Wingnut Wrapup
The stupidity never stops:
Walter E. Williams, Town Hall: "The Racism of Diversity "
Because giving everyone an equal chance is the biggest racism of all.
Ben Shapiro, Town Hall: "Anguish Across the Globe as Obama Rolls Back American Influence"
Nothing to support this contention in the article, which strings together a few made-up stories about people overseas. But then, what else can you do when you don't have any actual facts to support your claims?
Dick Morris, Town Hall: "If the Democrats obey Obama's commands and pass health-care reform legislation by the August recess, they will be committing partisan suicide, akin to lemmings going over the cliff en masse."
Because only three fourths of the American people want a public option. Dick, the other ones are too busy looking for Obama's Martian birth certificate to get up to that much complaining, so I think we'll take our chances.
Jeff Emmanuel, Red State: "Lesson One for Capitol Hill Interns: Don’t Publicly Mock Your Member’s Constituents"
No, Jeff. Lesson one for Capitol Hill Interns is, don't go home with any Republican congressmen.
Erick Erickson, Red State: "Does Anyone Really Care That History’s Greatest Monster is No Longer a Southern Baptist?"
Hitler? Napoleon? Stalin? Cthulhu? I never knew any of them were Southern Baptists. Oh wait- he's talking about Jimmy Carter- History's Greatest Monster!
You go with that, Erick. You're going to convince a lot of people on that one.
Family Research Council: "VIDEO: Watch Sen. Orrin Hatch Expose Democrats' Abortion Agenda in Health Care"
No thanks, guys.
Chuck Baldwin, Renew America: "Serious students of history, however, cannot mistake the similarities between the British Crown in 1775 and the federal government in Washington, D.C., today."
Seriously deranged students, Chuck. Besides, you left out the Nazis and Pol Pot. Aren't they similar to Obama too?
World Net Daily: "Global Warming or Global Governance-Experts document true agenda behind 'climate change' frenzy"
Experts, huh. I see. All of those scientists are engaged in a plot to take over the world. That's a good theory. I'll be interested in your attempts to push that one.
World Net Daily: "Did radical Muslims help send Obama to Harvard?"
God, what next. I thought it was Bill Ayers. I guess the Muslims picked him out as a college student, and prepared him to take over the country. Is there no end to the unique combination of lies and idiocy that make up the stock in trade of the right?
World Net Daily: "Palin to feds: Thanks, but Alaska can rule itself"
Maybe, Sarah, now that you've quit.
World Net Daily: "Gadget 'translates' your dog's woofs into words"
But can it translate Republican claims into the truth? No, I don't think it will be doing that anytime soon.
Newt Gingrich, Human Events: "The Press Conference President Obama Could Give"
I'll tell you what, Newt, you pathetic ass, you give that press conference when someone elects you president. Fat chance, huh?
I don't think Obama needs your advice.
Michael F. Cannon, Cato Institute: "I may lose my health policy decoder ring for asking this, but should we really be focusing specifically on covering the uninsured? What do we think covering the uninsured would accomplish?"
Oh, I don't know, Michael. That's a tough one, there. Maybe covering the uninsured would accomplish helping them to get medical care. How about that idea? Do you think it might accomplish that? You know, don't you, that that's the idea behind covering the uninsured, don't you?
Or could it be that you don't care about them, only about yourself? Maybe that's it.
Rich Hrebic, American "Thinker:" "One Step Closer to Losing Your Right to Health Care"
By getting a right to health care. That's how you will lose your right to health care. Which, by the way, you don't have at all, now, unless you can pay for it. Conservative logic in a nutshell: getting a right to health care is losing the right to health care. Thanks, Rich, for that helpful contribution to our national discussion on the issue.
Walter E. Williams, Town Hall: "The Racism of Diversity "
Because giving everyone an equal chance is the biggest racism of all.
