|
Edited on Thu Jan-29-09 03:37 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
When did you first realize Democrats resisting Republican atrocities was our biggest national problem?
For me it was a couple of days after never.
I remember some of those partisan food-fights, those contemptible childish spats over nothing...
There was one where we resisted a coup via decapitating the government over someone getting a blow-job.
And that embarrassing incident we we prevented social security being plowed into a stock market bubble.
And those whiners trying to keep abortion legal. Grow up, you!
If it weren't for some of these "food fights" we would be living in a Republican one-party nation by now.
And anyone who plays it of as, "there's plenty of blame for both sides" is fucked in the head. When human beings are involved there is also error on every side. Democrats often act like clowns... ridiculous caricature pols, but since the opposition has been a genuine fascist movement who could fail to see that there is a very real distinction that cannot be reduced to "both sides do it"?
Opposition to theocracy, fascism and smash-and-grab economics is not a mere childish thing to be put away.
Y'know why this atmosphere of rancor and distrust exists in Washington?
Because a neo-fascist movement has been trying to take over the God-damned county for decades!
That's why. Sheesh.
______________________
PS: For the "straw man" chorus; yes this is a straw man used as rhetorical device insofar as a position is subjected to reductio ad absurdum in an exagerated manner that is not fair in the way a formal debate should be fair. But this is a rhetorical piece. Saying, "If FDR was Bush he would have responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico" is also a rhetorical straw man. There is no reason to believe Bush would literally have invaded Mexico if Japan bombed us. (Mexico didn't "try to kill my Dad.") But the device makes a punchy and memorable point, which is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
|