Malkin and the Unhinged Right: Calling Our Troops "Losers"
I was disgusted to see Rhymes with Right, one of the right-wing blogs I visit and generally enjoy, call our troops "losers". I was even more disgusted to see that he got his marching orders from the Queen of Concentration Camps, Michelle Malkin.
I know, I know, that they think they are humorously twisting Harry Reid's position, but it's simply sick and despicable for the Keyboard Kommandoes to sit stateside and call our troops names. Have they no decency whatsoever? Is there nothing so slimy and putrid that it would repulse even them in their attempts to score some pointless political point? To what, if any, debased rhetorical means would they not resort to support this optional war?
Do you think they will ever look back on their work and hang their heads in shame?
Labels: blogging, GWOT, right wing
posted by Dan at 4/21/2007 12:11:00 PM
28 Comments:
ps are losers. Sorry you don't like it, but that is the clear implication of his recent comments -- and certain statements in the past by John Kerry and other Democrats.
But then again, calling American soldiers has been the default position for Democrats since 1864.
Let's try that again, since blogger ate half my comment.
No, Dan, it isn't us who are calling the troops losers -- it is folks like Harry Reid who are saying that the troops are losers. Sorry you don't like it, but that is the clear implication of his recent comments -- and certain statements in the past by John Kerry and other Democrats.
But then again, calling American soldiers has been the default position for Democrats since 1864.
No, RWR, you're simply and sickly wrong. You're the one who called the troops losers, and you are gutlessly hiding behind some kind of word play, claiming that "he almost kind of said it first". No. Simply no. It is despicable.
Gotta disagree with you, Dan -- we are not calling the troops losers, but are instead pointing out the implications of Reid's position in a satirical manner.
And if Reid's position is that the war has been lost, there can be no other interpretation besides the one in the photoshopped picture.
Dan, your position here shows that you are either a liar or a fool.
Reid says we've lost -- therefore those doing the fighters are losers in his worldview.
I believe we are winning -- and will ultimately succeed if the cut-and-run-and surrender crowd will simply get out of the way and let the troops win.
Let the Troops win?
Are you going to give them the equipment and armour they need first?
This war is WRONG. Staying does NOT make it right. We CANNOT win.
How much blood sacrificed by a coward of a president is enough? How many soldiers lives are enough? HOW MANY?
RWR - Let's stick to the facts - your website proudly proclaims "Bring Our Losers Home". You posted that on your website. It is not a quotation from Harry Reid or anyone else - it sprang from the sick minds of the right. No excuses - it's the truth.
You want to blame our troops for Bush's blunders. I won't stand for it. Not on this blog.
It's a despicable tactic, and I'm honestly surprised and horrified you would sink so low.
1) I'm terribly sorry you don't understand the concept of satire. Find a tenth grader to explain it to you. He or she won't even need to be an honor student.
2) I don't see any blunders -- but Reid and company have made it clear that they don't believe our fighting men and women are up to the task of defeating unorganized jihadis. Sorry you folks don't believe America is a superpower (or even a great power) any longer.
And by the way, Dan -- I even put a disclaimer up for those of you on the left too dumb or dishonest to acknowledge that post for what it is -- satire.
The problem with satire is that if you're not clever enough, you end up just looking like an ass. I pointed out in my original post that you would claim to be humorously twisting Reid's position, but, instead, you simply wound up calling our troops losers.
As for your inability to see any blunders, I sincerely hope that is another example of your failed satire.
RWR--if you have to put up a disclaimer, perhaps it should occur to you that...well...it's at best not very good satire. Here's why--people who actually think, as opposed to parrot, can realize that being sent off to fight a dishonestly begun, incompetently prosecuted, negligently planned and inherently unwinnable war does not make the troops losers; rather the leaders and their unthinking sycophants are the losers. God satire requires some kernel of truth--your attempt to pin the "troops are losers" tag on Reid fails because it's stupid and dishonest.
Let's all remember that when RWR and their likes make statements like RWR did, they're actually doing us a favor.
They are revealing themselves, and the fact that they view any opposition to their worldview and actions as immoral, and therefore feel quite justified in the statements they make.
Because they ultimately think that God is on their side.
People like RWR are truly scary, sad and dangerous. But at least they reveal themselves, so we can know them.
