Posted on 05/12/2005 9:57:49 PM PDT by CHARLITE
You’d think before liberals started passing judgment on their opponents, they’d at least pull out the old dictionary every once in a while.
Instead, the party of ’tolerance,’ ’compassion,’ and ’inclusion’ continues to take childish potshots at President Bush.
The latest “I know you are but what am I” Democrat is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who last week said the following in the Las Vegas Review—Journal about President Bush:
“I think this guy is a loser...He’s driving this country into bankruptcy...He’s got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured.”
I would think the last thing liberals—who have slowly but surely lost their death grip over both branches of Congress and the White House—would want to do is start labeling political opponents as ‘losers.’ Especially those who repeatedly kick their tails in every election.
I thought perhaps I could be of some assistance in defining the term ’ loser ’ to our pals on the Left.
A ’loser’ is not defined as “someone who always beats you”, just as a ‘quagmire’ is not defined as “overthrowing two tyrants in separate wars, each in a matter of a few short weeks.”
Furthermore, a loser is not someone who has delivered freedom to over 50 million people, helped two democratic governments form in the most turbulent region in the world, and forever changed the seating chart at the Hussein Family Reunion.
A ‘loser’ is not a man that has beaten you in consecutive Presidential elections while also leading his party to such majorities in the House and Senate that Capitol Hill is fast becoming a Republican Old Folks Home.
So what is a ’loser’? Well, without naming names:
A ’loser’ is someone (say, a former Vice President of the United States) who loses an election even after his predecessor has served during eight years of relative peace and economic prosperity. Author’s Note: This loser’s status can be further enhanced if his electoral defeat comes courtesy of losing his own home state.
A ’loser’ is someone running for President on a platform of being simultaneously a Vietnam War ‘hero’ and an anti-war advocate, voting for bills before voting against them, pledging to be the leader of the world’s largest democracy while occupying a place on the Viet-Cong Wall of Fame, claiming to be a tough wartime leader and an advocate for a more “sensitive” war, or by playing a gun enthusiast for the cameras while always being the first in line to sign any proposed weapons ban.
An even bigger ‘loser’ would be the man who, with one psychotic episode in Iowa, was replaced by the last ‘loser’ I talked about as the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential Nomination... “HEEEE-YAHHHH!!!”
But for liberals, there’s so much nuance to a word like ‘loser’.
It’s no wonder they’re unable to correctly define terms like ‘persistent vegetative state’ or ‘Second Amendment.’ That’s a lot of letters!
Therefore, my advice to the Left is this: Before attempting to tackle complex, five-letter words, perhaps you should start with something easier. I’d recommend words like: ’is,’ ’sex,’ or ’life.’
Once you’ve successfully utilized these words in real life conversation (for example, “Perhaps I did have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski”) then you move on to more difficult terminology like: ‘arriage, ’ ‘bstinence,’ or ‘religious freedom.’
Need a way to determine if a liberal friend is a ‘loser’?
Just for fun, try approaching your liberal associate and informing them that the legislative branch of the government—not the judiciary—should be in charge of making the laws in this country and watch their reaction. That blank glaze you see could be a symptom of a ‘loser’ in training.
If the liberal then hurtles a pie at you while screaming about sodomy and/or Halliburton, you’ve hit the ‘loser’ jackpot.
Liberals can call Bush many things, but any form of the word ‘loser’ (whether it’s deadbeat, dud, failure, flop, flunky, lemon, turkey, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Dean, Daschle, or especially Kucinich) is grossly inappropriate.
About the Writer: Matthew Holmes is a North Carolina based columnist. His articles have been featured in the North Carolina Conservative, ChronWatch.Com, World Net Daily.Com, News Max.Com, Opinion Editorials.Com, and other media outlets. He can be reached at blade729@msn.com
Furthermore, a loser is not someone who has delivered freedom to over 50 million people, helped two democratic governments form in the most turbulent region in the world, and forever changed the seating chart at the Hussein Family Reunion." (!!!)
Democrat means uneducated in common sense.
I'd LOL if this weren't so series.
Pretty good. :D
’loser’ is not defined as “someone who always beats you”, just as a ‘quagmire’ is not defined as “overthrowing two tyrants in separate wars, each in a matter of a few short weeks.”
....and forever changed the seating chart at the Hussein Family Reunion.
A ‘loser’ is not a man that has beaten you in consecutive Presidential elections while also leading his party to such majorities in the House and Senate that Capitol Hill is fast becoming a Republican Old Folks Home.
Author’s Note: This loser’s status can be further enhanced if his electoral defeat comes courtesy of losing his own home state.
This column is full of gems!
That's too kind. Democrat is, like liberal or lefty, a mental disability.
I thought so, too, Soul Seeker! I'm so glad that you enjoyed this post. The writer has a great style, IMHO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.