Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think moral relativism to the point where obvious right and wrong are muted into a dull shade of gray is wrong and deplorable. The dimwits under Clinton and their allies in the PC armies of the leftist loonies from Hollyweird, Bezerkely and Seattle have succeeded in this blurring, somewhat. I welcomed W's moral clarity, albeit more moralistic than my personal leanings, as a counterweight to these unwashed doofi.
I pray to the babyjesuschristsuperstar that W's clarity, however faux it may have been continues to guide in our crusades against the Islamofacists, the homocide bombers, the big government tax and spenders and the culture of death. Here and abroad.
|
No one has benefited more from moral relativism than George Bush. Half the country gave him a blank check on Iraq because they figured "the ends justify the means." People have looked the other way in the face of mountains of clear lying and manipulation from this administration. Shit, if it weren't for moral relativists who said "Fuck it... the SCOTUS has to just end this thing" W might not even be President today.
Moral clarity? Maybe that's the message, but that ain't the practice.
W has the moral character of Richard Nixon. Remember what his motto was in 1968? "Returning law and order to America!"
In my short 3 plus decades, I've learned one thing about moralists - the louder a man's "moral clarity," the deeper his closet a/immorality. From Jimmy Swaggart through the priesthood through Iran Contra all the way up to W. Morals are like money or sex - he who talks a good game generally has none.
Your desire for moral clarity is laughable - all Bush did was offer a better bullshit story about his "morality" than his predecessor. The only thing W's shown me is that he's a master bullshit artist.