Ben Shapiro, Town Hall: "Anguish Across the Globe as Obama Rolls Back American Influence"
Nothing to support this contention in the article, which strings together a few made-up stories about people overseas. But then, what else can you do when you don't have any actual facts to support your claims?
Dick Morris, Town Hall: "If the Democrats obey Obama's commands and pass health-care reform legislation by the August recess, they will be committing partisan suicide, akin to lemmings going over the cliff en masse."
Because only three fourths of the American people want a public option. Dick, the other ones are too busy looking for Obama's Martian birth certificate to get up to that much complaining, so I think we'll take our chances.
Jeff Emmanuel, Red State: "Lesson One for Capitol Hill Interns: Don’t Publicly Mock Your Member’s Constituents"
No, Jeff. Lesson one for Capitol Hill Interns is, don't go home with any Republican congressmen.
Erick Erickson, Red State: "Does Anyone Really Care That History’s Greatest Monster is No Longer a Southern Baptist?"
Hitler? Napoleon? Stalin? Cthulhu? I never knew any of them were Southern Baptists. Oh wait- he's talking about Jimmy Carter- History's Greatest Monster!
You go with that, Erick. You're going to convince a lot of people on that one.
Family Research Council: "VIDEO: Watch Sen. Orrin Hatch Expose Democrats' Abortion Agenda in Health Care"
No thanks, guys.
Chuck Baldwin, Renew America: "Serious students of history, however, cannot mistake the similarities between the British Crown in 1775 and the federal government in Washington, D.C., today."
Seriously deranged students, Chuck. Besides, you left out the Nazis and Pol Pot. Aren't they similar to Obama too?
World Net Daily: "Global Warming or Global Governance-Experts document true agenda behind 'climate change' frenzy"
Experts, huh. I see. All of those scientists are engaged in a plot to take over the world. That's a good theory. I'll be interested in your attempts to push that one.
World Net Daily: "Did radical Muslims help send Obama to Harvard?"
God, what next. I thought it was Bill Ayers. I guess the Muslims picked him out as a college student, and prepared him to take over the country. Is there no end to the unique combination of lies and idiocy that make up the stock in trade of the right?
World Net Daily: "Palin to feds: Thanks, but Alaska can rule itself"
Maybe, Sarah, now that you've quit.
World Net Daily: "Gadget 'translates' your dog's woofs into words"
But can it translate Republican claims into the truth? No, I don't think it will be doing that anytime soon.
Newt Gingrich, Human Events: "The Press Conference President Obama Could Give"
I'll tell you what, Newt, you pathetic ass, you give that press conference when someone elects you president. Fat chance, huh?
I don't think Obama needs your advice.
Michael F. Cannon, Cato Institute: "I may lose my health policy decoder ring for asking this, but should we really be focusing specifically on covering the uninsured? What do we think covering the uninsured would accomplish?"
Oh, I don't know, Michael. That's a tough one, there. Maybe covering the uninsured would accomplish helping them to get medical care. How about that idea? Do you think it might accomplish that? You know, don't you, that that's the idea behind covering the uninsured, don't you?
Or could it be that you don't care about them, only about yourself? Maybe that's it.
Rich Hrebic, American "Thinker:" "One Step Closer to Losing Your Right to Health Care"
By getting a right to health care. That's how you will lose your right to health care. Which, by the way, you don't have at all, now, unless you can pay for it. Conservative logic in a nutshell: getting a right to health care is losing the right to health care. Thanks, Rich, for that helpful contribution to our national discussion on the issue.
Comments
Seriously deranged students, Chuck. Besides, you left out the Nazis and Pol Pot. Aren't they similar to Obama too?
I'm a little disappointed here, G.E.--I thought you'd be giving us some fun education about the Brit Govt in 1775, and drawing some snide comparisons.
In many ways, as I showed prior. No one is saying Obama is going to try and kill Americans, but to deny that many of their policies (read: socialist) are similar is stubborn denial.
