UTUSN
UTUSN's JournalAdd me to the list. For me it's a Shrub-era meme mostly used by Repuke Chickenhawks.
And when I've mentioned my p.o.v. about it here on this board I've been told a couple of times that I should just be gracious.
It's especially grating on the VA 800# in light of the past decades of their horrible headlines about their dealing with vets.
I'm appreciative of the life experience, both good and bad, my enlistment resulted in. It broadened me to things that I wouldn't have found in such a concentrated dose otherwise. And for that appreciation I wear a USN ballcap and other things, not in the gung-ho John WAYNE (fake veteran in the movies; draft dodger) kind of way, and I would like to wear these things for my own reasons without triggering an obligatory gung-ho John WAYNE type of reaction.
As Charlie RANGEL has said for many years, many enlistees join the military for reasons of not being able to get higher education and jobs rather than for the stereotypical reasons that chickenhawks imagine.
I've had bozos in Happy Hour situations come up to me because of my cap or something and SCREAM six inches from my face, "SIR! YES SIR!!!!!!" because of what they've seen in movies. Really.
I'm willing to agree that time spent is "service," but its own reward.
Resolved, A rambling-on about DRUMPF: What did "they" expect?!1
First, some definitions:
* They who are they? 1- his outright supporters. 2- Repukes who opposed or were scared to lose with him. 3- Latino Repukes who are now outraged. 4- Media enablers.
* Neutral (as in judges presiding in his lawsuits) means finding in his favor. When he says minority judges have conflicts of interest over his anti-minority/race/religion beliefs and cannot be neutral he means anything not in his favor is not neutral. Carrying his postulate to its natural extreme, in a DRUMPF society there would not be any judges at all, at least not in his thousands of lawsuits, because any and every adverse ruling towards him would be attributed to something in their personal history that would be a conflict. No adverse rulings would be allowable, period.
* DRUMPF is this usage of "DRUMPF" participating against him in his own kind of heritage prejudice? To me, it is highlighting that immigration is a very large topic in his life story (grandparents, mother, two of his three wives) and yet he made it something *negative*. In the light of that, to just say TRUMP would be to play along with his apparent façade that he sprung generically American like from Zeuss head. Some amateur psychologizing here, is his fury on immigration a self-hating thing?!1
*********So, proceeding right along...
What did they, the core supporters, expect? We are told he freed them with political incorrectness, to say aloud what they/everybody secretly thinks but have been shamed into silence, meaning racist stuff. The ugliness in him was there from Day 1 but only now are there signs it might be coming home to roost. Did they think that their ugly inner beliefs would be made to be mainstream, normal, and respectable?
So what did they/Repuke leaders think, that their voters have spoken so they must go along and after the DRUMPF debacle (win or lose, there *will* be a debacle) they can claim to be exonerated by having qualified their support?
And the media enablers. They started out acting like DRUMPFs bombs were CUTE, like he was a naif on deep policy matters and was only spouting refreshing, unfiltered things. And now its too late. The same as the media during 2000 when they thought Shrub was cute and any hint of toughness on him was said to be harsh, like he somehow deserved kid gloves.
And what did the ethnic/minority Repukes, expect when they became Repukes? The broad strokes are that Repuke-ism is for the racist and the greedy, that is all. One Ana NAVARRO, a media Repuke, is being lauded for a rant against DRUMPFs racism. She has a tweet saying she became a Repuke at eight years old, RAYGUN blah blah. Isnt this proof that eight years old aint the time for making life decisions?!1 Meanwhile, Alberto GONZALEZ, whatever mental age *he* is, continues his blind Repuke-ism by justifying DRUMPFs right to question the fairness of judges based on ethnicity. And Ruben NAVARRETTE continues his animus toward White Liberal males with his accustomed advice, this time on how DRUMPF should follow his own trail of breadcrumbs to accomplish wooing Latinos (hah hah).
As for the violence of some supposedly anti-DRUMPF individuals, some five (5) scenarios: Could be such violence infringes on the free speech and association of others and everybody; could be legitimate revolution-type redress against threatened oppression and discrimination; could be criminal delinquency taking advantage of opportunity like looting at race riots; could be real life conspiracy of DRUMPF false flagging; could be tit for tat against DRUMPF-ites pepper spraying them. Last nights Kanye WEST riot shows that criminal delinquency is very real and sparked by the most random things. It also honestly true that we Libs, with our characteristic of looking within for root causes of things, tend to wring our hands and blame ourselves and be concerned for others who might be oppressed (some of our enemies), so we are particularly susceptible to were-BETTER-than-that, meaning were BETTER. Well, no were not. All of us, Lib or wingnut, are just human and contain the whole spectrum from good to evil.
The single biggest point about DRUMPF is what I learned from defending Bill CLINTON, that somebody with the big personality and the big personal problems turns everything away from the national agenda into spending all energy into defending him, a total distraction.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 73,915