Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Support the (hetrosexual) troops!

Proud members of the right-wing of the Republican party in the US of A scurried out from under their rocks at a recent debate to boo a soldier serving the US of A in Iraq. What was the horrible thing this soldier had none? Two things, in fact: 1 - he asked a question, and 2 - he was gay (Actually, that should be, 1 - he was GAY, and 2 - he asked a question, and you don't have to worry about 2.)

Of course these slithering little creatures have every right to boo a soldier serving his country in a war zone, so the focus really should be on the people on stage who were involved in the debate, and that would be the people who are scrapping to be the Republican candidate for President of the US in the 2012 election. The thing of it is, how many of the "support the troops" Republicans leapt to the front of the stage, shouting, "how dare you!" to the boo-ers in the crowd. That would be... none.

Not one of the candidates could be bothered to point out to the boo-ers what slime riddled little freaks they were. In fact none of the moderators of the debate could be bothered and it looks like none of the non-booing members of the audience could work up the energy to come to the defence of a serving soldier either. Very impressive. Rick Santorum, the candidate who was about to answer the question from the soldier claimed later that he hadn't heard the boos saying that if he had he would have said something about it at the time. What did Mister Santorum actually do? He waited for he booing to stop then he answered the question. Pretty polite of him to wait for the booing he couldn't hear to stop before answering. Very presidential.

Just as presidential were remarks by candidate Herman Cain. When asked if he should have told the audience to respect the soldier, Mister Cain responded, "In retrospect, because of the controversy it has created and because of the different interpretations that it could have had, yes, that probably--that would have been appropriate." "... because of the controversy"? No, the correct answer was because it would have been the right thing to do.

So this is pretty much another nail into the coffin of hypocrisy that is this new neo-con version of the Grand Old Party (ie: the Republicans). Over the last dozen years or so they have trampled on the values that at one time were the (excuse the expression) "soul" of the party, and a case could be made that you could go back to when Reagan first slipped into office.

Low taxes = increased revenue: Sure, this is why President Reagan had to bring in the largest tax increase since World War II and this is also the philosophy that allowed Bush II to grind a surplus into a multi-trillion dollar debt. Good on you, George.

Traditional family values: This would take in all the traditional values like divorce, cheating, non-payment of child support, etc. Newt Gingrich only gets married so that he can have someone to cheat on, which would appear to be a Republican sentiment anyway judging by the extra-marriage antics of Senators John Ensign, David Vitter, Larry Craig, or Governors Mark Sanford or Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is a very distinguished list. Or how about John McCain telling a joke about President Clinton's daughter? Maybe attacking children is a traditional family value.

Smaller government: Oh yeah, this is a big one for your average conservative Republican. That crowd farts out the old 'government is too big' mantra at every opportunity and that goes over big with the 'don't trust government' bunch (you know, the Tea Party. Don't tell anyone.) Anybody remember when the capital punishment question came up at one of the candidate debates and it was pointed out how many had been executed in Governor Rick "call me Killer" Perry's great state of Texas the audience burst into applause? So while Perry stood there sporting a George Bushian smirk I had to wonder why you couldn't trust the government to run the country, but you could trust them to kill your fellow citizens for all the right reasons. Or how about the tragedy of Terri Shiavo, where the Republican governments in both Florida and Washington both stuck their noses in where they absolutely did not belong, extending the hell that this family was going through for political gain. President Bush even cut a vacation short to come back to Washington to sign a bill taking this family's rights away, again for political points. Next time stay on vacation George, you do less damage that way.

Support the Troops: This is one of the biggest and most revolting lies the right-wingers spew out. They do not support the troops, at all, ever. Even someone like John McCain who once was one of the troops does not support them, at all. How is extending tours, stop-loss (a concept so filthy that when I first heard about it I though it was fiction), poor pay, substandard medical care, poor equipment in the field, and the list goes on, constitute supporting the troops? There is of course the latest booing a soldier who is actually out in the field - and John McCain's read on it? Well gawrsh, when you're up on that stage you aren't actually paying attention to the audience. Sorry John, but you are full of shit. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened there and there is no excusing the fact that not one of those great patriots on the stage thought to tell the booers to get the hell out because real United Stations support the troops. Yeah, big shock.

Nope, I don't believe that even a hard-core right-winger like Barry Goldwater from back in the long ago would have allowed the booing of a serving soldier to go unanswered, unlike the current crop of hard-core right-wingers. It's a funny old world where Barry Goldwater would be considered a moderate.

Anyway... Humouroceros


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home