Scott, this was written as much for you as it was for Anti-
American Spirit. Please read carefully.........
L-O-L Please read this:
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, "Allow me to retort."
Feel free to pass this along to the rest of your liberal comrades. I'll be as brief as I can, since I can see from your message that I need to keep things very simple for you. This is probably lengthy compared to most of what you read, but I had to do it because you are obviously missing a lot of information, and the rest of us want you to be as informed as possible. After all, you're a citizen, too.
I'll even grade your essay for you, one phrase at a time.
...neglect the homefront... An amusing generality which might attract the attention of a five-year-old, but is not effective on me or most other rational people, since it is patently false. I'll assume you are not trying to create a false picture on purpose, that would be mean spirited, and not American Spirit at all, right?
Fact: this current conflict was undertaken for the primary purpose of protecting the United States and its citizens, of which you are one. President Bush has stated this very succinctly on several occasions, in public. You have the right, thanks to the Constitution of the United States, to publicly disagree with what he has said, and even to assume he is lying, but that does not mean he is lying. It could just as easily mean that you have the current president confused with some former president, who had no problem with perjuring himself in front of a Federal Grand Jury. That is a different person, not the current president. You may also possibly wish to study the events leading up to World War I and World War II, paying particular attention to the groups in the United States that opposed those wars on the basis that the proposed conflicts were not on American soil, and therefore were not in the best interests of the United States. Study also the events of December 7, 1941, when a military action was initiated in one of the territories of the United States, and resulted in the untimely and premature expiration of several members of the armed forces of this country. Finally, I note with some amusement that you use the invented word "homefront". I have, however, heard of a new department in our government, created by President Bush if memory serves, that has a similar wording, something about homeland security, but without the word "neglect". You get a -10 for attempting to alter the truth, and -2 for making up a word.
...unilateral wars... I am unaware of a single example of a unilateral war involving the United States of America since the country was founded. If you have an actual example please post it, otherwise simply admit that you have no idea what you are talking about and that your proposition is totally specious. No evidence means you get a -10 for repeatedly proposing something that never happened.
...enemies we were even [sic] attacked by... I'm assuming you meant "enemies we were not even attacked by", so you get -1 for missing a word. I'm also assuming you are referring to the current conflict in Iraq, and that by "we", you mean the citizens of the United States. You may recall, if you were old enough to read back then, that the United States was involved in an armed conflict about 12 years ago called "Desert Storm". An army led by a brutal murderous dictator invaded one of our allies and caused some serious damage, including not only the torture, rape, and murder of many innocent citizens of Kuwait, but the worst environmental disaster in modern history. The United States, along with several of its allies, used military force to push the aggressor back into his own country. An agreement was made at that time that the brutal dictator would not only cease his criminal activities, but that he would prove to the rest of the civilized world that he had neither the intention nor the capability to engage in similar activity in the future. Unfortunately for the citizens of his country and for some members of the armed forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia and others, he failed to keep his promise. Not only did he fail to keep his promise, it is probable, based on empirical evidence, that he had no intention of doing anything but causing additional harm to his neighbors and to the United States and its allies in the world. The United States, along with several allies, are now in the middle of ensuring that the threat to its citizens (the real "we", not the fantasy "we" you referred to), and indeed to the entire civilized world, is...how can I put this...eliminated. You get a -10 for not including our allies in your bogus assertion, and -10 for missing the lesson of Desert Storm. I'm not even going to get into this stupid idea of yours that the United States should not be interested in the rest of the world, because I know you don't really think that, right?
...lie about their intentions... Again, this seems to be a round-about jab at the current administration. Let's just stick to President Bush and keep it as simple as we can for you, OK? I probably don't need to tell you that most politicians lie. That's right, most of them lie. If they didn't lie, they would not get elected. Similarly, most people that don't lie have absolutely no desire to be elected to some political office. In between these two extremes are what we might loosely call "lying bastards that care only about those that agree with them" and "politicians that lie sometimes, but don't believe that ends justify the means". This latter category probably include the majority (slight as it may be currently) of elected federal employees. All these people, lying bastards included, are servants of the people of the United States. Next, you need to be at least somewhat conversant with a document called the Constitution of the United States, and also a basic rule used to govern the justice in this country called "the rule of law". The Constitution says what it says, you need to read it, and be sure you understand it as best you can. Lots of people disagree on the specifics of what the Constitution means, but it says what it says, and that's the end of it, it's about as black and white as a document can be. So you need to read it, otherwise you could end up believing something as valid when it isn't and your arguments can have very little actual empirical value. The rule of law says, in simple English, that if it is against the law, it is wrong, and if it is not against the law, it's OK. The United States has set up a system to police its citizens (including the politicians) using the Constitution and the rule of law.
"Cheating" could be loosely defined as "the act of using trickery to deceive or mislead with the intention of defrauding"
Just after the last presidential election was complete, and the winner was announced, the loser, Al Gore, decided to file a lawsuit with the intention of overturning the election. While not against the law, this lawsuit was notable because nobody had ever done such a thing before in the United States. That first lawsuit was immediately countered by a second lawsuit by the president-elect, George Bush, and the saga began.
Simply stated, Gore was attempting to use the legal branch of the government to take a third look at a small portion of the votes cast in one state, Florida. Not only that, but he wanted to take that third look at only three primarily Democratic counties in the state. A cynic might have thought he was trying to manipulate the courts to serve his own purpose by using the dictum of "the end justifies the means", and had no intention of seeing what the entire state had to say about him, but I digress. One thing led to another, and the Supreme Court of the State of Florida ruled in favor of Al Gore. Then, following the rule of law, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the entire fiasco was against the law, the Supreme Court of Florida was confused about the Constitution and the rule of law, that Al Gore was in fact acting outside the law, and that was the end of that. George Bush, having won the election legally, per the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States, sworn in as President. Al disappeared, Alan Dershowitz called it a "coup d'etat", the former president and his lovely wife moved out of the White House, and Dubya moved in and took control of the country. End of story.
That was about two years ago. It's history. It's too bad it didn't go the way you wished it would have gone, but Al had the chance to ask for a recount of the entire state and didn't do it. One lower court felt he wasn't doing anything wrong, but it turned out that court was wrong, and the final word from the highest court in the system (rule of law and Constitution and all that) was that Al was cheating. He failed. You know the old saying, "Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win". You'll have another chance in two years. I assume you voted last time, many people didn't. Be sure and vote.
You get a +20 for pointing out that Al Gore was not a great leader, and personally, I'm very thankful that the rule of law prevailed in this case.
Your total score here blows large chunks, so you may want to study up before you vote again. Your life could depend on it if Saddam and others like them have their way, so please take it a bit more seriously next time.
From: username
siliconinvestor.com |