As for the Brits vs the US govt now, the parallels are between the degradation of civil liberties and states' rights. We created a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, just to end up ignoring the entire thing 200 years later.
"No one is saying Obama is going to try and kill Americans,"
I have shown a number of examples in the last few months of people claiming exactly that.
"to deny that many of their policies (read: socialist) are similar is stubborn denial."
Name one, Derek, and I mean a real one. No lying this time. Come on, Derek, how is Barack Obama similar to Hitler and Pol Pot? Put up or shut up. And I want to warn you- I try to be relatively civil here, but if you come up with lies this time I'm going to really let you have it.
As for the bill of rights thing, don't make me laugh. Where were you when Bush and Cheney were throwing people in prison without charges, lawyers or trials?
Let me rephrase: No one in their right mind is saying Obama is going to try and kill Americans.
Even though there are some crazies making the connection, that doesn't make the connection false.
"Name one, Derek, and I mean a real one. No lying this time. Come on, Derek, how is Barack Obama similar to Hitler and Pol Pot? Put up or shut up. And I want to warn you- I try to be relatively civil here, but if you come up with lies this time I'm going to really let you have it."
Funny because I ask you to put up all the time, but you never do. Here you go:
1. Socialization of private American business (GM/banks/healthcare). Hitler, being a socialist, nationalized numerous industries and imposed numerous regulations. Pol Pot was a communist, so he did the same, only further.
2. Gun control. Obama and the Libs will probably turn to guns after the recession settles, but he can't escape his anti-gun past. Hitler was notoriously antigun (see: 1938 Nazi weapon act), as well as Pol Pot, which is why they were relatively free to seize power.
3. Hitler overspent money to an insane degree. This needs no explanation.
4. Obama uses class warfare to pass his legislation, just like Pol Pot in in some ways, Hitler. Hitler usually used the Jews, Serbs, Christians, and undesirables as scapegoats, but he targeted their businesses to hit them where it hurts. Obama does the same, just with the rich as a whole.
There you go. Four similarities with explanations and facts. If you disagree, you have to provide the same: explanations and facts. Now is your time to shine GE, prove me wrong.
"Where were you when Bush and Cheney were throwing people in prison without charges, lawyers or trials?"
"As for the bill of rights thing, don't make me laugh. Where were you when Bush and Cheney were throwing people in prison without charges, lawyers or trials?"
The Bill of Rights applies to citizens. Check Article 1 Section 9. The writ of habeas cannot be suspended UNLESS in times of __________.
Fill in the blank.
(as the public safety may require it).
Legal, especially because they were given military tribunals.
Derek, you are an ignorant fool and a liar. Tell me how Hitler nationalized Krupp or Thyssen or IG Farben, or any other German company except those owned by Jews. Hitler formed an association of convenience with large industrialists before coming to power, and delivered the goods to them throughout the rest of the third Reich. And if, by the way, you don't know that, you should keep your mouth shut until you have a clue about Nazi Germany.
On to your next maundering, dishonest idiocy:
"Gun control. Obama and the Libs will probably turn to guns after the recession settles, but he can't escape his anti-gun past. Hitler was notoriously antigun"
Yeah, Hitler was notoriously antigun. Everyone knows that. Grow up, Derek. And you compound your dishonesty with your total lying about the alleged intent of liberals and Obama to do away with gun rights. Obama has, as you very well know, said or done absolutely nothing to support this slimy piece of propaganda; yet you repeat it as established fact.
Here's the next lie you use to despoil my website: "Obama uses class warfare to pass his legislation, just like Pol Pot in in some ways, Hitler."
Once again, all you have in the way of argument is to regurgitate Republican talking points. Hitler didn't need to use anything to pass legislation. After the enabling act was passed there was no legislature, and he could do whatever he wanted.
The presence of guns in the civilian population of Germany had absolutely zero to to with Hitler's ascent to power. This is another statement of yours which is either a lie or a product of profound ignorance.
