Friday, July 20, 2007
"Support the troops": a humble suggestion.
Here's a suggestion to all those chickenhawk, fake patriot Canadian wankers who want to slap those politically-charged "Support the troops" stickers on everything in sight, as if that's going to reduce the death toll of Canadian soldiers or something.
Why don't you pool your pennies and whip up a whole bunch of "Support the mission" stickers? Then there won't be any doubt what you're talking about, and you can slap those babies on all your shit to your heart's content, and you can finally all piss off and leave the rest of us alone.
How does that sound? Does that work for you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Now that is a plan I can get behind...not that I would put any of those stickers on anything I own, but at least there would be some honesty on the otherside of the fence for once.
Chickenhawk? Is that anything like a chicken who hides behind anonymity on his blog so he can tell the mother of a fallen soldier to fuck off?
Or was that supporting the troops?
Then again, you could always prove me wrong. But apparently, you're all too content to prove me right.
The term "chickenhawk" arose initially in the United States where it meant a Vietnam era draft dodger who supported the 2003 invasion of a harmlesss third world country halfway around the globe for reasons which, to this day, are unknown to the general public.
Unless you have some guys still living who dodged the draft during The Big One, then strictly speaking, there can be no such thing as a Canadian chickenhawk, for, Anne Coulter notwithstanding, no Canadians were drafted to fight the Viewnam War (and those Canadians who did stand shoulder to shoulder with Americans in Vietnam did so wearing American flags and American backpacks.)
On the other hand, an unintelligent, thoughtless or ridiculous Canadian who wears red on Friday, sticks yellow ribbons on his car and uses Afganistan to Hail Harper while permitting his personal agenda to conflictg with the historic opportunity offered Canadian youths in Afghanistan, has the mindset of an chickenhawk, so maybe there can be such a thing as a Canadian chickenhawk, after all.
Patrick: perhaps I can help explain to you how the internets work. I'm sorry if that sounds insulting and condescending, but do remember that you're being insulting, condescending and boring.
Over the internets, you can communicate nearly instantaneously with anyone else in the world (who is also on-line). This disadvantage to this marvel is that you have little means of verifying who that person really is. Unless you already know or proceed to meet them directly, you generally have to take their word for it.
In practice, this means that the name "Canadian Cynic" means just as much to me as the names "Kate McMillan" or "Robert McLelland". There are people on the Internet who lay claim to these identities, and use them consistently. The people who use these identities can be held to account, on-line, for anything they write.
The only reason that I would want to verify their "real-world" identities was if I wanted to contact them outside of the Internet. They may not wish for that to happen, for a number of reasons; they may not like me, for example, or they may not want to listen to a sales pitch for my product. Much like having an unlisted telephone number, this isn't cowardice. This is privacy.
I guess there is one other reason for wanting to know their real identities, and that would be to harass them or their family/friends/coworkers. Unlike others here, I do not believe that is your motive; I think you're just being a dick. It seems like you've taken it on yourself to police the Internet for "assholery". If you think, however, that blogging non-anonymously automatically increases one's civility, I invite you to spend some time at Kate McMillan's blog. There are fewer swears, but an awful lot more hate.
Oh, seer, in your infinite wisdom -- thank you so much for that oh-so-informative education on the chickenhawk label. I was merely pointing out the irony of Cynic using that label against supporters of the war in Afghanistan while he himself behaves like a chicken.
In the trenches of the political blog wars, we all know who the real chickenhawk is.
However, you may want to keep in mind that not only was the Afghanistan mission initiated by the Liberals, deputy leader Michael Ignatieff helped extend it. Furthermore, it was Paul Martin who committed Canadian troops to Khandahar, though he certainly wants to pretend otherwise.
As such, Afghanistan really is a largely non-partisan war, in the sense that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives can legitimately exploit it for political capital. Certainly, Stephane Dion tries, but that isn't legitimate, and every Liberal in this country should know as much.
I'll try to restrain my urge to laugh in the face of Adam C. If you want to try to lecture someone about the nature of debate on the internet, you'd better take that elsewhere. I'm the absolute best there is at what I do, and neither Canadian Cynic, nor any of his lackies on this site are even close to being on my level.
Adam C writes:
"Patrick: perhaps I can help explain to you how the internets work."
Sure, Adam. And then you can teach my cat how to do long division. I'm guessing that might actually be easier.
CC: You're right, of course. Sorry for encouraging the twits.
Patrick: That was at least funny. I hate to break it to you, but there are other people who are even better than you at making the same moronic argument 500 times in a row and calling it "debate". Maybe it's time you went back to your sad little blog to wait for someone else to say something mean.
Post a Comment