Confrused.

Now as you may know, I'm one of the first to admit that I'm not as "nuanced" as our liberals are. Still, I'm hoping that somebody out there can explain to me how slandering our military (e.g. Haditha, Club Gitmo, Abu Grahib etc.) is considered "supporting the troops".

Further, how exactly is demanding our surrender and capitulating to the terrorists (e.g. lord BJ & The Mog, which brought about 9/11) "supports the troops". Not only that, how exactly does turning tail and running away going to help "our international image", since the only ones who might admire that would be our "allies" and douchebags, the French?

Why, exactly, should I believe a team killing fucktard Representative from PA. who SHITS on his brothers and calls that support? With support like that (and the traitorous media leaks) from the libs, who the hell needs enemies? No matter how much you polish a turd, Mr. Murtha, it's still a turd.

It's very clear that the libs would sacrifice their country and their defenders, even so far as to practically demand another terrorist attack, just to get their birthright of political power back. So when these douchebags tell you that they "support the troops" and they're more patriotic than you are, just beg them not to. We can't afford their "support" anymore.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Iraq, Kooks, Liberals, Team Killing Fucktards, War On Terror

3 Comments on “Confrused.”

  1. denada Says:

    Slander implies a knowingly communicated falsehood. Criticism of the Abu Ghraib troubles and Haditha massacre isn’t slanderous, no matter how much you disagree with it.
    Use a dictionary.


  2. Slander implies a knowingly communicated falsehood. Criticism of the Abu Ghraib troubles and Haditha massacre isn’t slanderous, no matter how much you disagree with it.
    Use a dictionary.

    Oh for the love of….
    O.k. genious. Here you go:

    Slander

    n 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another 2: an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation, denigration] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone;

    Words falsely spoken, such as comparing our soldiers to Nazis, Pol-Pot and your buddy Stalin is, in fact slander. Any comment liberals make about Bush or the military is usually an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name.

    When libs convict the entire military based on the deeds of a few without any idea of what happened, that is to charge falsely AND with malicious intent. I can’t think of anything a liberal has said in the past 6 years that was not maliciously intended.

    So, in a nutshell, liberals are slanderers. And yes they may not always “knowingly communicate falsehood”, but they don’t give a damn if they do.

    Use your dictionary for what it’s intended and not whatever you use it for.

    Cheers!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: