Gay Patriot Header Image

Bush-haters: Perpetually Stuck in LA Traffic?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:08 am - January 23, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred

Sometimes when I feel a little low, I recall a moment from when I lived in Paris where I was teaching English and trying to write a novel. Returning home from a private lesson with student who wasn’t doing her assignments (and so was making almost no progress), I felt particularly depressed. As I waited — and waited — in the ugly Métro station near her apartment building, it seemed that the train would never come and I would be perpetually stuck in an ugly place, going nowhere. But, the train did come and I returned to my tiny apartment where I began to feel better.

That long wait in that dreary station provided an image which has from time to time helped me deal with bleak moments in my life. In those moments when the world seems as empty as that Métro station, we have to believe that a train will come and take us to a better place.

On Friday, I wondered whether my feelings of anger against a woman not responsible for the frustrations of the day (but who had something in common with a woman who had previously made my driving difficult) were akin to the angry left’s feelings against the President, I thought back to that Métro station. And compared that moment to the aggravations of being stuck in LA traffic. Perhaps had I not been alone in that Métro station, I might have coped by venting my anxiety onto an enemy common to my companion and myself. Since we both hated that person, we could blame it on him (or her).

In many ways, the angry left resembles someone stuck in LA traffic — or waiting in an ugly subway station. They feel like they’re going nowhere and instead of taking a deep breath and dealing with the situation (or trying to come up with a short cut), they project their frustration onto something that, for whatever reason, they don’t like.

When some on the left feel frustrated with their lives in general or with something going wrong at that moment, they find a “hook” (on which to “hang” their frustrations) in something they don’t like about the president. Perhaps it’s his background. Perhaps it’s his faith. Perhaps it’s his politics. Or maybe it’s the awkward way he expresses himself. Most likely it’s a combination of all these things.

Given the nastiness of the attacks by some on the left (reflected in comments to this blog — and even as Lorie Byrd notes in linking this column in the Washington Post to those who “stray from moonbat talking points“), it seems these people are stuck somewhere. Perhaps, they might raise their level of discourse if they believed that despite the traffic they will reach their destination. And if they remembered that the subway serves even the bleakest of stations.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

26 Comments

  1. How can they get to their destination if they don’t know where the hell they are going?
    They know where they want to go, but have no friggin idea how to get there and they refuse to ask directions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 23, 2006 @ 2:23 am - January 23, 2006

  2. Well put, Dan. Your blogs seem to put everything in perspective.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 23, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - January 23, 2006

  3. What? My life would be amazing if I weren’t upset by the fact that we’re losing an illegal war we started based on a lie and that the person who ACTUALLY attacked us is still out there making commercials. You’re right, America’s political problems are merely a projection of my dissatisfaction with how long my subway ride is in the morning. Gee, now that I’ve put that in perspective, I feel so much better, thanks!

    Comment by Andy — January 23, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - January 23, 2006

  4. Andy # 3

    Right. From the sound of your blog, Andy, that’s one awfully long subway ride every mornig to account for your perpetual funk and anger. I had trouble figuring out what was leftover hurled chunks and what was uninformed DNC propaganda dressed up as “debate”.

    Yeow, to think that they let guys like you out in the morning? Really, you actually think Bush and bin Laden are the same? Yeow, I hope that subway is heading for Canada ’cause that kind of partisan blindness can only be cured in the Peoples Republic of Canada.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 23, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - January 23, 2006

  5. One almost is tempted to feel sorry for Democrats. Right now, Democrats are running around shrieking “How can you sleep at night knowing the president wiretapped the phone calls of Al Qaeda operatives without getting a judge’s permission first?”

    And Americans, by large majorities, are answering “Much better.”

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - January 23, 2006

  6. In order to deal with the Andy types of the world, Michigan-Matt, you simply must confront them with their own inanities.

    For instance, Andy tries to spin that the reason the Arab world hates us is because of 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in the war. Of course, Andy and his fellow Democrats are unaware of the millions of other Iraqis that were imprisoned, tortured, pressed into military service against their will, imprisoned, and died as a direct result of their putting “dealing peace” ahead of confronting and dealing with evil.

    In short, the costs of liberals’ “peace” is far more in terms of repressed and destroyed civilian lives than ever the cost of war was. However, liberals could bury that cost away, added by the vicious repression of media within Iraq that they and their MSM allies aided and abetted.

