Absurdistan Weekend Update #5: Liberals Leaving the Reason Reservation for the ObamaNation

 by Bob Stapler  

| View comments |  Print This Post

More from Bob Stapler.

This week I am deviating from the usual wide-ranging format because I hit what I believe to be the mother-lode, too rich to pass up.  CNN has been soliciting questions from its highly evolved readership to ask of McCain. The post was started for an interview which has passed by, but CNN left it up for its readers to post hypotheticals and to vent. There’s more here than can be reasonably harvested, so I will cite no more than gives the gist and addresses issues. So with no further ado, here’s my sampling:

1. “Do you agree with or will you unequivocally reject the "Bush Doctrine" of "Preemptive War"? and, what, in your estimation, would constitute a causus belli with Iran or North Korea?” – BobWIL

Talk about a loaded attack-question; poor grammar, misspelling, distortion of the “Bush Doctrine,” and zero recognition of any middle-ground between “unequivocally reject” and “Preemptive War.”

2. “Do you know that Pakistan and Iraq don't share common borders?  Do you know your anus from your elbow?  Do you know that you're an embarrassment to any intelligent politician?” – cflynn

Any reason I need to analyze this guy for content?

3. “When there are no visible gay activists on the political scene and the issue of equality for all Americans is seen as the new third rail of politics, it is important to remember that there were gay and lesbian heroes that came before us and fought their whole lives for equality. The courage they must have had to stand up at a time when it was deadly to be open. These people make our current leaders like Barack Obama and John Mccain look shameful and weak.  Please encourage your leaders to stand on the right side of history.  (You can see the Gay and Lesbian Holocaust Memorial over my shoulder in the background.)” – msbuch72

We now define hero as a sexual-preference. At best, this trivializes heroism as an agenda; at worst – a perversion.  The radical gays he’s referencing most often exercised their "liberty" by spitefully offending straight sensibilities to the maximum possible; "heroically" mocking everything from apple-pie to religion to parades.  If by "fighting their whole lives" he means infiltrating schools to preach unnatural sex acts to children as liberation from innocence, then he’s nuts and his vaunted "heroes" predatory monsters.  If by this he means "numberless gays murdered by AIDS," with AIDS portrayed as government-sponsored laboratory-created genocide inflicted by straights, then he’s bought into the anti-gay conspiracy garbage.  Gays have not been so persecuted within living memory as radicals would have us believe; and it was not they who broke down the barriers that then enabled them to alter the moral/cultural landscape more to their liking.  Gays were openly daring straights to say "boo" to outrageous misbehaviors half a century ago, and almost no one thought it okay to lynch them for it.   For the most part, they were ignored if possible, complained of if not. Violent persecution of gays was rare, frowned on, and prosecuted in most jurisdictions. There was job and housing discrimination, to be sure, by people uncomfortable with them or imposing them on others. This is the sum total of persecution of which he complains. Gays discriminated against had some cause for complaint, but heroic? Rubbish!  Despite such discrimination, most gays managed to find decent jobs and homes, well above that of other minorities. Envious of our military receiving so many honors, militant-gays now convince themselves a mostly lifestyle-propagated disease confers both "hero" and "victim" status. We should be offended at this equating of AIDS victim with Holocaust victims as much as the "hero" nonsense.

Dying to AIDS and madmen are equally tragic, but that’s as far as the comparison goes.  Jews were butchered as a conscious act of a totalitarian regime by the millions; AIDS victims died as the unconscious act of a disease (that too many gays willfully disregard) by the hundreds. They sometimes die unloved and alone; yet, dying unloved and alone is hardly unique to gays. Jews who died in camps had no choice in the matter; neither in the dying nor its cruelty nor how they came to be there. They were systematically herded and butchered like so many cattle after a long forced degradation leaving them impotent to resist.  Gays suffered nothing remotely like this. The Jews of Warsaw and Jewish guerillas were heroes because they fought back against incredible odds knowing they would not survive.  Only such clearly brave actions (risking life in the service of others when survival is the clear, obvious, and available alternative) rises to the level of "heroic."  Neither dying in gas chambers nor to AIDS qualifies unless accompanied by a sacrifice all moral beings acknowledge.  You may call dying brave when there is no other option, but not heroic. And, calling your gay-activist forerunners heroic only to sully a courageous guy like McCain (regardless of your opinion of his heroism) ought to offend even your fellow gays.

