>In politics; compassion is how you pass legislation; not individual personal behavior. The legistlation affects millions.<
Dear friend, try and understand what you say here. You essentially claim one can excuse alleged rape by a political ally, and utterly condemn silly allegations of comments about pubic hairs by a political adversary. The left's hypocrisy here is so stunning as to make any reasonable person fear any legislation supported by it.
>Why would a women's group fighting for things backed by Clinton and shot down by the Republican's back the Republican's against their own interests just to make a point on some individual? <
Because the women's groups claim to support the principle of respect for women; and principles apply not only to millions, but to individuals. These women's groups are comprised of those things called “individuals”, you see. One does not allow the wholesale trashing, intimidation and rape of many individuals in order to support a principle. A group that would allow this is certainly no group worth joining.
Women's group show nothing but blind dishonesty and utter hypocrisy when they publicly condemn and call for the head of one who is barely alleged to have made a few comments about pubic hairs (and like silliness), and when they on the other hand ignore very many clear and harrowing allegations of rape, threats, groping, intimidation and brutal slander against women. Their condemnation of Clinton would not be support of Republicans, though Republicans will undoubtedly benefit of it. It would be a support of their stated ideals and principles. This is far more important than the fact of any possible derivative benefit it might give to Republicans, because to fail here is to fail everywhere. You see, women's groups are now revealed to have no principle at all, and so we see they are willing to be used, screwed, abused and trashed by any John willing to pay the price of political assistance.
I do not even support these silly “women's” groups, but I so very much abhor seeing anyone defecate upon their own principles. It is not a very pretty sight. These “women's” groups have failed themselves and their constituents terribly, and at least those who can think now see them by no means comprised of the strong independent types they have always claimed to support. They are instead little girls who are so weak and so dependent upon their men that they are nonplussed in the face of alleged rape (don't miss this, my friend. We ain' talkin' ‘bout soda cans!), threats, groping, slander and intimidation. They run in the streets about a comment on pubic hairs, but cower in their kitchens and bedrooms concerning rape.
>Why help the enemy of women's issues? That only made good sense to me that they stuck with Clinton as a vote AGAINST the alternative.
Well hopefully you now see why they themselves are their own enemies and why they thus must help the enemy. They must either apologize to Clarence Thomas with as much earnestness and fervor as they have assaulted him, or they must go after Clinton as they did Thomas. By no other means can these ladies walk upright and walk away from the world's oldest profession. |