    Their use of Osama bin Laden is nothing but a diversion. If they had truly been as concerned about Osama as they claimed to be, they would hardly have spent the entire Clinton presidency doing little to nothing concerning him. It staggers the imagination to think that these same Democrats who now preach that capturing/killing bin Laden to end terrorism by a massive military invasion of Afghanistan would not have done so since 1996, when they knew he was there, if they truly believe what they say about him.

    Again, the reason they preach this is because they have deliberately hidden information from the American people. If it is known how truly brutal the Saddam regime was, their arguments appear selfish and racist. If it is known how little they did about bin Laden previously, their arguments ring completely hollow.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - January 23, 2006

  7. Actually NDT your republican congress ticked me off back during the Embassy bombings, While Clinton wanted to attack Osama, Congress thought it to be a Wag the Dog exercise to avoid the Monica question. I have always thought those strikes to be a weak response to a known terrorist but Republicans in congress were not terribly concerned with dead Africans even if at the hands of a known terrorists.

    On Iraq, Reagan screwed that up royally. We knew Saddam was evil in the 80s; the time to punish his ass was back then when Saddadm was killing by the cityload. I don’t know if I were Iraqi, I would hate America for not protecting my ass back in the 80s. Today’s war seem like too little too late.

    Todays Democrats are angry, not because of apparent lack of leadership or the fact that the voting public can actually believe that a decorated war hero will be soft on war and actually needs to defend his record over a National Guard war dodger. No this stuff doesn’t bother us anymore – what pisses us off more than anything else is Howard Dean, the AMinA as chair of the DNC. This action pretty much means that I can expect a continual raping of my freedom and civil liberties and good dose of policies and laws I am going to hate.

    Not saying that D has all the answers but I have better solutions when I have varied voices opposed to current bunch of old dwf that currently see the world from their segregated patriarchal life experiences.

    Comment by ralph — January 23, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - January 23, 2006

  8. Actually NDT your republican congress ticked me off back during the Embassy bombings, While Clinton wanted to attack Osama, Congress thought it to be a Wag the Dog exercise to avoid the Monica question.

    Probably because they knew that the Clinton administration knew that the terrorist camps were evacuated prior to the strike. After all, there were two weeks between the bombings and the missile attacks, and oddly enough, the attacks were launched on the same day that Lewinsky wrapped up her grand jury testimony.

    I think questions on the timing are MORE than accurate.

    Besides, we now have Predators patrolling airspace left and right, firing missiles at everything, and you and yours say it’s “not enough” to get rid of bin Laden. Were you saying the same thing when Clinton was firing one set of cruise missiles at empty camps and aspirin factories where bin Laden wasn’t? Why didn’t liberals put “boots on the ground” back then, if they’re so necessary now?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2006 @ 12:46 am - January 24, 2006

  9. Why bother with the left? They’re just irrelevant.

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 24, 2006 @ 1:05 am - January 24, 2006

  10. #7

    On Iraq, Reagan screwed that up royally. We knew Saddam was evil in the 80s; the time to punish his ass was back then when Saddadm was killing by the cityload. I don’t know if I were Iraqi, I would hate America for not protecting my ass back in the 80s. Today’s war seem like too little too late.

    I.e. we would’ve been helping Iran. You think Iran is on the global shit list now, imagine what they would be like if we had sucked their cocks back then.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 4:37 am - January 24, 2006

  11. #7

    This action pretty much means that I can expect a continual raping of my freedom and civil liberties and good dose of policies and laws I am going to hate.

    I’m still waiting for a liberal to drop some balls and tell me exactly which freedom and civil liberties are being “raped”. Seems interesting to me that not a single one of you, who are jealous of Monica sucking Clinton’s cock, could care less of him monitoring phone calls or even searching houses without a warrant.
    Better than that, we have the left constantly trying to dictate how our businesses should be run, what we can say, where, or even if, we can smoke, what we can eat, what we can drive etc. etc. etc.

    You wanna talk about a f**kin’ plantation? The liberals in this country are hell bent to dominate as many aspects of our lives as possible. I seriously believe after 2000 and 2004 that liberals even want to control how we vote. They weren’t satisfied with the Electoral vote after 2000, and then after 2004, they weren’t satisfied with the popular vote.

    So please, by all means, tell me what rights and freedoms you have that are being “raped”. If you don’t have the balls to tell me here, you can tell me at

    TGCBlog@Gmail.com

    Libs always tell us how much smarter and “nuanced” they are, here’s your chance to put up or shut the h*ll up.

