Why I'll Never Get Angry At Another Right Wing Nut's Rant
Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:50:16 PM PDT
For years now whenever I watched some right-wing pundit on TV lie or "distort the truth" it would piss me off. Such as, "al qaeda was in Iraq before 9/11". It would piss me off when I read their Op Ed rants where they would decry everything as Clinton's fault and worship Ronald Reagan like he's some golden calf. Now, with the Internet, the Right Wing nuts can go off saying anything and spouting all liberals as traitors, childish, and irrelevant.
For some reason it would always get to me. I just couldn't ignore it. Today, I can finally ignore them. My anger has died and has given way to laughter. Why? I'll tell you why.
On a whim I went over to redstate just to see how the whole Petreas testimony and everything else is playing in the Rightosphere. There, on the front page was a guest "Editorial by Frank J". Here's the first paragraph:
I remember that back in the 80s when I was but a wee child there were a people called Communists. They were very bad, but we also had Rambo and he killed them. Thus we felt safe and happy and would say, "Yea, though there be Communists, verily there is John Rambo to kill them. Things are well in the world."
Now, after reading that first paragraph, I thought I was reading some Stephan Colbert style snark. After all, this logic is something a 7 year old would write when asked to write a paper on "Why commies don't scare me". Then I kind of snapped out of it remembering that I was reading this on a real wing nut site, not a parody site like Liberals Must Die.
I kept reading into the next paragraph hoping to see the punchline.
Today, there no longer are Communists since Rambo killed them all with explosive arrows, but there are terrorists. "Who will kill the terrorists?" we ask, and it is a good question. I think it is the responsibility of the government to kill terrorists.
Let me stop it right there. If this is really how wing nuts think, I feel sorry for them. They are living in constant fear of boogey men. First it was the "commies", not it's the "terrorists", next it'll be beastie. Anyways, continuing this paragraph.
My reasoning on it is thusly: Terrorists live and plot in many different foreign countries with lots of different wacky laws.
I have to stop again and just laugh at the degree of xenophobia being exhibited. The implication of course being that foreign countries have silly, stupid laws.
Thus, it's much easier for the U.S. government to stomp around ignoring those laws than it is for individuals. If I went into those countries to kill terrorists, those countries would say, "Hey, Frank. You are ignoring our laws. You go to prison now." And they would take me to wacky foreign prison, and I would not be able to resist because there would be many of them and they would be mean. But the U.S. government is even bigger and meaner and thus can ignore stupid foreign laws to kill the terrorists.
Again, stupid foreign laws. The United States needs to go where it wants when it wants and the rest of the world be damned because they have stupid laws. I have never seen a better summary of neo-con foreign policy in all of it's arrogant, ignorant, and xenophobic glory.
Anyways, at this point in reading I was still waiting for the punch line to the childish reasoning. After all at the top of the article stated,
We're happy to welcome Frank J. of IMAO as guest editorialist on this very, very important topic. And, yes, at bottom this is a serious editorial. That's sort of the point, really.
So I clicked read on and moved to the next paragraph. I'll skip the next paragraph since it doesn't add anything. The link is on top if you really want to. It's the next paragraph where I find another reason to laugh at and then pity these poor wing nuts.
Now that I've logically proved that the U.S. military should kill terrorists, it seems strange that some people would want to pull troops out of the Middle East. That's where the terrorists are! I guess eventually they'll come to us a few at a time, but it is so much more efficient to go over there and kill them en masse. When people say, "No! Bring the troops home!" I say, "But there aren't many terrorists at home. They are over there. You are being silly." Why would we move the troops? Who is more important to kill than the terrorists? The Swedes? Certainly not.
Now I see the problem. Wing nuts are just really really bad at logic. When talking about Iraq they're reasoning has gone like this:
Fact 1: Many of the 9/11 terrorists came from the Middle East
Fact 2: Iraq is a country in the Middle East
Therefore: There are terrorists in Iraq.
*Note If you don't see the error in logic here, take a logic course.
It was about this time I really did realize that there was no punchline. This guy is for real. I realized just in time for the closing paragraph.
When someone tells you we should bring the troops back, ask him who does he think will then kill the terrorists. When he inevitably gives you a dumb answer, punch him in the face as should be the punishment for answers that are stupid. As is obvious, the U.S. military should kill terrorists.
So now he's admitting that to win an argument, conservatives shouldn't hesitate to use violence.
Everyone please remember that this was posted on the FRONT PAGE of Red State(not a user diary) which implies that, yes, this IS the opinion of Red State Editors. The diary has over 100 comments all starting with praising how brilliant he is. This guy runs his own blog that's visited and commented on frequently. He's published 2 freakin' books. This guy might be fringe in most of America, but he's actually quite mainstream in the conservative movement.
Let's recap. These nuts are illogical, incapable of debate, and in a perpetual state of fear. My only concern is to decide to laugh at them, or pity them.
Permalink | 35 comments