Day by Day

Friday, August 26, 2005

Well, I guess that's one way to put it.

Here's a list of link roundups from a few people who I admire quite a bit, and I can't say that they're particularly friendly.

First up, Mrs. du Toit, one of the most intelligent people on the web, comes up with a series of questions for you in a "screw with your head a lil' bit" post.


Exercise 1:
Think of the smartest person you’ve ever met—.......

Exercise 2:
Think of the most dynamic person you’ve ever met—.......

Exercise 3:
Think about the best sales person you ever met—.......

Exercise 4
Think about the most honest person you’ve ever known—.......

Done? Got all four? Don’t cheat and read on until you’re done.

OK… here we go.

Was it the same person in all four examples?

Chances are it wasn’t the same person. Again, your mileage may vary.

Now, here’s the screw with your head part:

Of the four you thought of, which one would be best President of the United States?

Exercise 5 (last one):

Rank, in order of importance, the qualities most important in the POTUS.


The Mrs. then goes into a nice clear wakeup call later on in the same post:

Quit telling the President to present his case better. He’s not our Grampa. He’s not our therapist. He’s not selling anything. He’s representing us. If you think the President’s policies are good or bad, it is YOUR job as a citizen to present the case to your neighbors.

If you’re not doing that, if you think the President’s duty is to put you or your neighbor on in his knee and explain how things work, GROW UP. The President isn’t our mascot. His job is not to conduct pep rallies.


Now, I know that we can all formulate arguments when we're sitting behind a keyboard. And I'll admit that screaming arguments with foaming-at-the-mouth leftists isn't my forte. But how many of us, when we hear a mistruth being said, step up and try to (gently) correct that person? I used to do it all the time when I worked in the hospital in Seattle. I wouldn't jump all over the person, but I would start listing off facts and sources for my facts. I did it all the time with guns and gun control topics. I spoke out quite a bit about the Army when people make uninformed judgements.

But how many of us are doing things like that today? I must admit, living on an Army base doesn't give you too many chances to argue with an anti-war nutcase. Other than blogging, there's not too many arguments to be had around my house or neighborhood. The question still stands, however: Why aren't WE the ones pushing the President's agenda. Why are we waiting for him to come out and give us a "Yay-rah-rah sis-boom-bah" speech?

Perhaps we are the ones that need to do a little more cheerleading and less waiting.

The Mrs. then goes onto a post that reminds everybody what support is supposed to be. And as much as I agree with certain premises she makes, I can't completely agree with her final outcome.

The best head of state the world has ever seen in a time of war was Winston Churchill. He was brilliant at war time, but he was perfectly dreadful when it came to the day-to-day affairs of the British government on issues of home. Bush is proving to be somewhat the same. Do NOT mix the two. Your support for our troops and winning this war should have nothing to do with how the President is handling anything else.

The opinion polls are showing a fading support for the war. Now the Left is thrilled with this, but of course the poll results are skewed. Assuming normal averages, 60% not happy with the President’s handling of the War, 30% (half) are likely to be against it because they don’t want us there. The other 30% (the other half) are likely to be negative because they think the President isn’t using enough force.

And you know what our troops see? Do you know what our enemy sees? SIXTY PERCENT AGAINST. And if you’re not happy because you think the President is not using enough force, SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

So get the duct tape, put it across your mouth, close the posts that are critical of the President, and get behind the troops and against the enemy, which, last I looked was NOT President Bush, but a group of megalomaniacs, using the guise of Islam, trying to dominate the world.

This isn’t a Holy War. This isn’t a time when you get to put down a religion you believe to be inferior and replace with one you feel better suited to the region. This isn’t a time for punishing the Arab world for all the hell its put Israel through.

Come the next election The People will vote on a new President. That is when The People get to share their two cents. We are not a strict democracy. We are a Republic. That means we elect officials to act on our behalf. If we don’t like how they’ve acted on our behalf, we don’t undermine them while they’re in office, we vote for someone else next time.

I do not want to hear one more “conservative” blathering on about how horrid Bush is, how he’s a sell out to this or that. If you continue this, you will cease to be “conservative”, cease to be “patriotic” and you’ve become the “digital brown shirts” the Right has been accused of being.