Too true, Mainstream. I don't know which is scarier to me--that folks like RWR just spout the line, because the war cannot be defended on the facts, or that they actually believe that supporting the troops means insisting they stay in a political and social disaster, with every other group against them, and that getting them out is attacking them.
Dan & Les -- the only reason I put up the disclaimer was because I am willing to presume that you folks are too stupid to understand the concept. My other alternative is to believe that you do understand the concept, but are simply lying when you make you misrepresent the point of the image. So which is it, guys, are you stupid or liars? Oh, wait -- I shouldn't assume that the two are mutually exclusive.
And let me add, for the benefit of Les and Mainstream (sic), that we on the right are glad that you folks on the Left are constantly willing to reveal yourself to be on the side of America's enemies -- and religious bigots to boot, because I've never brought God into the discussion but you've seen fit to mock what you impute to be my religious beliefs.
Friendly tip, here, RWR - don't go accusing people of being stupid when you write as badly as you did in that comment . . .
Regardless, if you'll see the original post, I was quite aware that you would claim to be excused because you were trying to twist Reid's position. I saw what you were trying to do, but it's a despicable thing, and I sense you're beginning to see you made a mistake by trying to create humor by calling our troops "losers".
It's not me you owe your apology to - it's the troops you have betrayed. But, in the grand scheme of things, your calling them "losers" is a lesser betrayal of them than supporting this president.
In other words, Dan, you are admitting to be dishonest.
You knew what I was saying, and my intent -- and you chose to lie about it.
In other words, Dan, you owe me,, Michel Malkin, and the rest of us on the so-called "unhinged right" an apology for your dishonesty -- as well as the troops, who neither you nor Reid support.
Now we're getting somewhere, RWR - you're finally starting to understand the depths of your mistake. If you read my post, you knew I understood what you were attempting to do. But the fact that you think it's funny to call the troops losers doesn't excuse your inexcusable behavior.
Your misguided intent, which is to support this president in his misguided mission, is not interesting to me. You're not that complex a writer. Really, you're pretty simple. If you see something inflammatory against the left, you're attracted to it like a moth to a flame. This time you got burned, because you thought it is funny to call the troops losers.
You should be ashamed of yourself, and I think you're beginning to recognize that.
LOL -
Right, RWR, I might give an apology to Malkin. And you. When hell turns into a frigidaire dealership.
You and she are amoung the most notoriously mean-spirited right wingers around, up there with Coulter.
RWR - you're on the fringe, and most AMERICANS don't buy into your way of thinking.
But keep on talking and keep on writing. That's the best thing you can do to bring normalcy back into government. Because the more you open your mouth, the more you expose your extremism. It's that simple.
Unless, of course, RWR, you want to also try and convince us that $Trillion in Iraq is really fighting terrorism - and $450B annual deficits -- are within your definition of conservatism.
I can't wait to hear your ringing defense - especially if you're the type of conservative that will say "I don't agree with everything Bush does, but I like his moral values".
Keep up the good work!
les here--as blogger loses the 2nd identity in as many days--
How does it feel, RWR, to know that 70% of Americans are "enemies of America?" And that "your side" is responsible for putting hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way for an undefined, unachievable victory? That you're supporting a president whose only goal is to leave solving Iraq to his successor? Who had to fire the entire top military management to get someone to agree with his escalation--and who still says a military victory isn't possible? How does it feel to agree with abandoning moral values and Constitutional protections, fought for through our country's history, because you're terrified of terrorists? Do you agree with D'Souza--if we would just impose our own version of Sharia, those awful terrorists would leave us alone? How does it feel to have corrupted our national values, pissed away our international standing, stretched our army to the breaking point, created more terrorists than bin Laden had any dream of (and failed to capture the actual, you know, architect of 9/11); all in pursuit of a neocon wet dream of U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East? To still pathetically support the Worst President Ever? Do you regret that Michelle failed in her attempt to get all those nasty brown people locked up? Have you read what actual historians have to say about the tissue of lies that her book is? What does go through the mind of a true dead-ender, a scared 30 percenter, someone who wants the troops to keep dying as long as Bush is president--for no goal, no plan, just frat boy, dry drunk stubbornness? When did you give up on an America strong enough to be free, open, diverse--when did you start whining for a big strong authority figure to take away any rights they want, if they just keep the awful meanies away?