    P.S. I tripple dog dare ya to answer.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 4:47 am - January 24, 2006

  12. #6, thanks for the advice NDXXX. You’re right again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 9:20 am - January 24, 2006

  13. Andy#3… whoops, with the Canadian elections turning out so well, it looks like that subway train is going to have to find a new destination for all your disgruntled, lying friends –may I suggest an underwater transit to France, perhaps?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 24, 2006 @ 9:25 am - January 24, 2006

  14. Um, Matt, if things are going as some have reported in France, their next government could be headed by Sarkozy who does not share the anti-American world view of the incumbent President and Prime Minister.

    Though Cuba and North Korea remain possibilities.

    Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — January 24, 2006 @ 11:49 am - January 24, 2006

  15. It’s been glaringly apparent for some time now that the left is no longer interested in debate. They want us silenced. Hence, the rantings and ravings of Andy & his buddies. Not only are they viscerally opposed to GWB’s very existence, they are rapidly becoming mentally deranged at the notion that the majority of Americans don’t feel similarly towards the President.

    The 60’s ended, the beatles broke up, and modern liberalism is being flushed down the collective shitters of America. THIS is reality, Andy. Wake up – you’ve lost, and you will continue to do so. The louder you protest this state of affairs, the quicker you hasten liberalism’s demise.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — January 24, 2006 @ 12:46 pm - January 24, 2006

  16. Hence, the rantings and ravings of Andy & his buddies. Not only are they viscerally opposed to GWB’s very existence, they are rapidly becoming mentally deranged at the notion that the majority of Americans don’t feel similarly towards the President. Yeah, hence the polls showing opposition to the war at 60%, support for impeachment stands at 52%, and the President’s approval rating is 43%. Do you ever let facts get in the way of your bloviations?

    Andy and his fellow Democrats are unaware of the millions of other Iraqis that were imprisoned, tortured, pressed into military service against their will, imprisoned, and died as a direct result of their putting “dealing peace” ahead of confronting and dealing with evil. And still you argue that there was only one way to deal with Saddam, and that was apparently a poorly planned full-scale invasion. Why do you keep insisting that the only alternative was to do nothing at all? You accuse the liberals of not wanting to debate, but you persist in framing the discussion in terms of a false premise. No liberal out there is denying that the situation in Iraq was dire, that Saddam was bad, that the people were suffering. We’re just arguing that there was a way to remedy that situation that wouldn’t have resulted in thousands of new deaths. And how dare you bring up torture as a defense of our invasion when it has now been shown that Iraqis have been tortured to death in our custody. Unbelievable.

    Comment by Andy — January 24, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - January 24, 2006

  17. #16

    Twelve years and 17 U.N. resolutions. Saddam had his chances. He chose to give the world the finger and it cost him. Further, as you know, he had the infrastructure to restart his weapons program the moment the heat was off.
    Sure the libs claim that they believe he was a bad guy, but at the same time, they do their damndest to defend the guy. Not only that, but we see rhetoric from the left favoring that murderous thug over their own president.

    And how dare you for putting America on the same moral equivilency as the Ba’athists because of what a few ass clowns did. Those people have been found and punished. The Ba’athists, as yet, have not.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - January 24, 2006

  18. TGC – never been a fan of the enemy of your enemy is your friend. I would have laid the law and set the record straight

    NDT: those weak ass bombings were all that Congress would allow. 9/11 should have never happened. But dickheads in Congress are more interested in posing versus doing the job that they were elected to do. And if they honestly knew the target were empty why didn’t they speak up and say we need to do more. Simple. If you get nothing, you can always turn around and say the man was weak and ineffectual. All about posturing, the idea of actually doing some constructive is not at all on the minds of our elected officials.

    Comment by ralph — January 24, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - January 24, 2006

  19. #18

    I agree. I don’t think anybody likes to do it, but sometimes you gotta do it. Take Afghanistan. Would you have done that deal without getting the warlords on your side to help first? That was brilliant. I wouldn’t be surprised if it bit us in the ass one day, somehow, but that was still a good move.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 24, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - January 24, 2006

  20. #19

    TGC, don’t like making deals with the warlords, but this also one of those situations I hate. You think about it Russia was ahead of the curve when they invaded Afghanistan. But I am feeling hopeful.

