I simply must briefly comment on this rather extraordinary post.
>I dislike Bill's puritanical inquisitors as much as they do, but attacking them, attacking the charges of sexual harassment and rape as "immaterial" to his impeachment, isn't going to cut it anymore.<
This fellow long should have understood that by principle and logic, none of these “defenses” ever “cut it” in the first place.
>But they still don't seem to care. The Friends of Bill who so pathetically, obsequiously vouched for him until the stained dress of his lies was virtually rubbed in their faces…<
Eeeeww!
>They risk destroying liberalism by making it mainly about the defense of Bill Clinton. I thought liberalism was about standing up for the powerless, rather
than sucking up to the powerful.<
“Standing up for the powerless”!? Hah! That was the old liberalism. That sort of liberalism struggled to take its final breath about 30 years ago. It is long dead. Today's liberalism is not about standing up for the powerless. It is about killing the powerless, literally puncturing holes in the backs of their skulls and sucking out their brains. Today's liberalism is about withholding food to force death upon countries that otherwise would reject it. Today's liberalism is about using the law as a wedge between parent and child, forcing parents toward ignorance about their own daughters' abortions, and yet forcing those parents to accept the burden of daughters who are physically and psychologically damaged by abortion. Today's liberalism is about using law to force acceptance of deviancy upon decent people. Today's liberalism is about totalitarianism.
>I don't think so. I don't think the liberal defenders of Bill Clinton would have given Clarence Thomas a pass.<
Are you kidding pal? You seem smart enough to know liberals would have assassinated Thomas. They came for his head and eyes simply about an unproven allegation concerning little girl stuff-- “Jimmy said he wanted to kiss me - eeew!” kind of crap. Please fella, don't insult your own intellect. You do not have to “think” about this. It is self-evident.
>[Mike Powell] suggested that many liberals are acting like "beaten dogs," losers kicked around so long they will continue to fawn over Bill Clinton no matter what he does because he's given them some moderate electoral success.<
(grin) Sad, isn't it? And what is much sadder is that they successfully convinced 2/3s of the country to act in the same manner.
>Are they so grateful that they'll continue to heel when he gives a silent whistle, no matter what the charge is?
Lessee…. Eeeeeyup.
>And finally, what about the ultimate Friend of Bill, the Ultimate Voucher in Chief whose support for the President, no matter what the charge, has enabled and empowered her supporters to defend her husband, no matter what he does? Doesn't she, at this point, with a charge as serious as this, however unproven, have a responsibility to look into it a little more deeply?<
Pal, you obviously don't yet understand. Hillary is worse than the “Tammy Wynette” character she rejected in 1992. She is married to a likely rapist, and knows it. But she is one of those beaten dogs, you see-- one of the 2/3s -- one of the losers. |
