue dress of which to speak.
I never was a fan of Bill Clinton, and his lies about his immoral behavior only compounded his guilt. However, no one died from his mendacity. Bush lied and people died. I guess conservatives believe that ejaculating on a garment and lying about it is worse than getting over 500 Americans killed in a wild goose chase for nonexistent WMDs.
So I will now vent my moral indignation by targeting the foundations of conservative thought and plunging Bush’s self-righteous supporters into a maelstrom of cognitive dissonance from which they can only retreat in denial to perpetuate their willful ignorance. The psychological morass that follows will be their Vietnam.
Is it not amusing that conservatives believe in preserving traditional ways in our society, yet they actively promote advancements in technology which are sure to cultivate the greatest societal transformations? Yes, how genius is it to promote innovation as a means to obstructing change?
Is it not bizarre that conservatives tout America as “the land of opportunity” and home of the best, most successful system that this earth has ever known, but they try vainly to deny entry to others because it is a strain on our economic resources?
Is it not comical how conservatives assert states’ rights until some state, such as Oregon or California, passes some legislation conservatives disagree with? Conservatives sure hurry to pass federal laws and use federal courts to overturn state laws on medicinal marijuana and physician-assisted suicide. Remember the case about an Oregon man who wanted to use state money to attend a seminary although it violated Oregon law? Yes, conservatives cared little about a state’s right to determine how to spend its own revenues.
Is it not confounding that the whole point of the Protestant movement was to assert the individual’s moral right to interpret Scripture for oneself instead of through the mediation of the Catholic priesthood, yet contemporary Christian conservatives march lockstep in asserting theirs as the only correct interpretation of the Bible?
Speaking of literal interpretations, there is a heated debate in law about how to interpret laws. The conservative view is that laws mean simply what they say; the narrowest interpretation is the correct one. However, many legal philosophers contend that laws are general rules judges apply to dissimilar cases.
For example, the citizens of a town complain to the city council about teenagers driving their vehicles into a public park to “make out” or to splash through the mud. In response, the city council passes a law that reads, “no vehicle is permitted in public parks; violations are punishable by 30 days’ incarceration.”
Thereafter, a grandmother rides her motorized wheelchair into a public park while her grandson operates a remote-control car. A policeman arrests them and they must appear in court. How is the judge supposed to apply the law, Mr. and Ms. Conservative?
Surely a motorized wheelchair is a form of vehicle, as is a toy car, but should the judge follow the literal, narrow interpretation by incarcerating the grandmother and her grandson or should the judge follow the spirit of the law by recognizing that the city council did not really intend to arrest handicapped grandmothers and children with battery-operated toys?
I think I have arrived at the reason for conservative criticism of Clinton and blind acquiescence to Bush’s lies: Bush’s lies caused the deaths of over 500 members of our recognized government’s military, but Clinton lied about the deaths of several million sperm cells forever immortalized upon a blue dress.
It is a good thing that conservatives have their priorities right.