Hitler overspent? So did Reagan and the two Bushes, who were responsible for about 80% of the national debt as of last January. Were they Nazis too?
On to your next irrational, malicious lie. Here it is:
"Hitler usually used the Jews, Serbs, Christians, and undesirables as scapegoats.... Obama does the same, just with the rich as a whole."
Derek, how many rich people has Obama exterminated? Is he getting close to six million yet? By the way, to include Christians along with Jews as equal victims of Hitler's persecution is in itself a vicious, unforgivable distortion of history.
And just as a final example of your deliberate lying, I offer this:
"The Bill of Rights applies to citizens."
Derek, show me where, in the constitution, it says that the bill of rights applies only to citizens. Or rather, don't bother. It doesn't. Anyone who takes the time to read the bill of rights can see that it always refers to these rights as universal.
So there you have it, Derek. I have been nice to you in the past because you are very young and obviously extremely ignorant. I gave you credit for being well intentioned, but I was wrong. It is now obvious that you are a malicious, unapologetic liar. We don't need that sort of morally degenerate person, either in our country, or on this blog. Come back when you've decided to show some basic human decency.
Most of them? Anything that was privately owned in Nazi Germany was only slightly so, as the government held a large majority of the companies. The only complete takeovers and forced shut downs were those of Jewish or Serbian companies. If you are arguing that Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, I suggest you head back to school. Most of what Hitler's Germany did was take oversight power over most industries (you have seen this with Obama and even with Clinton in the 90s). How about the Law for the Protection of Individual Trade of 1933? It stopped and reversed the growth of big business.
"On to your next maundering, dishonest idiocy:"
Really, because I just proved myself to be right and you to be a moron.
" Obama has, as you very well know, said or done absolutely nothing to support this slimy piece of propaganda"
What, gun control? Yes banning semiautomatic weapons and eventually trying to restrict ammo definitely is being progun. Hitler was antigun, as I have shown. Guns were defined and limited, allowed only to Nazi friendly parties. Do you honestly think that Obama isn't antigun? At least we know the Democrats are, so there you go, the Democrats are at least in many ways similar to Hitler.
"total lying about the alleged intent of liberals and Obama to do away with gun rights"
Ok, let's hear what Obama has to say:
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
Of course, the recession has taken first priority, but Obama will most likely address this early next year. He has the votes in the Supreme Court to do it but maybe not in the Senate. We shall see, but there is no question what his intent is.
"Once again, all you have in the way of argument is to regurgitate Republican talking points."
I don't know what republicans you are listening to, but "Obama uses similar tactics as Hitler to get his legislation passed" isn't exactly a republican talking point. Even if it was, that doesn't make it false. Fallacies galore.
"Hitler didn't need to use anything to pass legislation. "
Really? It was a democracy and they had a parliament. He didn't get elected dictator. He had to play politics to worm his way there. Liberals don't know their history, as shown by GE.
"The presence of guns in the civilian population of Germany had absolutely zero to to with Hitler's ascent to power."
So if all the Jews and Serbs were well armed they would have been sent to the ghettos just as easily? Are you insane? One reason why a mainland invasion of the U.S. is impossible is because their would be a rifle barrel behind every blade of grass.
Never said Obama was a Nazi, said he was similar. Yes, that was one similarity between Bush, Reagan and Obama. Of course, compare the money spent by Bush and Reagan to that which Obama has spent this year alone and you realize that they are on different levels. Bush deficit in 8 years: $1.7 trillion. Obama deficit in 1 year: +$1.85 trillion estimated by the CBO (more if healthcare passes.)
"Derek, how many rich people has Obama exterminated?"
Scapegoat does not mean "wants to have killed". Is english your 1st language? Obama blames the rich left and right to create class warfare in an attempt to turn the American people against the businesses and rich to justify the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. Denying this is simply admitting to be blind.
