My sister-in-law Ginger (who is still not speaking to me just because I crashed her best friend's wedding and accidentally read her email) asked me a few days before she stopped speaking to me whether I was a theocon, a neocon, or a paleocon.
My answer was that, like George W. Bush, I'm all three. She scoffed at me, saying that the positions were incompatible. "That's what you liberals always think," I said, "but since we conservatives don't have a problem with it, then I guess it's really your problem."
Well, Ginger being a hothead, a screeching liberal like Hillary Clinton, shot back: "Yes, you are my problem, Paul. You're my problem because your 'policies' have an impact on my life and my sister's life. As far as I can see, you're a theocon when you get up on your moral high-horse about how I should live, and a neocon when you invade my life and look at my email and borrow money and never pay it back, and you're a paleocon/neocon when you complain about wasteful government spending on social programs, but still support this misbegotten war in Iraq."
"You liberals just don't get it," I said. "And you never will."
Well, it got kind of ugly after that. Ginger showed her true liberal stripes by slandering me six ways from Sunday and then left in a huff.
Like all liberals Ginger can't engage in democratic debate and defend her ideas. I mean since liberalism is really just a collection of irritated mental gestures that seem like ideas, liberals can't really make arguments. That's why we conservatives drive them crazy. Because we make arguments and they just engage in slander.
I mean when you get right down to it, liberals are just not as smart as conservatives. Liberals can't reduce their arguments to short bumpersticker phrases like we conservatives can: "Tax and Spend Liberal," "Bleeding Heart Liberal" "Limousine Liberal," "Welfare Queen," "Nanny State," "Monica," "Evildoers," "Axis of Evil," "Saddam," "War on Terror," "The End of Days," etc.
I feel bad for Ginger sometimes -- she's a dupe of the extreme left-wing. Everybody knows you can't have equality and freedom at the same time. And that means you can't have democracy and socialism at the same time either. You can have democracy and religion though. In fact democracies need religion. What it all comes down to is that if you want a democracy you have to have inequality and freedom and Christianity -- that's what a democracy is!
To live as free Americans, the only way to go is to have what we have now and even more of it in the future. And I'm sure George W. Bush would agree with me on that!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I never said any of this -- this is a total fabrication! And that ridiculous post about how I slept with you -- now that's slander!
And your brother! God! The whole thing about my 'loose morals.' It's a smear campaign.
I can just see it -- next you'll find a blue Gap dress with my Bill Clinton's semen on it in my closet!
Both Paul and Ginger seem to epitomize the political extremes of this country: radical conservatives, and radical liberals. I think that true reason and rationality lies at the center of the politican spectrum, not at the fringes. It is on those fringes that reasonable people fall victim to partisan factioning.
Post a Comment