"Lets have minimum mandatory executions,for all politicians,who fuck up three times.Twice, for lefties ; it'll curethem, of their imagined superiority."Yeah, they're classy as usual..
I'm beginning to understand the Blogging Tories mindset:Everything is dependent upon motivation, which translates to: "I judge my motives to be good, noble and pure because I say they are the same ones the deity I decided was just like me seems to have, therefore any action I take, regardless of what that action may be, or its consequences will also be good, clean, pure, and oh-so-noble.... Yours? Icky, icky, icky and wrong. Nope, doesn't matter if you did the same thing for the same reasons. It's icky and wrong because... because.... because....Look! Shiny thing!"
The Blogging Tory mindset (the entire conservative mindset, actually) is actually much simpler.If you ask a "progressive, "What's your opinion of someone who does X?", typically they'll have an answer.If you ask a Blogging Tory, their answer will be, "It depends ... who did it?" Their answer will depend entirely on the ideology of the perpetrator.In short, their "principles" are totally context-dependent. Every single one of them.
P.S. As Exhibit A, I give you this. It would be impossible to find a better example.
Yes, CC. That is certainly a "shining example" of the type of context-dependent morality that's been displayed during "Raitt-gate" and just about every other fiasco of this government that's soooooooooo all about the transparency and accountability... for everyone but themselves, that is.
It was a while back, but the one that got me was the Lancet study claiming 600,00 Iraqi dead, based on a sample of a couple thousand. Instead of attacking the validity of the extrapolation, the questions were about the party affiliation of the authors and data collectors of the survey. Since the data was not collected by Republicans, it was dismissed as lies out of hand. Of course the data collectors were not Dems either, they were Iraqis.
Post a Comment