    Comment by ralph — January 24, 2006 @ 11:18 pm - January 24, 2006

  21. Andy, you ignorant slut…

    Citing Kos’s and DU’s polls are about as credible as my assertions that Michael Moore is a closeted queer.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — January 25, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - January 25, 2006

  22. Twelve years and 17 U.N. resolutions. Saddam had his chances. He chose to give the world the finger and it cost him. Ah, except as it turned out, Hussein was not in fact in violation of Resolution 1441, as he had no weapons, no weapons programs, and as of December 2002 was allowing UN weapons inspectors previously unprecedented access to suspect sites. The inspectors left Iraq only when Bush told them to get out, and after he and the neo-cons railed at their supposed incompetence for not finding any weapons. “We know where they are,” said Rumsfeld. Oopsie. And still, none of this explains why a full-scale invasion was the only option available, why we had to rush into war in Iraq before we could manufacture enough armored vehicles and appropriate body armor, and before we could figure out a comprehensive and effective reconstruction plan.

    You complain that “the Left” doesn’t want to debate, but then none of you address the reality-based issues that I bring up; instead you just say the left is “irrelevant” and call me an “ignorant slut.” Sticks and stones, boys.

    Pointing out what Saddam Hussein was actually guilty of compared with what Bush alleged is not the same as “defending” Saddam.

    I’m curious: what does “patriot” mean to you? Does it mean unswerving loyalty to the President, no matter what he does, or does it mean reverence for the principles on which this country was founded? Because Bush has utterly betrayed the ethics of the Founders at every step.

    Comment by Andy — January 25, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - January 25, 2006

  23. Andy, if you bothered to read this blog rather than just criticize it, you would see that we do not believe that patriotism means supporting the president no matter what he does. We have criticized him here. I, for one, believe that a patriot can be a critic of the president. It all depends on whether in his criticism, the critic respects the facts and the office (of the presidency) while showing, in his criticism a love for this country.

    To be a patriot, one must demonstrate love for his country. And one can show that love by honest criticism of the nation’s leader—when you fault him for actions which could hurt the country. When you show in your criticism clearly how such actions hurt the country. And do not engage in petty sniping.

    To accuse the president of betraying the ethics of the Founders “at every step” (as you do) is to engage in the same kind of name-calling for which you fault others who comment to this blog. And is not (as you might say) a “reality-based” issue, but rather an argument driven by animosity to this good man. He may have some policy failings (and I would argue that he does), but to level such a harsh attack of his ethics is to ignore reality and engage in the same kind of projection I described in this post. Those on the left who continue to call him unethical continue to find their accusations dismissed when the charges are investigated.

    You just want this man to be corrupt so you can attack him more readily. If you are truly a patriot, make solid arguments against his policies and do not engage in over-heated rhetoric or level unfounded accusations.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 25, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - January 25, 2006

  24. Ah, except as it turned out, Hussein was not in fact in violation of Resolution 1441, as he had no weapons, no weapons programs, and as of December 2002 was allowing UN weapons inspectors previously unprecedented access to suspect sites.

    Really? Then why was Hans Blix — bribed UN monkey Hans Blix — saying otherwise?

    And also, you ought not say Saddam was NOT in violation of Resolution 1441 because of the actual text:

    Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

    Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

    Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

    Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

    And you see, this is why we insist you and your fellow liberals deny Saddam’s abysmal human rights record; you insist in your blabbing that Saddam was “not violating” Resolution 1441, when what is made clear in 1441 is that his human rights abuses WERE a violation. His failure to fully comply WAS a violation. His weapons programs like the al-Samouds WERE violations. His chemical warheads, everything of the sort WERE violations.

    And how dare you bring up torture as a defense of our invasion when it has now been shown that Iraqis have been tortured to death in our custody. Unbelievable.

    TGC already answered this nicely, but I’ll add to it….because you and your fellow liberals were more than happy to hide torture and brutality in the name of “dealing peace”.

    Explain to me, Andy, why it took a full-scale war to topple Slobodan Milosevic, but why it wouldn’t have taken one to topple Saddam, who had far more in the way of resources and had bribed liberal governments and the UN to protect him.

    Saddam was doing far worse than Slobodan. Why didn’t you apply the same theory to Slobodan and “sanction” him?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2006 @ 12:02 am - January 26, 2006

  25. Stopping by! I am creating a website based on data drive hard recovery service.Does a blog help you get more traffic to your website. I get on traffic at all right now.. Stop by, IRWIN mainframe disaster recovery

    Comment by disaster recovery solution — February 8, 2006 @ 1:18 am - February 8, 2006

  26. If absense makes the heart grow fonder, some people must really love church.

    Comment by zoroastrianism marriage — March 19, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - March 19, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.