4. “I'd like to know why you think the Defense Budget of the United States, at more than $700Billion, has to be that large and why, in your opinion, must the USA spend more on defense/war than the sum total of defense expenditures of every other country in the world.” – djbe

Warning: this guy has a chart and [thinks he] knows how to use it.  Too bad he is asking the wrong question.  For there to be relative peace, some nation must out-rank and out-gun all others, isn’t it fortunate that we have the resources to do it, and isn’t it just lucky that that military happens to be in the hands of a country that genuinely respects sovereignty and promotes the wellbeing of those it liberates.  The alternative is we strip our military to the point where we are just one among several (most of which are far less obliging of those they invade) and invite the kind of butchery the planet suffered most of the 20th century with its second-tier military establishments vying with us that they might conquer others. If you recall (though probably you don’t), that was tried in the 1930s with the result that Japan and Germany achieved naval and air parity against us, and the Japanese military got the notion they could neutralize us (Pearl Harbor).  As costly as keeping up these forces is, total war costs far more; making effective deterrence the greater bargain. We all wish we could spend less maintaining peace; and, for a while, we imagined we’d have that luxury.  Unfortunately, others saw our standing-down as weakness and an opportunity to attack.  You do the math!

5. “hi im dima from lebanon, i dont have any question for now, just i wana say i love america and i love you Obama….even i dont know you,but id like to watch you on t.v and to know everything about you …..special hi to all friends who like me.i would like to told you thats id like to be in us military some day….it is hard or just dream…..   thank you so much……. Dima”

Sooo . . . totally sucked in by Obama.  And sooo . . . cute, but like, you know, it’s like this Dima, sort of it’s supposed to be questions for that other guy, so like, maybe you could, just like, post your fan-mail to www.Obamavalleychics.org.)

6. “… Basically, I am asking if wholesale legalization of all Canadian and Mexican workers (a NAFTA labor union) wouldn't be a better approach than what is advocated by Buchanan.  That certainly is more in sync with historical precedent. Most of our ancestors didn't need passports, work permits, and even had the right to vote before they became citizens.” – JohnCarroll

Mustn’t say the "A" word, or those horrible yet dimwitted right-wing "controlled-borders" types might just catch on.  Oops, too late!  Just because we did not control our borders sufficiently a century ago does not mean we had an open-border policy. Had you bothered reading accounts of early America (real history, not the pap taught these days), you’d realize we had problems with "uninvited guests" from the first days of the republic.  Pirates, pickpockets, justice-evading-murderers, escaped-convicts, bums, drifters, swindlers, and assorted riff-raff made up a significant portion of those attracted to America by frontier lawlessness.  Your ancestors did not come here in such numbers or behave so badly that they succeeded, however, in altering the cultural, political, legal, linguistic and commercial landscapes.  Mostly, they made a point of blending quickly into the host culture and became useful members of society (or most did); so that it was not unreasonable turning a blind-eye to what was, in truth, a violation of sovereignty few other countries tolerated.  Of course, no one has studied the ancestral pirate-concentration of the modern Democrat Party, so I could be wrong about them altering the landscape.  However, the difference goes deeper because the current wave of immigrants includes a great many who view our borders as an inconvenience, commerce & services as easy plunder, and are convinced they have a right to conquer our country and kick us out.  This is wholesale invasion which your wholesale legalization only serves to abet.

7. “Does it worry you, Senator John McCain: that the position of President is always filled by a member of a party?” – Michan

Believe it or not, this is one of the more intelligent and coherent questions asked, but is too lengthy to repeat in its entirety.  I give only the lead-in question; you can read the rest here.  And, do read it because it’s a hoot!

8. “Both John McCain and Barrack Obama believe that their veiws of the world are the correct ones when the truth lies somewhere in between. While they debate the fate of a nation our military is on the brink of being torn apart by a lack of troops, material and equipment needed to complete even one of their missions let alone two and the prospect of a third verges on insane. We are only as strong as our weakest link and right now our weakest link is still in office!” – Artboy

Isn’t that last line of his clever?  This is what passes for the greater civility of a "liberal."  He’s trying to pass himself off as a "consensus" type, but his DNC-scripted talking points trip him up.  There is a question in there somewhere, I suppose.  Quite a few of these questions take the form of statements that deliberately leave no room for a response – and brook none.

9. “Governor Romney it is obvious that you will readily attack Senator Obama on his evolving positions, when in 2004 you were pro-abortion rights, then in 2005 you were against it. Later that same year you signed legislation for emergency contraception. You've flip-flopped on guns, gay rights, and taxes. Yet you and and Senator McCain are constantly trying to pin that label on Senator Obama. With your bi-polar record please explain how you expect to be credible. ” – sutton85, 07/16/08

This gentleman hasn’t quite grasped Romney is no longer in the race.  Should we tell him differently?  I thought not.  I am delighted, however, this colossus of rhetoric admits to his candidate’s "evolving positions."  Naturally, he meant "evolved," but, hey, what’s a suffix more or less.