"By the way, to include Christians along with Jews as equal victims of Hitler's persecution is in itself a vicious, unforgivable distortion of history"
When did I say they were equal strawman? I simply listed them as one of the many groups persecuted by the Nazis. You didn't say anything about the Serbs nor handicaps. Why? Because you have nothing against them? What do you have against Christians that you don't want to recognize that they were persecuted against by Hitler? I sense bigotry, but I'll suspend my judgment until after you explain.
"Derek, show me where, in the constitution, it says that the bill of rights applies only to citizens. Or rather, don't bother. It doesn't"
Well we better invade Britain, China, and Australia. Their governements are breaking the 2nd Amendment. North Korea is breaking just about all of them! What makes you think that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone? We deport illegal aliens which would violate the Constitution if we did that to a citizen. The same way a Chinese national cannot apply for a Ohio CCW, they cannot claim to be tried in a U.S. court when they have no right to do so. What you are claiming is that the U.S. Constitution is not only the highest law of the U.S., but of the world. So much for sovereignty. The articles apply to the government, giving it power. The Bill of Rights spells out the rights of the people and states as a means of assurance of those rights. So much for the Federalist papers.
"Anyone who takes the time to read the bill of rights can see that it always refers to these rights as universal."
Article 1 Section 9 takes care of it, as I have already shown. We could legally suspend the writ of habeas for US citizens as well as it would be an act of rebellion. No comment on this I see as you would rather run from the question than prove yourself to be wrong.
"Come back when you've decided to show some basic human decency."
Let's recap. I've proved that:
Obama and Hitler had similar economic policies.
Obama and Hitler had similar gun control views.
Obama and Hitler had similar tactics to obtain more power.
Obama and Hitler overspent to a great degree.
I've proven this and all you did was call me a liar, which as I have shown in my post on liberal tactics, is your argument for just about everything. I present a logical and factual argument, you say "Shut up." No, I will not shut up.
Do I need to say this any more bluntly? You are not welcome here until you develop some respect for the truth.
At present, you are demonstrating yourself to be an infantile, ignorant liar. I just don't have time to waste with that sort of thing. I will not block you, but from now on, I am only going to respond when you say something that has a shred of truth to it.
I am the only one who has proven their statements to be true! Don't you realize that you are just as bad as all of the truthers and birthers? I present concrete evidence with solid logic and you simply call me a liar without contradicting anything I have said. You are the exact kind of person you despise! You call the birthers wingnuts for denying that Obama is a citizen even though he has given enough evidence to prove himself to be so, yet you do the same thing with my claims. I present evidence, you ignore it and call me a liar.
Actually, in a way, you are worse than the birthers. At least they have some creativity and come up with semi-clever reasons as to why not to believe. Either you are lazy or don't have the intellectual integrity to try to do the same. If you want to say I am not welcome, at least first prove that I am wrong. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean you should not want it around.
"I am only going to respond when you say something that has a shred of truth to it."
You never respond with tact anyway, all you do is call me a liar.
You say, "I present concrete evidence with solid logic..."
You present Republican talking points. I am not here to try to straighten out one deluded person who is totally uninterested in the truth.
You say, "You never respond with tact anyway, all you do is call me a liar."
Sorry, bucko. That's all you are.
That's the truth. Deal with it.
And by the way, I never said you weren't welcome. I just said you will get a decent response when you show that you care for the truth.
Yet you fail to back up that claim and you also fail to take down what you call "Republican talking points." Just because you think they are talking points doesn't make them false in anyway. This is another way of you avoiding the debate, as you simply write me off as wrong. Honestly, why run with your tail between your legs when you think I am so clearly wrong?
"That's the truth. Deal with it."
Yet you have only proven yourself to have the intelligence of a chestnut. I'd be better off arguing with one, at least it doesn't lie blatantly in the face of truth.
I am still waiting for you to refute my claims. Whenever you muster up the courage, go ahead and take a stab at it.