Legal? Sure.
And there in lies the rub
It's no real secret that sirs' and I aren't the best of buds at times, but I've gotten really sick to death of this kind of crap. Far be it for me to be the guy to complain about someone snarking but this is basically what I feel we've been up against for the last six years with Bush and his bullshit cult.
This is the kind of attitude that has torn this nation apart for the last few years and it has been the modus operandi of nearly every conservative from the erstwhile to the hardcore and I've really gotten sick of it.
Over the years, this sort of attitude and mode of responce has just been intellectually insulting.
In this particular case, sirs has used the mode to reply to something I said about Wal-Mart's practice of paying itself rent. Nowhere in the thread has anyone stated that WM's practices are illegal. NOWHERE. I called them unethical and utter bullshit. Went out of my way to do it, in fact. And yet, sirs feels in stating that since the practice is legal, then there is nothing inherently wrong with it. True, he has not flatly stated that there is nothing inherently wrong with it but by stating that the rub lies in the fact that it is legal, he essentially implies that is exactly how he feels.
This tactic is at best annoying, at worst, enraging. The reason being that I get the impression that he feels that he has "won" somehow. That by typing this statement and endorsing this LEGAL practice that there is no reason to be talking about the practice to begin with. (Other impressions I get from this are that he feels this is just more socialist, liberal whining from the left about how they don't have a lot of money and the left feels that "someone else" should shoulder all the government's burdern and on and on and on...) when the facts clearly show that the practice is exploitation of a "loophole". Now, let's remind ourselves of the definition of "loophole", shall we? Let's.
loop·hole (lūp'hōl')
n.
A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that
provides a means of evading compliance.
Now, think about that. It is a means of "evading compliance". Now come on.
Are you guys going to sit there and say, "Welp, they orta writ the law better." WM is a multi-billion dollar corporation with stores worldwide. It wreaks havoc on small town economies. (Don't start with me!) Think of the tax dollars that could be collected by small towns from WM if WM wasn't taking advantage (and I mean that exactly how you think I mean that) of the law.
This is plausible deniability. This is following the letter not the spirit of the law. This is skating the system. This is asking forgiveness rather than asking permission. This is the conservative way. This is the Bush "administration" mode. "Oh, there's a law against that? Oh, I'm soooo sorry. Our lawyers said that it reads THIS way, not that way. We're soooo very sorry. Where do we send the check for the fine?"
And this is how you guys have been supporting your arguments for the last 6 years. You'd rather call Bush incompetent than a criminal. You'd rather call him politically conniving when others are calling him incompetent. You'd rather paint Bush a victim when others are calling him nefarious. And then when it has been shown over and over and over again that there is something wrong with Bush (whatever it is), you accuse the opponent of being a crybaby because they'd rather just check out of the process of it all. Worst of all, you haven't taken into account that no matter what the excuse for any and all of Bush's failures, they are always excuses. It wasn't his fault. He was lied to. He was led astray. He is resolute (code for pigheaded in the face of facts). Excuse after excuse after excuse.
And all the while that you point out that Bush is doing so and so because of this and that, there has never been one positively indisputably overwhelmingly supported idea of "his" since he stood on the top of that car in New York and proclaimed that some people were going to hear from us. He has never once done anything or proposed anything that soon couldn't be seen as possibly nefarious or self-serving. Nothing he has proposed or done has been in the name of the greater good.
You'd rather declare victory on a point that was never contested than confront the true points of the discussion. The right has set up a "god" in the White House. All the lies and excuses and plausible deniability used to defend the god myth are employed by the Bush "administration". He's too busy to take care of this group when this thing is going on. Free will is how he shows he loves you. His law is the only law (until it applies to someone I like and then there are all these little loopholes that can be applied).
When comes the end? I've often asked what would be the thing that would make the hardcore Bush supporter like sirs, Plane, Ami, BT turn on Bush. There has never been one thing offered. I think that one time one of the hardcore righties said that he would stop supporting Bush if he withdrew the troops from Iraq. Do you know how insane that sounds to me? This is exactly what billions of people want, including IRAQIS and whoever it was said that would be the thing that would make him turn on Bush. The very thing that would be in the interest of the greater good for ALL is the thing that would make him turn on Bush. Geez.
The polls show Bush bottoming out at around 30%. It still boggles my mind that SO many people continue to support him or even like him. That low a number of people who do just underlines the hardcore "No matter whatters" out there who will never change their minds about him no matter what he does and that's just insanity (same thing over and over) to me.
This really comes off as a rant but it is just because I got incensed over that snarky comment. I've endeavoured to be LESS snarky and at least, try to make better arguments or if I feel I can't do that, to stay out of them.
