'Liberals' Disengages Brain

Only On Brain-Equipped Models

Published on July 1, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

although that headline might seem to be a clash between plural and singular, the subject of that title isn't plural (like more than one liberal) but the singular word 'liberals'. how does it disengage brains? i dunno. it has something to do with its use as the subject of a simple sentence.

as in 'liberals _________________________

a normal brain will then make the effort to fill in the blank with a predicate and possibly even an object. overuse of the word seems to result in an abnormality in which the brain goes totally blank and the autonomic you gotta lotta nerve system tosses in any ol nonsense that it has laying around. words like 'want' and 'iraq' and 'to' and 'be' possibly 'another' and then a real stretch: 'vietnam'.

the error is obvious to even a continually damaged, heavily abused, swiss cheeze brain. if one is going to form a sentence that begins with 'liberals' and subsequently contains the words 'vietnam' and 'iraq' , there's only one way it can be done:

liberals and others didn't want another vietnam in iraq. or anywhere else.

that's why so many of them opposed the war in iraq from the jump.

there seems to be litle chance of a cure for those who suffer from the 'liberals' brain disconnect anomaly since its victims seem unable to learn the lessons of history and are thus doomed to making the same mistakes over

and over

and over.

Comments

bakerstreet

on Jul 01, 2005

I believe, devoutly, that you are sincere in your belief about this. I think you are right to a degree. Sadly, I know for a fact from talking to some people that they truly can't bear the idea that Bush might be vindicated by History for creating a peaceful, stable, Democratic Iraq.

Liberals may be the wrong word. 'Liberals', in my opinion is abused as a label as much by the Left when referring to themselves as it is by the right when we villify them. There's nothing 'Liberal' about someone who would look forward to a nice high death count to wave in people's face. There's also nothing to be villified about real Liberals who would accept peace even if they don't agree with the means.

So in terms of etemology, I agree with you. In terms of what people call themselves, and what they speak in words and actions, I think you are projecting your good-heartedness on many that don't deserve it any more than they deserve to be called 'Liberal'.

zinkadoodle

on Jul 02, 2005

This liberal would absolutely love it if dubya succeeded in Iraq, and I could be proven wrong. But, I'm one of those who do connect the Iraq debaucle to the Viet Nam quagmire. Sure, eventually, Iraq will sort this out, the way that Viet Nam sorted out its mess. But, no thanks to the Americans for interfering, resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Americans, and millions of Vietnamese.

And, that's the point. I find it absolutely horrific that dubya thinks it's justifiable to cause, yes CAUSE the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to capture one man. That man now languishes in a prison cell, while the citizens continue to die horrific and tragic and unnecessary deaths. Their country is in shambles, thanks to the invasion, in which their country under Saddam's iron rule was NOT, prior to the invasion. In fact, Iraq was one of the few, if not only secular Arab societies with some of the most progressive universities and institutions. He maintained that system with an iron rule, and he did kill thousands to keep that rule, and yes, Saddam was/is a dictator bastard. But we have taken his place in the hall of fame for Iraqi killings.

Now, using democracy as the excuse is disengenuous nonsense. We didn't go into Iraq to promote democracy. We went to capture Saddam Hussein. We used the excuse that he had WMD's, which, as we all know, has turned out to be a falsehood that the dubya dummies knew prior to the invasion. Sure, dubya said that if democracy followed Saddam's (or is it saddams') capture, that would be good. But, even if we did go into Iraq to impose democracy, who the hell are we to be so presumptuous to assume that the Iraqis would even want the US brand of democracy. Oil and Saddam. This is what it was all about. Period. Now, it's about saving face, too.

Now that I've vented my usual speech, I guess my brain is disengaged. It sure is. Completely disengaged from the rightie lies and rhetoric which serves to hopefully protect their disengaged leader. But, the majority of Americans aren't buying it anymore. Only the majority at JU. I guess 53% of Americans are now "disengaged" for believing that dubya did indeed lie about Iraq. Things are looking up.

Iraqis will eventually succeed in sorting out the mess that is their country right now. But, no thanks to the US for paving this road to hell with our misplaced good intentions.

bakerstreet

on Jul 02, 2005

" This liberal would absolutely love it if dubya succeeded in Iraq, and I could be proven wrong."

I would say, begrudgingly, that even if Bush suceeds in Iraq you aren't really proved wrong. The means aren't always justified simply because they accomplish beneficial ends. I support the decision Bush made, but I wouldn't consider success to defeat your original beef with the war.

"Sure, eventually, Iraq will sort this out, the way that Viet Nam sorted out its mess."

If by "sort out" you mean the systematic slaughter, torture, and abuse of an entire population, sure. People know a lot about the US in Vietnam, but it would do them a lot of good to see what exactly we were fighting in Vietnam. The process of letting those people win and the subsequent "sorting out" should be a national shame. The Vietnamese people were sold out by peaceniks and politicians that cared more about approval ratings. I'm hoping Bush won't follow suit.

"And, that's the point. I find it absolutely horrific that dubya thinks it's justifiable to cause, yes CAUSE the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to capture one man."

Do you realize that more people died in single battles in WW2 Europe than have died, total on both sides, of the Iraq war? And what was that over? A single man. If you would like, have a look at what Hussein had done. Keep in mind that France and China and the rest were pushing to end sanctions and were poised to make billions of dollars rearming him.

So, disagree with the means if you must, but the ends are simply too obvious to disagree with. You can laud totalfinaelf for making billions propping him up, or you can accept the evils of Halliburton profiting from an evil man's downfall.

What you CAN'T do, is make the case that Hussein wasn't a threat to humanity.

kingbee

on Jul 03, 2005

I believe, devoutly, that you are sincere in your belief about this

i truly apppreciate that baker. thanks

There's nothing 'Liberal' about someone who would look forward to a nice high death count to wave in people's face. There's also nothing to be villified about real Liberals who would accept peace even if they don't agree with the means.

ghouls are ghouls regardless of affiliation.

Dr Guy

on Jul 04, 2005

Guess my 3 stages of the left is not in play here, as Liberals are not what you depict. The LLL left is. Liberals hate the war, but now we are in it, do not want it to be aborted to leave a powder keg.

They dont like W, but at least hate is not their modus operandi.

Moderateman

on Jul 04, 2005

liberals and others didn't want another vietnam in iraq. or anywhere else.

yes they do, just so they get the sick satisfaction of a "i told you so"

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!