Today while clicking around the Web I ran into a “restore our future” ad for Mitt Romney. Restore Our Future is, in fact, a SuperPAC organized by a bunch of rich guys connected to Romney.
I just want to know what lamebrain came up with the title “restore our future.” It is illogical. “The future” cannot, in fact, be restored, because it hasn’t happened yet. The only way “restore our future” makes sense is in science fiction.
Of course, what it wants to mean is that the future is supposed to be a certain way, and “we” must put things right now so that “we” can have the future “we” are supposed to have. But (1) who is “we”? and (2) only a fool thinks that way. And how interesting is it that they Would come up with a slogan that uses the word “future” but is really about the past? Because you can’t “restore” anything that hasn’t already been.
I left a comment and it totally disappeared!
The only way “restore our future†makes sense is in science fiction.
Welcome to Romney World !
The late, great, Douglas Adams, on the principal difficulty created by time travel:
“The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner’s Time Traveler’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be descibed differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is futher complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father.”
We miss you, Douglas.
I suppose one could argue that the future is determined by a present vector, and so by returning that vector to a previous position we are restoring the future that will inevitably follow.
I guess “Restore the Conditions to Those Which we Imagine Will Lead to our Optimal Future by Essentially Deterministic Processes” sounded too clunky. As, presumably, did “Restore our Ability to Screw Over the Working Class with Utter Impunity”.
I’m sure that’s what they meant, but it still assumes that this “future” already existed before it was destroyed and must be restored. It reveals a mind that is very locked in to the way the world is “supposed” to be. And as I said, only a fool thinks that way.
“Restore Our Future.”
43 older white men.
1 Darkie.
We report. You decide.
In these Darkie times, vote for a whiter shade of pale.
Isn’t it obvious? “Turn Back the Clock” sounds so ridiculous that “Restore Our Future” seems briliant by comparison, even though they ultimately mean the same thing.
Romney’s VMI speech yesterday was a bucketful of back-to-the-1950’s hogwash that called for a world in which we are the only superpower and the rest of the world lacks educatin and industrialization and technology. and did you see Rachel Maddow’s graph last night showing defense spending and the projections for changes under sequestration, under Obama’s plan, and under Mitt’s plan?
Apparently even Mitt’s own advisors are admitting that he doesn’t take foreign policy seriousy enough to read the position papers his people produce for him. But, golly gee, is he ever white!
Maybe Mittens REALLY wanted his campaign slogan to be “Forward Into the Past,” but that pesky Obama beat him to the punch by locking up “Forward” this time around.
I’m not sure I’d agree in the general case – I’m perfectly happy with the idea of restoring a vector in the present which in turn restores the direction the future will take – but I agree that here specifically, there’s an implication that the future is supposed to be Republican dominated, and Obama’s time in the Oval Office is just some strange abberation that must be corrected.
Punish success
“Restore the future”; that’s three gallons of shit in a two gallon bucket.