I was home for lunch yesterday and didn't have time to peruse all the blogs on my blogroll, nor to make any comments on them. But one of the blogs I did read had these extremely offensive words in it:
"It's no fun picking on the alleged president. Like makin' fun of a Special Olympics kid. Wait -- that's an insult to Special Olympics."
Let's explore this hateful comment:
Number 1. Obviously, it is fun for this particular blogger to pick on the President, or the blogger who said it wouldn't have. It would seem to me that he takes a huge amount of pleasure disrespecting not only the President, but all who revere him as well.
Remember, it is the Liberals who claim that Conservatives aren't tolerant.
Number 2. "Alleged president"? Webster defines "Alleged" as:
(adjective) 1 : asserted to be true or to exist
Does Mr. Blogger remember the 2004 Presidential election results? George W. Bush won. There is no argument about that fact. It is a fact. He got more votes. He won. Even that crybaby John Kerry, who Mr. Blogger no doubt voted for, conceded George W Bush beat him fair and square. In spite of all those dead people who voted for Kerry in Ohio.
Exactly how is Bush's Presidency in question? George W. Bush is President. He will be President until January of 2009, providing you don't lose your tenuous grip on sanity, and assassinate him.
Eat your sour grapes, or leave them rotting on the vine, but get over it, and learn to live with it.
Is Mr. Liberal blogger in denial? It surely appears so.
Number 3. "Like makin' fun of a Special Olympics kid. Wait -- that's an insult to Special Olympics."
Once again, the implication that President Bush is stupid. Or retarded. I have noticed this is a typical argument of Liberals when they have no argument. Just call their opponent stupid. It gets a lot of laughs from the uninformed, ignorant masses, like Hollywood celebrities, but it is far from a valid argument.
They called Reagan stupid, too, but he won the cold war, while the Liberals were insisting he was getting America into nuclear jeopardy. So who was stupid again?
This particular blogger likes to boast of his college degrees, as if that somehow makes him smarter and more credible than us simpletons who are so far beneath the intellectual stature of the Liberal elites.
President Bush got his degrees from Yale and Harvard. Following this Liberals reasoning, that would make Bush much smarter than him.
So which is it? Is a formal education synonymous with intelligence, or can one have a formal education and still be stupid? You can't have it both ways.
During President Bush's time in office he has endured numerous unfounded accusations and unfair criticisms, just to name a few:
!. He was accused of complicity in the torture of enemy combatant prisoners at GITMO. Unproven.
2. He was accused of planning to attack Saddam even if no evidence of WMD was found. Disproved
3. Liberals were scared to death that John Bolton might go to the UN, and destroy all the "progress" they have made. Bolton is doing a great job now. Even the Democrats are happy with him.
4. He has been accused of failing to adequately protect New Orleans from a natural disaster of which he had no control over. Turned out the brunt of the blame fell on a Democrat Mayor and a Democrat Governor.
5. He has been accused of racial discrimination. Proven false.
6. He has been accused of unwarranted domestic surveillance. Explained ad nauseum. He did not wiretap Americans. He wiretapped terrorists, which is completely within his rights as chief executive.
7. He has been accused of trying to outlaw stem cell research. Unproven.
And on and on and on. Accusations abound. All have either been proven false or remain unproven or unprovable.
On the other hand, B.J. Clinton did absolutely, with no question whatsoever, commit perjury before a Grand Jury, which qualifies as a high crime and/or misdemeanor according to the Constitution, and is an impeachable offense.
I know this post is lengthy, and I apologize for that, but I have one more thing to say to that unscrupulous blogger:
I wasn't blogging at the time, but I never personally insulted President Clinton when he was president. I did say I didn't believe a President who can't control his own sexual urges could be trusted with the capability to blow up the world. That is opinion. I also said he lied. That is fact. I never called him stupid. Quite the contrary, I often said he is a brilliant man. He has the morals of a rabbit on Viagra, but he is a brilliant man. I never personally attacked him. I have respect for the office of the President. No matter who is in the Oval office.
If you hate Bush, go ahead. But don't engage in baseless, unfair personal attacks and accusations. You are better than that.