When anyone prefaces ANYTHING with "I've been a lifelong Republican-" - whether on the radio, tv, newsprint, internet, or Amazon reviews - know that they are full of shit.
Now, I would never use those words, because I'm not a "lifelong" Republican. I was liberal up until my young twenties. But, mostly I would never say it because it's stupid. For the first 18 years, it is immaterial what your political persuasan was because you couldn't vote and you didn't know enough to have the vote mean anything.
But, anyway, back to the phrase. When you hear it, know it is a lie. The person is pretending to be a Republican to give authenticity to the BS they're about to spout, which is most likely something along the lines of how they've switched parties because of ... well, let me just insert the instant liberal rant:
Blah blah right-wing Rumsfeld warmonger chickenhawk evil Bushies Wolwowitz and his neocon cabal for oiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah ignorant stupid bloodthirsty morons, the real axis of evil on a ranch in Crawford and blah blah blah no WMD he lied, Bushitler lied, people died died died tie-dyed peace peace peace down with the Zionists! peace peace Kyoto! they hate us they hate us they hate us and what can we do and root causes and root causes and blowback and Plame and Plame and Chalabi Plame Wilson blah blah blah unilateral multinational Halliburton Enronism crony capitalism and it’s all about oiloiloiloil blah blah blah, cowboyish disregard for allies, for the wishes of the world community who rise up against us, the terrorist threat is overblown and anyway, it’s all our fault because we gave Saddam his weapons to begin with, photo of Rummy and Hussein, but make no mistake, he no longer has those weapons because inspections worked, containment worked, and blah blah blah Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan handle it, Roy, handle it handle it, Caspian pipeline oiloiloiloil blah blah blah show me the stockpiles, anthrax CIA plant Richard Clarke said so and we believe him because and unless unless unless Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib, square-jawed cocksucking military jarhead torturing fucks, bring home our troops! We care about the troops! We support the troops and don’t you question our patriotism our love for this fucking filthy crass consumerist bullying country of redneck dolts and biblethumping bourgeois suburbanites with their SUVs and where are the CAFE standards fight the real terror, eco-terror, Israel, the US, imperialist colonialist racist homophobic hegemonic and blah blah blah blah blah because dissent is patriotism and fighting against your country is really fighting for your country and our dissent keeps the nation strong and we’re brave and heroic and up is down and black is white and oiloiloiloiloiloiloiloil blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.™
So, what set me off today? Well, last week I did a post about Jonah Goldberg's new book, and how people were already declaring it the worst pile of crap ever - even before it was released. Amazon-liberal-bots went on a "tag" spree giving it a bunch of silly slurs. So, today - the book was released yesterday - I decided to go and see how the reviews were coming out. And, what did I find but a one-star review by a life-long Republican! Imagine that?! Certainly the review must be honest, and the book must really suck, since the guy is obviously not biased against the author's political persuasion.
Historically innacurate, January 9, 2008
As a life-long Republican and Rush fan, I really wanted to enjoy this book. Unfortunately it is filled with errors and innacuracies. Goldberg like pundit Andrew Sulllivan tries to portray Democrats as immoral, degenerate, traitors. I prefer an intellectual debate with liberals of whom I disagree, not juvenile name-calling. I believe that the vicious tone of Goldberg's book does more harm to the GOP than help it.
Not overtly biased. He didn't use any slurs. Perhaps he really is a "life-long Republican." Perhaps I'm being unfair, and this guy is just a total honest reviewer! The book must just suck. I perused "Tom's" other reviews, and didn't see too much to red flag. He gave five stars to Glenn Greenwald's book - which was definitely curious. And he read, and positively reviewed, Rosie O'Donnell's book (5 stars!) which gave me the wherewithall to keep digging into this mystery.
Then, if found a cool little function where I could find out what "tags" Tom has attached to books. And, WHAT do I find?
banged out by howler monkeys
bird vomit
books written while high on cheeto dust,
doughy pantload
editor promised cake
hate is a good philosophy for idiots
homophobic insanity
how not to design a book cover
i can has job mom
lunatic ravings
makes ann coulter seem sane
poor catnip substitute
propaganda
viagra for dittoheads
wingnut welfare
Perhaps some of these look ... familiar? Kinda strange how he would tag the book "Viagra for Dittoheads", because Tom is a Rush fan! Matter of fact, that tag is used for this book only, which means old Tom MADE IT UP. He's a lifelong Republican and a Rush fan, yet he tagged book for Amazon before it was released (he made up the tag) and then the day AFTER it was released he published his 1-star review.
Now, I'm not above slamming, and generally making fun of people with whom I disagree. But I would never hide my political orientation. It is a cowardly form of political disagreement, and is a sign that you are - in actuality- unable to debate in an intellectually honest manner.
Posts
|