First runner-up post title:
THE DEMOCRATS PREY ON YOUR STUPIDITY
Sound familiar, Citizen SHoPpers?Found this article here on yahoo!, pulled it off the Reuters site...
Democrats use strategy of ambiguity on Iraq: experts
Hmm. Not sure exactly where to start. Should we be embarrassed that ambiguity is being incorporated as the platform for what is likely the major issue in this midterm election? Should we be embarrassed that a major political party is willing to use something like this war in Iraq as a means to a political end? Should we be embarrassed that "experts" have wasted time to come to a conclusion like "Democrats are ambiguous" when any one of your SHoP Overlords (or Overlady) could've told you the exact same thing.
(OK, upon further review, looks like the GOP has become somewhat wishy-washy in exchange for a broader appeal when it comes to normally black-and-white issues like abortion and smaller government. No need to point it out again in the comments, as I've already trolled myself.)
Let's take a look at a few excerpts. Let's have a look-see...
| Lowery is not alone. Only a quarter of Americans think Democrats in the Congress have a clear plan for Iraq, far less than the 36 percent who believe the president has one, a USA Today/Gallup poll in mid-September found. But experts said the lack of a clear Democratic plan made no difference at all to most voters. Ambiguity has been part of the Democratic strategy on Iraq all along and has worked quite well, they said. |
So somebody's unenviable solution isn't too much better than somebody else's vague and likely shitty one? That's what the American People are saying. And this is why I'll tell you again, THE DEMOCRATS PREY ON YOUR STUPIDITY.
Am I saying that Bush and the administration's policies are the end-all, be-all, fix-all solution for Iraq? No. That's not the issue here. Don't let any trolls try to tell you it is. Besides, unless you've just come out of a coma, your mind is made up. Either you've thought from the beginning that the President is working towards security, or you don't. I'm not here to talk about Bush. What good will that do?
The issue, as Your Favorite SHoP Overlord is drawing it up, is that THE DEMOCRATS PREY ON YOUR STUPIDITY. That's it. Plain and simple. Here, read another excerpt. You tell me that this degenerocrat isn't hoping people won't wise up and realize that his Leftist pigfuckers don't have anything to bring to the table...
| He cited the Pennsylvania race for the U.S. Senate as an example. The Democratic challenger, Bob Casey, running against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum, has opposed the status quo but been vague about what to do about Iraq. |
Well that sounds downright shitty. Unfortunately this kind of ignorance trickles-down to the common Degenerocrats with whom I have the utmost pleasure of interacting here in the Red State Outpost in the Blue State Frontier.
Ignoramus Degenerocrat: Bush lied! People died! Republicans suck!
Jihad Jimmy: Do you know how much worse off we would've been if Gore or Kerry had been elected?
Ignoramus Degenerocrat: If you're so into this war, you should enlist right now! And take the Bush daughters with you!
Jihad Jimmy: Umm, you didn't really answer my question...
Ignoramus Degenerocrat: Republicans aren't about dialogue! Republicans aren't for anything but war!
Jihad Jimmy: OK. So what are the Democrats for?
(A beat.)
Ignoramus Degenerocrat: Bush lied! People died! Republicans suck!
Oh, how I wish I was kidding. I actually spruced up the ID's side a bit to make it somewhat intelligible. But enough of that. Let's get back to nonsensical rambling...
| While Democrats have not unified behind a specific plan on Iraq, political analysts say the outlines of a Democratic position are clearly visible in the different proposals. The main thrust is a redeployment, or withdrawal, of U.S. forces from Iraq sooner rather than later. |
Oh. So, ummm... Like a retreat?
| "An orderly phase-out is basically what the John Kerrys and some of the others are calling for," said Vincent Hutchings, an associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan, referring to the Massachusetts senator who lost to Bush in the 2004 presidential election. |
Oh. So an orderly retreat. OK, that sounds sufficiently double-speaky to be a Democratic "solution".
External link mine, btw. Reuters didn't think enough to link to the SHoP.
| They have tried to address the issue by fielding candidates with military credentials, said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. |
Of course. How did that John Kerry guy work out for you? Not so good?
One more quote from Professor Cal Whats-his-face from SMU...
| "So their strategy is just not to do anything that will allow the Republicans to paint them as not dependable with the safety of the American public." |
Well, really, we dastardly Republicans don't need too much more than a half-empty nail polish bottle full of paint to complete that imagery. I mean shit, with Senators who compare our soldiers to Nazi prison guards, or with former presidents who are on record as hating the military? I wouldn't look down upon any Degenerocrat who took a stand and said, "I have my loyalties to my constituents, but holy shit, you ignorant little fuckers don't have any fucking clue what security is all about, do you?"
Seriously, break it down even closer-to-home... who would you rather have help you defend your family and the rest of your shit if some invading force was working its way through the Blue State Frontier? Some doofus hipster with a stylish Che Guevara t-shirt and Peace buttons on his messenger bag? Or would you want Tio Jaime and his 12-gauge and his stockpiled Wal-Mart shotgun shells? Would you want some gay Vespa, or do you want to mount a huge fucking gun in my truck bed so we can shoot at the HK Aerials who are trying to terminate us?It's late now. I'm putting on Terminator 2, going to sleep.
Jihad Jimmy, Minister of War Crimes and Chief Defender of the Faith
|