10. Hello, Ms. Nancy Pelosi. I would like to ask two questions: 1 - Do you support American artists and do you plan to restore funding to the N.E.A. and to art in schools when we elect Barack Obama as President (ESPECIALLY FOR INDIVIDUAL ARTISTS AND NOT JUST SYMPHONIES…)? 2- When U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad, there must have been Iraqi supporters who now suffer from their helping our troops. Have they sought safety in the U.S. and, if so, how are we helping them for their support? – Ken Keegan, artist, activist, & bus driver

That’s 4 questions, so we know he can’t count.  Apparently, this guy thinks it is Pelosi running against Obama for president as a Republican, the NEA is unfunded, muscatel-swilling dumpster-diving crap-extolling artists are more deserving than musicians of recognizable talent, Iraq is under the iron control of Al Qaeda, and pro-U.S. Iraqi collaborator-traitors are beating at our gates to escape "justice."  I’m fairly confident he is more interested in whether they are escaping said justice than his "humanitarian" wording admits.  The NEA’s budget has increased every year since Bush took office and this year received its biggest percent increase in over 30-years.  Is this guy living on some parallel Earth we don’t know about?

And, just so he’s not entirely alone on planet Obama, here’s another:

11. “I would like to know what Nancy Pelosi is going to do to rein in the "out of control" Bush administration. Since the Democrats have taken control of the house and senate, there hasn't been a lot of change in the past two years that I can see. There has been no change in Iraq, and where are we going on energy? Why isn't this government pushing hard for alternative sources? All the Bush administration wants to do is drill for more oil and build more refineries. Oil is finite! They are going to make their money and leave us all high and dry. Why aren't the democrats pushing hard against the Bush administration to do more about our economy. This country cheered the Democrat's party control two years ago. We haven't seen much happen. Please don't let us down.” – nelsonmay

He’s asking McCain to answer a question only Pelosi can answer; making this another rant/statement.  He wants his cake and to eat it.  That is, he wants Obama to do something about the economy vis-à-vis oil, but doesn’t want Bush doing anything that might make said oil available because oil is "finite;" ergo the only way we can keep having oil is by never again using it.  Apparently it escapes him if you can’t touch it, it is exactly the same as not having.  Man, is this guy conflicted!

12. “Above the Law (or equal to it): Q. If it was in your power would you try to change existing laws, like President George W. Bush's good friend Silvio Berlusconi, in your favor to avoid prosecution, further your private enterprise, and to eliminate your competition?” – Naples, 7/8/08

Again, a questioner who is out of touch with the narrowed candidate field clumsily trying to trap Romney into exposing himself as corrupt.  Do these Bozos truly imagine conservatism = brain-dead?  Come on you liberals; prove to us you can frame an actual question, perhaps one you might ask Obama.

13. “I am asking this question as a frustrated independent voter, looking for answers to issues that may help "Washington" run more effectively. We have seen many years of, albeit subject to interpretation, blatent misuse of Presidental powers. Rep. Kucinich has brought forth an act of impeachment and other than CNN.com and Cspan, I haven't heard anyting else. I figure maybe the Speaker of the House who has the power to impeach will explain why nothing has happened.  THanks” – blueshark

You didn’t really buy that "independent voter" bit, did you?  Me neither.  Though I suppose in the liberal lexicon "independent" means a frustrated Hillary supporter wondering if he should cast his lot with the Obamanator or sit it out.  Here’s a clue, Shark-boy.  Radical Nan hasn’t moved for impeachment because there’s nothing Bush has done she can hang him on (however much she’d care to) and would rebound badly on her and the Democrats the moment she tried it.  Impeaching a president is a serious business not lightly or frivolously undertaken.  Much as this will amaze you, disagreement with Bush policy is not grounds for impeachment.  Clinton was impeached because he did something actually illegal.  Impeaching presidents just because you hate that (R) behind the name does not exactly make government more efficient.  It just wastes tax dollars you liberals are so fond of extorting from us.  I know it’s driving you Bush-haters crazy he won’t oblige by overstepping his authority just to suit you, but, hey, he’ll be gone soon – right?  Then you can find someone new to hate so much you could just spit.

I promise you I made none of this up – didn’t have to and couldn’t if I tried.  It is incredibly hard conceiving just how visceral the liberal hatred of conservatism is or why.  Convinced of our preternaturally evil intent, and despising anyone who tries to break through the bias, they spew nonsense as though the most natural and obvious of truths.  Working side-by-side with these folks, we never quite suspect how positively and collectively vile their view becomes of others; until some unsuspecting schmuck steps on a cherished shibboleth only to have them implode.  Many of the entries are so off-topic they are disconnected rant and self-promotion.  Some may just have taken a wrong turn thinking they were posting to CNN’s whine department.   As entertaining as these are also, I stuck to those attempting some sort of question addressed to candidates.  There are a few verging on the rational, but most are like the above.

That’s the news from Absurdistan.  I hope the news, where you are, is all good (and, at least, this entertaining).

Culture: General

Read more articles by Bob Stapler