Speaking honestly, I mean look, people are misunderstanding this, Snerdley got a couple calls from some of his buddies last night, "What did your boss mean, he wants the president to fail?" I remain dumbfounded at the high degree, the high level of ignorance that there is out there. If it took a Drive-By reporter, Jim VandeHei of The Politico to finally understand this and to try to get the Drive-Bys up to speed on all this. But I just want to say, folks, look I support Obama. I just don't support his policies. I support our president, like I have supported all presidents. I just don't support Obama's policies. I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue. But I support our president. I'm like anybody else, I support the president. I just don't support the policies.
Hey, Rush, time to get your facts straight, buddy. The nationalization of the banks? Happened under Bush. The nationalization of auto companies? Bush again. Mortgage business? Oh, right, that Bush guy started that too.
I know that in your head, saying you support the President without supporting his policies is a way to point out the "absurdity" of the statement "I support the troops, but I don't support the war," but it really doesn't work that way. You see, as Americans, we have the choice and the freedom to support or not support a war (or a President, for that matter.) And since our tax dollars go toward paying for said war, it's our duty to voice such opinions. Now, since our tax dollars also go toward paying for the armed forces, we can, in fact, say that we want our (allegedly) elected leaders to spend money on the soldiers and not the war. See the distinction yet? You can have an army and not a war. You cannot, however, say that you support a President and not his policies, because a Presidency is defined by policies. Not supporting a war means disagreeing with the President and his policies (something protected by your little friend, the first amendment), since he is the Commander in Chief. It means that you do not support the elected leaders of this country, and you are willing to exercise your right to vote them out of a job in the next election. Which is exactly what we did.
So, just so we're clear:
"I support the troops but not the war" ≠ "I support the President but not his policies"
Unless you're using support to mean that you physically take the load of the President's weight, to hold him from slipping. Are you telling us that Rush Limbaugh is the President's chair? Or are you supplying him with money? Is it that 8th definition, that you're only tolerating the President? I think that one has fallen out of common use; after all, the quote was from Samuel Johnson.
Such a difficult language, English. I know that when I say I support the troops, I mean that I advocate their welfare. I want to make sure that they get good health care, proper armor and protection, that their lives will not be squandered on a war for, say, oil. I can't say that I act in a subordinate or secondary role to any of them, but I do appreciate the fact that they're willing to get shot at. So, please, Mr. Limbaugh, elaborate on your statement. In exactly what way do you support the President, if you don't support his policies?
"When you make a mistake, admit it. If you don't, you only make matters worse."
Ward Cleaver
I know that in your head, saying you support the President without supporting his policies is a way to point out the "absurdity" of the statement "I support the troops, but I don't support the war," but it really doesn't work that way. You see, as Americans, we have the choice and the freedom to support or not support a war (or a President, for that matter.) And since our tax dollars go toward paying for said war, it's our duty to voice such opinions. Now, since our tax dollars also go toward paying for the armed forces, we can, in fact, say that we want our (allegedly) elected leaders to spend money on the soldiers and not the war. See the distinction yet? You can have an army and not a war. You cannot, however, say that you support a President and not his policies, because a Presidency is defined by policies. Not supporting a war means disagreeing with the President and his policies (something protected by your little friend, the first amendment), since he is the Commander in Chief. It means that you do not support the elected leaders of this country, and you are willing to exercise your right to vote them out of a job in the next election. Which is exactly what we did.
So, just so we're clear:
"I support the troops but not the war" ≠ "I support the President but not his policies"
Unless you're using support to mean that you physically take the load of the President's weight, to hold him from slipping. Are you telling us that Rush Limbaugh is the President's chair? Or are you supplying him with money? Is it that 8th definition, that you're only tolerating the President? I think that one has fallen out of common use; after all, the quote was from Samuel Johnson.
Such a difficult language, English. I know that when I say I support the troops, I mean that I advocate their welfare. I want to make sure that they get good health care, proper armor and protection, that their lives will not be squandered on a war for, say, oil. I can't say that I act in a subordinate or secondary role to any of them, but I do appreciate the fact that they're willing to get shot at. So, please, Mr. Limbaugh, elaborate on your statement. In exactly what way do you support the President, if you don't support his policies?
"When you make a mistake, admit it. If you don't, you only make matters worse."
Ward Cleaver
No comments:
Post a Comment