>If we wanted a saint in the highest office in the land, we'd let the pope appoint the president.<
When we demand a President not flatly and overtly lie repeatedly to us, using his top staff to perpetuate his lies, even going so far as to lie repeatedly to our courts, this, to deny justice to another, the liberal fails to understand that we here demand simple decency. He instead claims we demand the unattainable. To him, everyone is chronically weak-a moral cesspool. I will in some ways agree with him here, but I must scorn his additional illogical conclusion that no one is morally justified in championing moral standards. Though none of us faithfully executes the dictates of our principles, it is still possible and I dare say preferable that we reject those who flagrantly and chronically violate them, particularly should these violators fail to humbly come back into agreement with them. To Americans this notion seems closed-minded, insignificant, uncompassionate, intolerant, and so it is no great wonder that the Democrats, especially the Democratic party's leader, show utter contempt for them.
>Lets see now... a president can't ever have a consensual relationship with another woman…<
I would like conservative readers to note the obfuscatory tactic employed here, and suggest you begin countering the likes of it posthaste. When I catalogue references to Mr. Clinton's many non-lie lies, made possible only by dumb gumchewing feminist stupidity, this so called "hetero white male" liberal begins talking about "consensual relationships".
Concerning the first item on my list (the Gennifer Flowers non-lie lie), for example, this liberal completely ignores the fact that his leader has lied repeatedly about Flowers, half admitting the truth only after being pinned down and cornered like the rat he is. This liberal "hetero" ignores the lie completely, and then speaks of "consensual relationships", as if I have here taken issue with the President's sex life. You should also note the liberal makes no reference whatever to the President's adultery, merely framing his abominable act in terms of "consent". Well. For the record, I say I do not accept adultery, and have long asked my God for continued blessings for my wife and death for myself should I ever embrace it. But I do not expect anyone else to hold to this standard, not even a President. On the other hand I do expect everyone, especially the President, to hold to the standard of honesty, and when a person is found to be a liar, I do expect that person to humbly admit "I lied". This is basic to our society; but this liberal "hetero" claims it a requirement for sainthood, and then ignores the point completely by referring to "consensual relationships". Now does this not make you want to vomit?
>...a president can't ever have tried pot...<
Again. Here we see the liberal completely ignoring the expressed point, namely, that the President flatly and repeatedly and shamelessly lied. Such lies are made possible only by the stupidity of dumb womyn, whether they are 'hetero white male' womyn, or female-like womyn. When I imply that Americans should have the basic self-respect to reject those who flatly and repeatedly lie to their faces until the liar humbly rejects his own lies, this liberal "hetero" begins talking about smoking pot. Now does this not provide at least some support to the notion that dumb womyn are a detriment to the human gene pool?
>, a president can't ever get college deferrment from service in a war we lost<,
Here we see that the description of the circumstances has been simplified such that the circumstances have been warped beyond recognition. But for Americans to understand the clear lie involved here, they will have to read. And here we see why it is impossible that Americans will ever see the truth.
>a president can't ever make mistakes in his youth...<
The perceptive reader will now see this for the pure lunacy it is. When I comment on the President's repeated and unrepented non-lie lies, made firmly within his late adulthood, this liberal excuses such abominable behaviour by referring to mistakes during one's youth. Now you simply must agree that we must accept as oxymoronic, the notion of decent liberal.
>am I missing anything here?<
Eeeeeyup. Lies-- many of them, repeated lies heaped upon lies.
>Please, add to the list your other defining qualities for the bastion of perfection expected from your president, sir.<
The "hetero" liberal requests the "bastion of perfection" expected from my president. I have no president. My president died with a blue dress. Nevertheless here is a simple "bastion" that should be expected of all Americans: that one should not lie to others, certainly not repeatedly; and that when one is found to be a liar, one should humbly and flatly acknowledge one's lies so as to develop trust once again. I do not trust the Bill Clinton, and reject him as leader of this country. I do not trust you, my neighbor or anyone else who trusts him. By your trust, you prove yourselves poor judges of character, not in possession of sober minds. In fact it is worse than this, you prove yourselves utter lunatics, having placed your country in the hands of a man who flatly lies to your faces, knowing he is lying to you, and knowing he knows he is lying to you. Womyn.
>I guess the pope could run for president in your world. This just leaves a lot of the rest of us out, unfortunately.<
The conservative will readily note the stupidity extant in the above statement. Anyone meeting the requirements for running for office has the right to run for office, in my world, and this leaves not a soul "out"-fortunately.
>Personally, I'd rather have a leader I can identify with.<
There is nothing honorable here at all, and I implore those of you who take this position to try and recover at least a few remnants of self-respect. This very unfortunate statement translates into this: "Personally, I be wantin' a leeda who be jez as big a liyah, an' scumbag as me." This is comprehensive self-abasement. We ought to demand better of our countrymen.
>As you qualify for sainthood, perhaps you should run for president next election.<
Despite all my flaws, I am already a saint, and yet this by no means is an impetus causing me to run for the Office of the Presidency.
>And by the way, sir, I'm a hetero white male.<
Whatever.
>Take my advice...<
Show yourself a good judge of character, the possessor of a sober mind and a lover of integrity, and then perhaps you will be worthy of having me do as you say.
>your party is never going to get the female vote if you call any woman who isn't a homemaker a feminist. Theres just not too many of them, either.<
"Theres just not too many" of what "either"? Whatever. I find the statement odd, firstly because of its surface implications. You say here that if I call any woman non-homemaker a feminist, my party will never get the female vote. I wonder if this glorious power of mine works in reverse.
But as I struggle through the illogic I possibly discern you mean if those who represent my party brand all women non-homemakers as feminists, that my party will be rejected by women. I would agree at least with your implication that the word "feminist" is a word from which every decent working woman must run. Nevertheless the entire issue is irrelevant where I am concerned, as I have never called all women non-homemakers feminists. It is also irrelevant because I am a member of no political party, and we here see once again the lame-brained liberal obfuscatory tactic being dispatched.
|
