Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Wingnut Wrapup

Not much in the way of surprises today, just the usual lunacy. It's amazing how they never fail to provide us with this sort of junk, day after day:

Newsweek: "Why Obama should make George W. Bush his Mideast envoy."

Because you sell more magazines when the world is really screwed up? I sure can't think of any other reason why you would saddle us with that malicious incompetent again. Maybe you really do believe Obama is trying to destroy the country- this would be about the quickest way to bring that about.

Senator John Kyl: "The health insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in America. "They don't need to be 'kept honest' by the government."

Oh, no. No, the insurance industry is the most honest, caring business in the country, and would never do anything that is not in our best interest.

You want to see Senatorial corruption in action? Well, here it is.

Walter Williams, Town Hall: "How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like "Reagan budget deficits," "Clinton budget surplus," "Bush budget deficits"

Who gave them the right to tell a lie like that? We need to put a stop to that sort of thing right now!
















"Where in the U.S. Constitution is Congress given the authority to do anything about the economy?"


Oh, I don't know, maybe in this part: "promote the general welfare" It's in the first sentence, dimwit.

Little Pammy, Atlas Shrugs: "Sarah Palin's Commencement Address"

Pammy, here's a concept that has apparently escaped you: You have a commencement when you graduate, not when you drop out. Look it up.

Little Pammy, Atlas Shrugs: "Dump Schumer rally"













Here it is! That's Pammy in front there, with the red hair. Doesn't look like you got as many people as those marches in Iran, huh? Maybe you should have served tea.

Newsmax: "Bolton: Israeli Attack Best Option on Iran"

Best option for whom, jackass? The people in Israel that will be killed in the war, or you mindless, belligerent warmongering assholes, who can make some more money going on Fox News during the fighting?

Jim Myers, Newsmax: "Poll: Nearly 80% Support Palin 2012 Run"

This was a Newsmax online poll. Just in case you want to spend some time considering how accurately the poll represents American public opinion, here is another question from it:

"6) Do you believe Barack Obama "bought" the White House by outspending McCain?
Yes: 72 percent
No: 28 percent"

World Net Daily Exclusive: "Obama 'like Romans who destroyed Jewish Temples"

How? HOW? Slow day for idiocy in the news, huh?

Washington Times: "Obama still cashing in on Bush's failings"

God, I wish we could all cash in on Bush's failings. We'd all be living on yachts in the Caribbean.

Ben Stein, The American Spectator: "The Oil Shortage Hoax"

Like Ben's other stories, "The evolution hoax," "The Global Warming hoax," and probably next, "the Obama Won the Election hoax."

Michelle Malkin, Human Events: "Bully Boys: A Brief History of White House Thuggery"

Very brief. Names she left out: Karl Rove, David Addington, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo. Well, you get the idea. Apparently nobody ever thought of thuggery until Obama. Thanks a lot for your helpful contribution, Michelle.

Michael Prell, American Thinker: "Why public health care is philosophically wrong"

What, it violates the Hegelian dialectic or something? When it makes demonstrably inconsistent claims about the nature of causality? No, here's the reason:

"You should have the power to choose whichever option serves you best."

Except the public option. Translation of the above remark, for the slow witted: "You should have the power to choose whichever option makes the most money for the insurance companies."

But wait, there's more:

"What we desire is liberty...That is what America stands for. That is what the first Americans fought and died for"

Liberty for insurance companies, anyway. Washington, Jefferson, Hancock- that's what they fought for. We know it's true. After all, we read it at "American Thinker."

Stephen Spruiell, National Review Online: "It won’t be the fault of the GOP or the Congressional Budget Office if Obama doesn’t get the health-care plan he wants."

No, of course not. Nothing is ever the Republicans' fault. Thanks for reminding us of that, Stephen.

3 comments:

Derek said...

"Who gave them the right to tell a lie like that? We need to put a stop to that s[Photo]ort of thing right now!"

Well the 2008 deficit was actually the largest, but this graph is from 2007. What I don't understand is why the 2007-2008 line is blue, but the 1994-2000 line is blue as well. It can't be by Congressional control because the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate from 1995 on through the end of Clinton's presidency. The Bush deficits were awful, no doubt, but the Democratic budget proposals were always larger than Bush's. Note how Obama is quadrupling the deficit and tripling the national debt.

"Oh, I don't know, maybe in this part: "promote the general welfare" It's in the first sentence, dimwit."

That doesn't even grant a power, but instead gives reason to the powers that follow. In other words, they explaining why the government has the very specific powers listed in article 1 section 8. And it is "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare", and it isn't the first sentence.

"Ben Stein, The American Spectator: "The Oil Shortage Hoax""

It is blown out of proportion, but I wouldn't call it a hoax.

"Except the public option."

Or under Obamacare, many private options. who would want a public option? It'd be super expensive and super crappy. Massachusetts anyone?

Green Eagle said...

Derek:

I spent less than two minutes finding this chart. I know it is not totally up to date, but it does make my point, which is that the half century old Republican claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility is a total lie.

Next:

""Oh, I don't know, maybe in this part: "promote the general welfare" It's in the first sentence, dimwit."

That doesn't even grant a power..."

You are ignoring two centuries of case law, in which the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that it does just that.

Super expensive and super crappy? We are not talking Massachusetts or anywhere else- we are simply talking about essentially extending medicare to anyone who wants it. Don't forget that medicare has an overhead of 3%- private insurance has an overhead of ten times that. And you rarely run into anyone on medicare that isn't happy to have it.

Derek said...

"which is that the half century old Republican claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility is a total lie."

Well, seeing as how the Republican congress balanced the budget under Clinton, I wouldn't say it is a lie. Sure, when Bush says he is a fiscal conservative, he is lying. He spent far too much. But again, look to perspective. The deficit Bush managed to rack up in 8 years, Obama is doing in less than one. I don't understand how you can't be upset about this.

Let me ask you a question, and I think we'd all like to hear your answer. Are you not at all bothered by Obama's overspending?

"You are ignoring two centuries of case law, in which the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that it does just that."

Court cases please. If you are referring to Butler, that just reinforced the government's ability to lay taxes to pay for debts, not do whatever it pleases. Note how the Constitution was a restrictive document that spelled out limited powers, not something that gave open ended statements that allowed the government to do willy-nilly.

"we are simply talking about essentially extending medicare to anyone who wants it."

Right, super-expensive (you will pay for it one way or another, just look at the projected deficit), and supercrappy. Medicare should be limited to those who need it, then the rest of us who can afford insurance can get it on our own. I'm tired of this nanny state nonsense. Obama promises to wipe your tears, and next, you will be asking for him to wipe your butt too.

"And you rarely run into anyone on medicare that isn't happy to have it."

Because they have that or nothing at all. Those of us who have jobs and make enough money have other, better options. Ask me if I'd rather have my insurance, or be on Medicare.

You are also failing to see that under the Waxman plan, there is something called rationed care. Basically, if the cost of the procedure outweighs the possible improvement of your life, or added years, you don't get that procedure. The government says "too bad". Personally, I don't want the government messing with my medicine.