A new billboard went up in my neighborhood today, done in the stark white-letters-on-black-field style that I normally associate with daft fundamentalist ads. The text is courtesy of the political organization Vietnam Veterans For Bush, and reads:
Defeating John Kerry will give Vietnam veterans the homecoming they never had.
Thank you, Vietnam Veterans For Bush, for brightening up my environment with your incisive political sentiment. Your disdain of a decorated combat veteran who served honorably and then took a principled public stand against the war, in favor of a man who weaseled his way into a National Guard slot to avoid going overseas, is a perfectly valid and understandable choice that is not at all batshit insane. It’s heartwarming to see you, as veterans, publicly endorsing a candidate whose foreign policy has given so many young American soldiers the chance to experience the homecoming you never had: in a flag-draped coffin. For myself, I will consider my vote for John Kerry as a chance to help give America back the decency and integrity that you and your candidate never had. In the spirit of reasoned and evenhanded political discourse that your advertisement so richly embodies, allow me to conclude by saying: Fuck you, traitors.
Help me with the connection. These people support the candidate of their choice, and because you disagree, they are traitors? Can you show that these veterans for Bush are not on equal standing with the “decorated combat veteran” of whom you speak? Would you have me believe the men and women who paid for that advertisement have been tried and convicted as were Julius Rosenberg, Iva Toguri D’Aquino, and Max Haupt?
Your argument has a few holes, and I can’t dance to it. I’ll give it a 2.
I concur with the above. Of course, I have no real experience with the genre “rant”, so my approval is of little significance.
Except that last word. I would just as soon never hear that one again, ever. Even if and when deserved. A leaden note for a bright concerto of vitriol.
Yes. Yes, they are. They aren’t simply expressing a different political opinion, they are not merely wrong or misguided, they are acting out of pure hatred of America. It doesn’t matter in the slightest how any of them may have served their country in the past; their attack on Senator Kerry is, by extension, simultaneously an attack on the armed forces and the United States Congress, and is obviously intended to demoralize and weaken the nation in a time of crisis. Therefore, they are traitors.
Some might possibly detect just the barest, most passing echo of familiarity surrounding this line of argument. Or perhaps not.
Kindly provide a cite that those persons backing the advertisement are acting upon hatred.
Assuming you to be a person who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you’d agree about the First amendment, and you’re equally clear about Article 3? Therefore, let me see if the following statement is equally applicable to both Democratic and Republican candidates-(I read it somewhere on the internet)
[QUOTE]
It doesn’t matter in the slightest how any of them may have served their country in the past; their attack on (Insert Candidate name) is, by extension, simultaneously an attack on the armed forces and the United States Congress, and is obviously intended to demoralize and weaken the nation in a time of crisis. Therefore, they are traitors.
By extension-all vets are traitors, according to your logic.
I still can’t dance to it, and the words are even more confusing. I give it a 1
Bolding added for danceswithcats. I’m close to 100% sure that Terrifel is not intending to actual imply that those who put up the billboard are traitors, rather, that if he were to lower himself to their level and engage in the same level of discourse that they do, one thing he might do would be to call them traitors. That is, they’re traitors just as much as their billboard’s point is accurate and fair.
In all honesty, it seemed like the most charitable interpretation. I grant you that there may be other reasons why these traitors would attack America in this manner. Perhaps they have no particular feeling toward America one way or the other, and enemy nations or terrorist groups simply paid them huge amounts of money to betray their own country. I personally would find such a callously mercenary attitude to be even more contemptible than honest hatred, and so I didn’t want to attribute it to them unfairly. Or perhaps, like vandals or arsonists, they simply derive pleasure from trying to undermine the United States by subverting its government.
Not at all. Only the veterans who wish to destroy America, such as Vietnam Veterans For Bush, are traitors. I suppose, for the sake of argument, that there could be a “Korean Veterans For Bush” organization out there somewhere, but I have not seen any billboards in my neighborhood to that effect, so I can’t formally extend my logic that far.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I didn’t make any reference to dancing. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to sound totally clueless here.
**Max,**I am frankly shocked and hurt by your accusation. Using unwarranted hyperbole and exaggeration to score cheap political points at the expense of others is the sort of behavior that decent Americans just will not tolerate. Don’t you see how that sort of thing could poison political dialogue and confuse the unwary? Not to sound harsh, but that’s the way traitors talk.
[QUOTE=danceswithcats]
Kindly provide a cite that those persons backing the advertisement are acting upon hatred.
