Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ho ho ho ha ha ha

’scuse me, I almost threw up a little.

A couple of nights ago, on the news, it was pointed out that Bush has spent 432 days on vacation out of 7 years.
That equals two months out of every 12.

How come I only get two weeks?

Yea, he really cares.

Report comment to moderator

The type of secrets that Clinton kept showed that he was a lecher who spent more time thinking about whose pants he could get into than he did thinking about how the country could be benefited. He was distracted by the whole Lewinsky/Tripp/Flowers business, and his sexual irresponsibility interfered with his work, as immaturely titillating as that may be.

The type of secrets Bush keeps show that he is seriously concerned with this nation’s national security and our interests abroad. Now, you might not agree with his policies, but he got elected, so he runs the show for now, national security secrets and all – as immaturely titillating as that may be.

Bottom line: Bush’s secrets show a man who is serious and intense about his job. Some folks disagree with the way he’s doing his job, and think that he ought to be gotten rid of. OK, that’s fair, and that’s your right. I’m cool with that.

Clinton’s secrets show a man who’s serious and intense about women. Which, incidentally, isn’t in the job description. Now, I think that a man who can’t keep his pants on probably can’t keep his head on straight, either. I was glad when we finally got rid of him. What’s done is done, so what does it matter in the end?

Report comment to moderator

Not to defend Clinton, who I wish had had the good sense to keep his pants zipped and/or been more discrete and selective with his conquests if he could not.

But there is a world of difference between keeping a sexual tryst secret, and keeping both the crafting (to say nothing of the actual nuts and bolts) of government policy secret.

The one is, in the end, a mere tittilation of a tabloid sort. The other cuts to the core of how we are governed, how the people that we elect are doing the job for which we have hired them.

Big difference, that.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

(This is a less nose-thumbing way of saying, “I’ve been here longer than you! Nyah, nyah, nyah!” )

Otherwise, I see your point completely, and I am humbled by its inchoate wisdom. I will remember it well, along with other wonderful bits, like, “ignorance is strength,” “freedom is slavery,” and “black is white.”

The argument could be made that since you have no moral absolutes, then you’re inherently a void of moral darkness. So more darkness, like hypocrisy for instance, just wouldn’t make much of a difference in the final shade of inky blackness, now, would it?

(And besides, I think it was Vincent who did the Vitter posts, wasn’t it?)

Report comment to moderator

You must be a newbie. This is not the sophisticated line on this issue. Liberals are immoralists who are immune to charges of hypocrisy, since they don’t pretend to uphold absolute standards. Conservatives are sometimes hypocrites, but that’s only because they are devoted to morality. Hypocrisy is therefore a virtue, absense of hypocrisy is evidence of total moral darkness.

If you have any questions, check out Marvin Olasky’s posts about Sen. Vitter, among others.

Report comment to moderator

You can go to Youtube and watch the lies pour out of the mouth of Bush. About everything from 9/11 to Katrina. Bush makes Nixon look like a saint.

The Bush followers are the most credible. They can go watch Bush in his own words say he watched the FIRST plane crash into the WTC, that HE NEVER EVER made a connection between Sadam and 9/11, that he doesn’t think about Bin Laden anymore. Right out of his own lying mouth, and yet they complain he is being bashed. Truly pathetic.

Report comment to moderator

And, by the same token, friend Anlir, when Clinton was in office, liberals had no problem with ‘executive privilege’ and ’secrecy’ (especially when it involved cute interns) and now that Bush is in office, they’re ‘raising a huge stink’ about it.

You just wait. When a Democrat is in office again, liberals will be completely fine with it.

Hypocrisy is a two-edged sword, compadre.

Report comment to moderator

Separation of powers; see ya in court.

Report comment to moderator

Contrary to Peter’s misreading, Bonica mildly mocks the case for “satan worship” and credits it to “creative critics,” but he doesn’t make it himself.

In defending what is “properly held close” by Bush, Peter offers himself to the satire. What propriety holds close is property and propaganda. Just as near and dear, is propagation–the ludicrous breeding– of male “succor and sociability,” fraternal intimacy’s “open” secret.

The article is a hoot and Peter has no sense of humor (unlike my luncheon hosts at the Bohemian Club, a place where no spider supposedly is allowed to weave her web).

Report comment to moderator