Now SHUT UP.


One thing I will never shut up about is the way the border has pretty much been opened up. If I hear "amnesty" mentioned for illegal immigrants by a conservative one more time, I'm going to vomit into a bag and mail it off to them as a way to express how I really feel.

But support for the war is dropping? I can't say that I'm surprised. Think about this:

There is almost no reporting on the successes that America has accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why is that? Because the Leftist media will not portray anything that could be construed as a victory for President Bush.

Casualty reports are run daily, if not hourly, by the Leftist press. Why? Because that's one of the tactics they used to change support for the Viet Nam war, and they are USING THAT TACTIC AGAIN. To them, it's Viet Nam all over again. It doesn't matter if we've removed two terrorist supporting regimes, freed millions of people from tyrants and thugs, removed the financial and logistical support from a terrorist network, and brought democracy and a chance for peace to an area that has never had that, it's all being done by a REPUBLICAN, so it has to be evil. Neveryoumind the fact that we had ample reasons to go into both countries, to the Left it's all one big illegal BusHitlerCheneyHalliburtanChimyMcRoveNeoCon plot to ruin their vision of global peace. And so they'll fight the president with everything they have. And one weapon that has proven effective in the past is casualty reports without context. Casualties, casualties, and more casualties, every hour on the hour without any other information. What if the media had simply stated "2,500 soldiers killed on Normandy Beach in one day" and left it at that?

How about "Over 10,000 soldiers dead since D-Day" without any other information?

How about "Over 200,000 casualties since begining of war efforts" without any other information?

Do you think we would have won WWII with todays media? I don't. Let's face it, the media today will do what they can to cause President Bush to fail, or at least get embarassed once in a while. When the only news you hear is "DEATH! FAILURE! QUAGMIRE! DEAD SOLDIERS! EVIL WAR! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!" then you're going to get a little down in the dumps. And let's face it, as good as the blogosphere is at getting other information out, it only works when people come to read it. You can't force anyone to sit down and read Powerline, or Right Wing News, no matter how important you think the news is. Short of buying our own network and broadcasting the successes of Iraq on network TV, there's no way those stories are going to reach the main part of America. How many people in America know that the Army's re-enlistment rates are above what was expected? The re-enlistment rates are over 100% of quota. How many people in America know that? Did you see that on the nightly news? OF COURSE NOT! But when the Army had problems recruiting, it was on every damn show, every night.

Because the media wants us to lose.

Treasonous, lying shitheels at home: The Left has never let the truth get in the way of their lust for power. Ted (hic!) Kennedy, Chucky Schumer, Jim "Baghdad" McDermott, Charlie Rangle, they all lie with abandon if it'll help their cause. Remember when Baghdad McDermott warned about a draft during Bush's presidency, only to have people find out that MCDERMOTT HIMSELF SPONSORED THE DRAFT BILL? Remember that? The Left is populated by lying, worthless, cowardly, traitorous parasites who have elected more lying, worthless, cowardly, traitorous parasites to represent them on the national stage, and these people will say anything and everything they can in order to cause Bush to fail in some way. They don't care about success in Iraq, because they equate Iraqi success or failures as Bush's success or failures. Thus, if the terrorists win in Iraq, and the Middle East goes into spasms of terror, despotism and death, the Left will cavort with glee and shriek "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!" while never caring that they are responsible for the failures. The Left would sacrifice every man, woman and child in Iraq for one big stick that they could beat President Bush for, and it's showing in how they comport themselves in America.

I'd say the real surprise isn't how low the support for the war is, it's how HIGH the support is after dealing with the lies, the hatred, the simple foulness of the Left and all it's tactics in this country. The only thing we can do is keep on keepin' on. Keep debating the Left and proving them wrong. Don't allow yourself to be shifted to a different topic when you're debating. Keep proving the Left to be nothing more than traitorous worms.

Bush never said that this was going to be quick and easy. He said it would be a long, hard process. I believed him then, and I believe him now.

Keep on keepin' on, folks. Don't let the Left win. The results will be horrible if they do.

No comments: