Friday, October 5, 2007

20% Fucktards

So only 20% of the Democrats think the world would be better off if America lost in Iraq. Well, I guess we're all fine and dandy.

I think I need to start commissioning my own polls. Here's one for you. What percentage of Americans think the world would be better off if all of the previously named Democrats were packed up and mailed to Iraq so they could personally explain their position to the people most effected by their retarded world view.

Seriously, in what patchouli-induced fantasy world does it improve anything when America gets sent packing by a bunch of medeivalist homo-murderers? I can only imagine that their belief is somehow rooted in my favorite of all liberal masochism fantasies; that America is constantly overstepping its authority and deserves some comeuppance.

This leads me back to the hands-down most inane political argument of the 21st century. That whole "just because I never do or say anything patriotic and, in fact, often display measurable excitement at the failures of my country doesn't mean you have the right to question my patriotism" argument. As Jeff Goldstein has often discussed, the left's obsession with gray areas has allowed them to muddy the meaning of words so far that they lack any meaning or depth at all. Patriotism's meaning has been dumbed down to imply anything I insist is patriotic instead of some benchmark of behavior. I mean, they somehow manage to claim patriotic motives while simultaneously deriding any statement or behavior that might, maybe, somehow demonstrate a mild preference for the United States over, say, a country that wants do destroy us.

I mean, I've heard the statement, "the American flag should never be worn or displayed as clothing" while simultaneously implying that it is not only acceptable but desirable for Mexicans or Africans to display colors of countries from which they don't even originate!

I'm just so fucking fed up with this pomo, transnational, we are the world view that doesn't allow people to make such basic judgements as deciding a pluralistic, free country is superior to one that routinely executes non-existent gays as a matter of national policy. Has it really gotten so bad in academia that I have to hear people equivocating sheepishly whenever the topic of national pride is broached?

If 20% of any political party in good standing yearns for America's defeat and humiliation, I dare say it has. And if a party comprised of such worthless Quislings can command the support to control both houses of congress and soon the Presidency, I have nothing but dread for the future.

Exit Question: When did it stop being fashionable to be on one's own team?

(Hat Tip: Dan Collins)

5 comments:

McGehee said...

Exit Question: When did it stop being fashionable to be on one's own team?

Tet, 1968.

Greasy Moron said...

Growing up, I never heard a single good word about Vietnam and was always told that Tet was when our back broke.

It is amazing how Orwellian history the teaching of history has become.

Unfortunately, I'm living through another one. In 20 years I'll be looked at as crazy for still believing that Iraq was the correct place to fight this war.

McGehee said...

I should reiterate that it became fashionable to be against one's own side as a result of Tet. Most of the people who perpetrated the lie that Tet was a defeat for the U.S., had been on the other side for years, if not all their lives.

McGehee said...

"...the lie that Tet was a military defeat for the U.S...."

Greasy Moron said...

Good clarification. History has shown that Tet was most definitely a defeat for the U.S. in other ways.