Daily Orange Idiocy Explosion

Wow. There's so much ignorant crap in the DO opinion section today, I hardly know where to begin. It's unbelievable.

Let's start with some selections from the letters to the editor. I won't cover them completely, but each has its own especially entertaining sections. First, there's one entitled Protest dates had meaning. It's basically a response to a letter that criticized protesters for not showing up in cold weather. However, there's one really interesting quote in the second paragraph:

While demonstrations are an important part of reminding people about issues, education plays a key role. The fact that people are standing outside with signs protesting the U.S. military means little if you aren't educated about the United States' role in world affairs.

"Protesting the U.S. military?" So much for "we support the troops, but not the war." @sshats.

There's also another letter about the protests on the same page. Let's take a look at that one:

Be enlightened: The Student Environmental Action Coalition and Syracuse Peace Action Network gathered on the Quad March 4 to rally for peace because it was Books not Bombs day, where demonstrators from around the country demanded that the U.S. government fund schooling and financial aid rather than frivolous military expenses.

"Frivolous military expenses." Wonderful. You know, school funding and financial aid really don't help very much if YOU'RE F**KING KILLED BY F**KING TERRORISTS, YOU F**KING IDIOTS!!!!

There's more of that letter, believe it or not, and this is just an excerpt:

March 19 was a campus-rally to show that one year after the unilateral bombing and invasion of Iraq, there is still a public outcry for peace.

I can't believe the amount of cognitive dissonance contained in that one sentence. Let's break it down:

1) They're protesting the unilateral invasion, even though the invasion was carried out by a coalition.

2) They're still protesting the war, even though it started a year ago and leaving now would make things worse.

3) They want peace, but aren't willing to fight evil in order to gain it.

I cannot believe these idiots got into college. Oh, wait, yes I can. They probably wrote anti-war screeds in their application essays.

There's another fun letter to look at too. It's called Spanish voters acted properly. It's so good, I've just decided to fisk the whole thing, then I'll continue in another post, because there's an editorial I want to look at. Click the extended entry:

The recent elections in Spain prompted the sensationalist mainstream media to proclaim that the Spanish voters handed terrorists a victory.

I must've missed that one. When did they flash the headline saying "Terrorists Win?"

This is great news for the Bush administration - they can now claim that giving your vote to the Democratic Party is unpatriotic and wimpy.

Such maturity. I can't believe how nuanced your arguments are. I mean, we all know Bush is calling everyone an unpatriotic wimp, right? Well, all loony leftists "know" that, at least.

But is that what the Spaniards did?

They may not realize it, but yeah, it is.

Certainly not.

*GASP!* A disagreement! We can't have that! You're going to the gulags to attend re-education classes with the homos and union reps!

To think that is to have a very simplistic and naïve view of the world.

And to think that giving terrorists what they want will make them stop killing people isn't?

That is Chris N. Malagisi's view ("Spanish voters hand terrorists a victory," March 22, 2004). In his column he argued that the real winners of the Spanish elections are the terrorists. He went on to say that "this is World War III and the days of playing the spectator are over." Perhaps he is right that we have engaged in a war with the terrorists, but that war is distinct from the war in Iraq.

Good ol' Saddamster! He was just a victim of U.S. imperialism and hatred of brown people!

Although we invaded Iraq after the September 11 terrorist attacks, it is not the case that the two events are causally connected.

Did anyone say they were, or is that just what Imaginary Bushâ„¢ said?

If you recall, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was an "imminent threat..."

Uh, no, moron, I "recall" President Bush saying we must act before the threat is imminent. I'm amazed that they ignore this. After all, they don't believe in pre-emptive war, so attacking a threat that wasn't imminent still would've been wrong.

I guess it just throws a wrench into the "Bush is a liar" idea. That meddling reality.

...due to the massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, which they never found.

*cough* SYRIA *cough*

The terrorists that took down the Twin Towers on September 11 were Arabs, not Iraqis.

Thank you for that brilliant and enlightening piece of information. I guess President Cowboy just lumps all them A-rabs together, don't he?

So let's not confuse the issues since we can run the danger of drawing the wrong conclusions, as Malagasi has done.

Pot, meet kettle. He thinks you're black.

The Spanish did not hand the war to the terrorists. They made a strong statement against governmental oppression and deception.

I wonder what Imaginary Aznarâ„¢ could've possibly said to provoke this reaction. Did he also talk about an "imminent threat?" Or maybe "una amenaza inminente?"

Let us not oversimplify the issue as to underscore their success in putting a stop to the abuse of power. Our elections will show how rational we are.

Exactly. When Bush wins.

How do you argue with people who honestly believe that:

1) Bush said Iraq and 9/11 were causally connected
2) Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat
3) The administration said that voting for Democrats is unpatriotic
4) The attack on Iraq was unilateral

How. Do. You. Argue?

I guess they probably feel the same way about the right.

"How do you argue with people who honestly believe that Bush isn't the Antichrist? It's impossible!"

Dipsh*ts.

Posted by CD on March 24, 2004 07:31 PM
Category: