I'm an apologist for the rule of law--nothing more, nothing less. But the most glaring examples of corruption and illegality are, at this time, coming from the Left.
And I see nothing of merit in the argument that corruption and illegality should be overlooked, accepted, or normalized simply because somebody else(s) has been equally guilty. That's the sophomoric mantra that has been at the heart of New Left doctrine for some time now: No one is, or can be, morally superior to anyone else. That pernicious ethic has served to justify and perpetuate a whole host of evils, and it has caused a sea change in the values of young Americans--once grounded in principle but now steeped in flat-out nihilism. Not only is corruption accepted and embraced, it has become fashionable to eschew the entire concept of principle--along with truthfulness, honor and virtue.
I've noticed something, Moda, and I've pointed it out before. You often attack under the guise of objectivity, utilizing some kind of pseudo-socratic method and appearing to be delving in good faith into the premises of your adversaries' arguments. However you can be counted on to consistently misrepresent the foundational premises of those arguments in a way that allows you to manipulate the debate. It's the antithesis of the Socratic method and was, in fact, the very technique used by the Sophists of ancient Greece to distort and deflect. You've done it twice to me now in this thread. I don't have the time or inclination to get into debates destined to be derailed by logical fallacies.