I read in Tuesday's Iowa State Daily that the College Republicans have begun collecting sundries for U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Doesn't the U.S. Army victual its soldiers? Don't their families send them yuletide goodies? Aren't GIs paid enough to buy what they need, and even what they want?
"As Republicans we believe in charity," stated Jeremy Freeman, a member of the College Republicans. Donating toiletries, boxed and canned foods, socks and beanies to U.S. soldiers who can already deodorize themselves, who eat better than the poorest Americans and who are gallantly garbed, is an eleemosynary travesty.
Necessities should be doled out to people who really need them and who might get them if not for the hundreds of billions of dollars being funneled to the Pentagon in the greatest squandering of money on the planet. If anything, Republicans should sympathize with veterans struggling to find employment, a challenge that may daunt the discharged soldier, who might wish he had reenlisted. Soldiers are to Republicans as fetuses are to them: prized. But once out of the womb-like army, Republican solicitude for hapless veterans goes where extracted zygotes go.
"We get to show the troops we still appreciate what they're doing for us," said another College Republican. What are they doing for us? Nothing. But against us they're doing a lot: creating anti-American terrorists in the countries they occupy. Said the same College Republican, "It can't be fun to be away from your family for the holidays. As if American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan had been conscripted? They chose to leave home.
Why do Republicans care so much about the military? Because the military-industrial complex is dear to their simplistic laissez-faire fantasies: a bottom-line patriotism that excludes the people at the bottom.
Which missive was touched off by reports concerning a drive for care packages.
This latest genius is well and duly Fisked by the good folks at TAH HERE. Saving me much labor. Choice cuts:
Let’s look at what he has to say. Walker offers this:
I read in Tuesday’s Iowa State Daily that the College Republicans have begun collecting sundries for U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Doesn’t the U.S. Army victual its soldiers? Don’t their families send them yuletide goodies? Aren’t GIs paid enough to buy what they need, and even what they want?
Yes, the army “victuals” its troops. In fact, we get a lovely assortment of MREs whenever we headed out. A true culinary classic is the spaghetti and meat balls. The sublime experience of eating pound cake in the pouring rain is enough to bring the owner of even the least discerning palate to tears. As I read his statement it conjured to mind the famous question of George C. Scott as Scrooge: “Are there no prisons? No work houses?”
That is indeed tasty. And this is very snortworthy:
Walker wields his GRE vocabulary as he smacks those kids around, using a big fancy wurd just to be sure we all know he's got 'imself one 'o dem Kollidge edjumakashins:
“As Republicans we believe in charity,” stated Jeremy Freeman, a member of the College Republicans. Donating toiletries, boxed and canned foods, socks and beanies to U.S. soldiers who can already deodorize themselves, who eat better than the poorest Americans and who are gallantly garbed, is an eleemosynary travesty.
Needless to say, we are reduced to quivering awe by that majestic use. TAH:
“Gallantly garbed?” Really? Are you $#!^^ing me? Let me tell you about my gallant garb. My wardrobe was digitized and mono-chromatic. Sure, it is trendy among homeless folks you see with cardboard signs, but seldom if ever do I see Giselle Bundchen strutting the catwalk outfitted in a lovel ensemble of digital pattern BDU’s. And our boots are not the Uggs sold to us by her touchdown munificent husband. Also, our accessories are indeed functional, if not downright alluring. Nothing says “I’m ready to party” like a PRC radio, a couple of mortar rounds, and a sleeping bag that hasn’t been washed in months. Love the use of SAT words though, it just stresses to us uneducated grunts how smart you are, more so (clearly) than I am. In fact, based only on your consummate grasp of diction, I would move that we set up some form of Oligarchy centered on folks who can use “eleemosynary” properly in a sentence. In the farrago of human imbecility, typified by the profligate galimatias of useless pontification, you are truly the beacon on the hill. (There, I also used big words, can I join your club now?)
Be sure to read the whole thing