Assuming you to be a person who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you’d agree about the First amendment, and you’re equally clear about Article 3? Therefore, let me see if the following statement is equally applicable to both Democratic and Republican candidates-(I read it somewhere on the internet)
Calm, calm, Dancey. The cats can accompany you to the next rant, I’m sure. It’s clearly a use of irony, designed to call attention to the language occasionally used by certain, less articulate Bush supporters at certain times.
While I don’t always agree with you, I have come to know that you are a reasonable, respectable doper. So ask yourself - if Brutus agrees with you, isn’t that a sign your position needs further examination?
I’m not sure if you’re whooshing me or if you’re nuttier than a can of Planters.
Payments, betrayal, mercenary attitude? How’s that tinfoil hat feel, dude?
So, we’ve established that everyone who disagrees with you and has served in the armed forces is a traitor against the United States, despite failing to meet the test of those pesky documents such as the Constitution. All-rightey! Why don’t you and your cohorts prepare the gulag for all the evil traitorous souls who dare to have a different point of view.
Given the polls, you should be incarcerating close to half the population, so that means you’ll get a close parking space at the courthouse when you lead the prosecution of the whole bastardly lot.
Screw the dancing-you’ve deemed feet to be traitors. I give you a -1.
And this is what happens when I post without first reloading to see if there were more replies. While I understand the anger (gut rage, really) at being lumped in with traitors and terrorists for not supporting Bush’s misguided war on terror, apparently my sympathy blinded me to the fact that Terrifel here is a big, stupid asshole who’s responding to a mild case of political jerkishness with a big ol’ attempt to lower the political discourse another agenda and drench his own side’s argument in vitriol and piss. Terrifel, kindly shut your face. Brutus was completely right about you, and I don’t like admitting Brutus is right about things.
Well, I did try to suggest that the mercenary angle didn’t seem likely to me.
I’m sorry if I gave this impression; reading back, I see that my remarks were ambiguous. I should have been more clear, and I apologize: I meant to reserve the term “traitor” only for those people, such as Vietnam Veterans For Bush, who seek the destruction of their own nation. I certainly don’t extend it to all veterans, or mean to suggest that civilians can’t be traitors too. For all I know, Vietnam Veterans For Bush could have any number of civilian traitors financing them.
Alas, I have neither gulag nor cohorts, only a big ugly billboard in my neighborhood.
I’m sorry again, I don’t get the feet reference or the number thing.
In all sincerity, I am sorry that my attempt at crankiness backfired like that, Excalibre. If it makes a difference, your original assessment was correct in that I was indeed attempting irony (although I admit that I’ve been unclear on the precise concept since that Alanis Morrissette song came out), and it didn’t really occur to me that my repeated snide comments were starting to get trollish and out of hand. For that matter, you’re probably also perfectly correct about me being a huge asshole; it’s kind of like having an odd voice, in that I’m so used to it that I don’t tend to notice. It’s actually useful to me when others point it out, so thanks for that.
You are partially mistaken about Brutus’ evaluation, although of course that’s my fault not yours: You were right the first time, in that I don’t seriously believe that Vietnam Veterans For Bush are traitors (–although they could be for all I know). I also don’t believe that defeating John Kerry will give Vietnam veterans the homecoming they never had. They are of course free to think so and say so, but then so am I free to make an enormous jerk of myself while mocking their Bizarro-world political ad, and that’s what America’s all about, or something. But I apologize for letting things spin out of control.
danceswithcats: I feel like I owe you an apology as well; here I was having fun at the expense of the Vietnam Vets For Bush, and you were trying to take me seriously. Honestly, I meant no harm (see “big stupid asshole,” above). I’m sorry.
MaxTheVool: Holy cow, I had no idea anyone would get caught in the crossfire like that. I was being sarcastic, you correctly pointed it out, and YOU get slapped down for being right. I hope this teaches you a lesson.
Brutus: Be mad at me, not at Max.
andros: Obviously I need a bigger ball.
spooje: Well, in fairness, I haven’t specifically called anyone “traitor” except Vietnam Veterans For Bush, and they’re obviously evil. I do find it a bit curious that the very last word of the OP was the only part to get any serious attention. I guess I can take some comfort in the obvious fact that Anne Coulter wouldn’t last long on the SDMB.
Terrifel: Always listen to elucidator, before it’s too late.
Vietnam Veterans For Bush: It’s true; you’re evil. Your cartoonishly blithering candidate and his administration have been an unmitigated disaster for the nation, resulting in thousands of deaths so far for no good reason, and you prefer to nurse a three-decade old delusion. Calling you “batshit insane” is an insult to the insane, to bats, and to shit. May clue-bearing banana spiders nest in your collective prostate. Meanwhile, put your crazy-ass ugly billboards up in someone else’s backyard.