Thursday, August 30, 2007

Conservatives know what the definition of “is” is. Liberals don’t

Republicans, better yet, conservatives, better yet, God-fearing conservatives hold themselves and elected officials they support to a higher standard. That is good and wholesome.

Democrats, better yet, liberals, better yet, “pants-down” liberals don’t really have much of a standard to which they hold their elected officials.

“Pants-down” liberals do get fabulously loud when they divine hypocrisy.

Witness the “pants-down’ers” calling for Sen. Craig to resign because they divined hypocrisy of his opposition to homosexual marriage and now Craig’s famous bathroom event at a problematic airport restroom.

The “pants-down” crowd deems all homosexuals support legalized gay marriage and any deviation of such is hypocrisy.

This is illogical as God-fearing conservatives deeming all “pants-down” liberals as booger-eating morons, knowing full-well that many “pants-downers” don’t eat boogers.

“Pants-down” liberals squeal against peeking into bedrooms, unless someone is storing a firearm there for protection instead of a box of rubbers – now that’s hypocrisy!

God-fearing conservatives are right to hold themselves and their elected officials to a higher standard. We’ve seen numerous conservative politicians fall from popularity while the “pants-down” politicians get re-elected even after a homosexual diddling of a House page or a “boyfriend” running a prostitution ring out of Rep. Barney “the sword swallower” Frank’s apartment.

God-fearing conservatives are the ones creating the double-standard-standard. And, it is a badge of honor to strive to a higher standard ... it is divine.

Who, but the “pant-down” crowd would even listen to their own ilk without feeling creeped out and in dire need of a shower ... (not a golden shower, favored by the pants-downers.)

Let the creeps have their blue dresses stained in the Oval Office or their publicly exposed trysts and lawsuits like Larry LaRocco.

The “pants-down” troupe doesn’t have to tell God-fearing conservatives what the definition of “is” is, unless they are trying to fool them into thinking creeps are OK, especially if their creeps are serving in government office.


Anonymous said...

This blog doesn't seem to offer much support to a guy who's been a pretty solid republican mainstay in Idaho politics for a long, long time. Tearing down democrats apparently is fun, but really Craig could use some support here. Fits in nicely with Ralph Smeed's observation that conservatives are extremely bad about supporting each other. Short memory syndrome, I guess.

So, for sake of conversation, let's say that Larry Craig is and has been gay for some time and lied about it -- no slack, big political mistake.

Besides that, what, exactly did Craig DO that was illegal???

The original charge of "lewd conduct" didn't even specify that Craig actually DID anything that could be remotely construed as illegal -- even in Minnesota. Even if it did, he was not convicted of ANYTHING LEWD except agreeing to accept a charge of disorderly conduct (whatever that is) to get the legal monkey off his back. A crime used to require a victim and the perpetrator actually doing something that harmed the victim. Now it seems that simple entrapment and creative police-reporting prose are enough to convict in the media if not in Minnesota as well.

Regardless of what happens with Craig, perhaps this is a good opportunity to revisit the hypocrisy of consensual crimes and to highlight the absolute lunacy of spending time enforcing laws that shouldn't be on the books in the first place.

Unfortunately, those God-fearing conservatives you mention in the blog piece can take credit for most of the idiotic laws in question.

Jen Clark said...

I have to say, after reading this post, I was quite disappointed.

Why is it necessary for us to put each other and our representatives into 2 neat little boxes: the conservative box and the liberal box?

I don't know anyone that fits neatly into either of these categories.

The reason we do this is because it's easy. It allows us writers to verbally bash someone without naming names, and (I'm not trying to offend you but) it's cowardly and childish.

In the headline of your blog, you tout this blog as a place to talk about how to stop those who are taking away our liberties, a discussion I would very much like to participate in. At this point in our history, I would like to see us as Americans, and even more so as writers, come together and do what we can to accomplish your goal. Trashing half the population, however, doesn't help anyone and scares people away from the discussion.

Let's be better than that.