I don't even bother dealing with people like RWR. They are unreachable and ineducable and a distraction to progres.
Enough is enough. Deal with the fact that we aren’t going to win because that isn’t even an option. Stop with the sacrifice of young men and women on the altar of Bush’s vanity. The refusal of the president to deal with reality is costing a lot of deaths among young Americans. They are constituents of the members of Congress. It is time they serve them and bring an end to this madness.
Let the 30% who are never going to come around anyway continue their shouting down the well of delusion. Is trying to placate those people enough reason to continue the escalated death of Americans? I don’t think so. They are unreachable. Write them off and move on. We have to stop the war without them. They are going to yammer on no matter what. They are still yammering about Vietnam, for crying out loud. you think there is any possible way they won't do the same damned thing this time? I don't. Not if their past work is any indication.
RWR, you and your ilk are long since past the sell-by date. Deal.
They are quite possibly a distraction to progress, too.
Dan, I think I might recognize your troll. Why don't you shoot me an email and we will compare IP numbers? It is entirely possible you are dealing with a troll whose work I know.
Agreed, Blue Girl, there are many more important things than RWR. But, when a daft tool wanders into the neighborhood, it's just too hard not to pick up the gun and point it in the barrel. All work and no play, ya know. Like your site, by the way. And I don't always mix my metaphors--but I know Dan's a slacker.
Gee, Dan, I'm really saddened to see you justifying your lies. I'm sorry to see a once-great blogger sink into the sea of KOS-sack moonbattery.
And Blue -- I've been to you site precisely twice, the second time just to refresh my memory. Trust me, I haven't wasted my time with commenting there. You simply are not worth the time.
Sadly, I'm starting to think the same may be true of Dan, who I'm discovering is a miserable poltroon and not the honorable guy I believed he was.
RWR -
Your whole supposition that started all this is based upon what you subjectively feel is implied by his comments.
"Sorry you don't like it, but that is the clear implication of his recent comments".
Most reasonable people would not come to that same conclusion.
But keep talking, RWR, you're just proving the point that you're not in touch will most reasonable people.
I've got to defend RWR for a second here - I don't think it's fair to consider him a troll when I went to his site, found something objectionable, and posted about it here. I think of trolls as people whom impose themselves on sites where they make ridiculous arguments sheerly to be obnoxious. RWR certainly has the right to come here and defend himself in a fight I started, even though the reason I started it was because he thinks it's funny to call the troops losers.
Now that I've defended his right to be here, I'll respond to his attack. RWR, I haven't lied here. You called the troops losers to try to be funny. You failed horribly. You aren't funny, and your excuses are inexcusable.
Dan -- I suppose if you keep repeating that lie often enough, you might get someone other than this crew of moonbats to believe it. I doubt it, though, given that most folks are smarter than that.
As for the allegation that I think it is "funny" to call the troops losers, I suggest you think again. My point was a deadly serious commentary about the implication of Half-wit Harry Reid's unilateral announcement of defeat by and surrender to the terrorists. Indeed, to find it necessary to comment on such an act disloyalty to our nation by the Senate Majority "Leader" is sickening to me.
As such, I will point to two things I find inexcusable -- Reid's statement and your deliberate lies.
Rwr -
Perhaps if you keep claiming I lied, it will become true somehow. Isn't that how it works in Republicanland?
But, again, you can't point to a place that I lied. Because I haven't - I have stuck rigorously to the truth, while you are the one who made things up to try to be funny.
Fact: You posted "Bring our losers home" on your website.
Fact: You attempted to excuse your behavior by claiming it was satire.
Fact: You fabricated a quote and used a photoshop of Harry Reid, using words he never said.
Now - you want to call me a liar?
What?
How does that work?
A little off the debated topic at hand, but does anyone know if Michelle Malkin is actually human? Every time I see her on O'Reilly, she just has this blank stare while she's rambling on and on about some nonsensical position on a nuanced issue, yelling over everyone else like it's her job (which I suppose it is). She nearly makes O'Lieilly look like a sincere, thoughtful guy.
So, anyone know the truth: actual robot or just a terrible excuse for a human being?
Post a Comment
<< Home