[Overpaid Slacker]

350, why is it that when presented with evidence of bias, fraud, wrongdoing, etc. by those to whom you're sympathetic it's always this relativist "well, everybody does it/your guys are as bad too (almost always w/o specifics)/we're no worse than you are..."

However, when it is someone whom you're determined to hate, their flaws are almost always condemned in the most absolute, intolerant terms?

I might not be paying close enough attention, but most conservatives don't begin and end any defense of their side with "yeah, well Clinton did ____". That particular abomination on the presidency may be mentioned (usually in the context of the passes he was given by our media) but it's usually not the alpha and omega of a conservative defense.

Whereas, it seems to me, to the intellectually and morally bankrupt Democrats (which is not all of them), such a statement at once excuses their behavior, spreads unspecific blame on conservatives and is intended to preclude any further inquiry. Kind of weak, no?

JP