Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Wingnut Wrapup

Just garden variety lies and smears today. I wish I could bring you some inspired lunacy, but the wingnuts must be resting their limited intellects these days.

Erick Erickson, Red State: "The GOP will not help the Democrats pass health care reform because passing health care reform will mean destroying the country. And that is not hyperbole, that is a fact."

Really, Erick? It's not hyperbole to suggest that reining in out of control insurance companies would destroy the country? Really? Because, you know what? I think it is "hyperbole," or in plainer words, one more great big Republican lie. So what do you think of that, jerk? Huh? I'm talking to you, bud.

Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media: "Is Tom Hanks Unhinged?"

A vital question for our right wing political class. Once we have devoted several weeks to debating this question, I am sure they will get back to work on our nation's problems, right?

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit: "White House: We’re Happy to Have 2010 Elections About Our Unconstitutional, Abortion-Funding, Power-Grabbing, Racist Health Care Bill"

Grow up, Jim. You're making yourself look like a moron.

Richard Rahn, Newsmax: "Jobs Bill's Minimum Wage Would Hurt Black Teens"

Like you really care, asshole.

Tim Dunkin, Renew America: "Why I don't call them "liberals"

Because you have a whole list of bigger smears and lies to hurl at them, like 'communist' and 'jihadist.'

World Net Daily: "Would you believe 1 million to attend Christian concert?"

No.

Thomas Sowell, Town Hall: "In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial segment of the population to believe that he can add millions of people to the government-insured rolls without increasing the already record-breaking federal deficit."

Actually, the Congressional Budget Office said that. You see, it's actually true, so selling the American people on that wouldn't really count as much of a swindle. Understand now? Listen, I have a lot of respect for Barack Obama, but when it comes to swindling, Obama doesn't even come close to the kind of persistence and talent that you guys show every day.

Phyllis Schlafly, Town Hall: "Texas Kicks Out Liberal Bias From Textbooks"

e.g. Thomas Jefferson. They threw him out of their textbooks. Take that, liberals.

Erick Erickson, Red State: "Will Congress Lose Afghanistan Like It Lost Vietnam?"

No, because our military lost Vietnam, not congress. Just like the British military lost America. The local people really didn't want them there, so they kicked them out. I know you guys are so macho that you can't deal with it, but that's what happened. Congress really wasn't over there shooting at the Vietnamese people. Trust me on that one.

Erick Erickson, Red State: "The GOP Leaders Speak: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. They are making the case that Obamacare will raise costs and add more bureaucracy."

"Making the case" as usual, Republican speak for "lying."

And here is the most spectacular right wing historical delusion of the day:

Stephen Green, Pajamas Media: "Keynes legitimized fascism by giving liberal democracies license to tax, spend, and borrow in the name of political expedience."

Right. You know what, Stephen? You need to grow up too.

Jim Hoft, Pajamas Media: "Stupak: Dems See ObamaCare as “Their Opportunity to the Change Law” to Allow Abortion Funding"

You know what, Bart? You have some real obsessions there. Maybe you need a few sessions with a specialist. You know your health care coverage will pay for it. And they won't even make you get an abortion.

David Limbaugh, Newsmax: "During the height of the Cold War, some feared the communists would take over the United States without firing a shot. Could it be that nearly a half-century later, we're on the verge of that becoming a reality?"

No, David. You can come out of your basement now.

Astute Bloggers: "IS GENESIS 12:3 WHY THE US MARKETS DIDN'T TANK UNTIL SEPTEMBER?"

No, I really don't think so. I just bet that there is some other explanation for the market crash. Of course you'd like to believe that God did it, because you can't stand the idea that Bush and Cheney, and your beloved Saint Ronnie caused the market to crash. Unfortunately, God doesn't really interfere in the stock market that much.

12 comments:

classicaliberal said...

You're statement "...reining in out of control insurance companies..." is the only hyperbole I can find. Just what is it that is out of control at the insurance companies?

What about Jim's headline is "moronic?" I'd like you to point out how it's not unconstitutional, abortion-funding, power-grabbing and racist.

You did not dispute Richard Rahn's point. You know nothing of his view on other races. Or do you have some evidence that you'd like to present here?

"You have a whole list of bigger smears... to hurl at them..." Like "Teabagger."

You should have read the rest of Sowell's piece:
"Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of realities, can point to the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has concurred with budget numbers that the Obama administration has presented.

Anyone who is so old-fashioned as to stop and think, instead of being swept along by rhetoric, can understand that a budget-- any budget-- is not a record of hard facts but a projection of future financial plans. A budget tells us what will happen if everything works out according to plan.

The Congressional Budget Office can only deal with the numbers that Congress supplies. Those numbers may well be consistent with each other, even if they are wholly inconsistent with anything that is likely to happen in the real world.

The Obama health care plan can be financed without increasing the federal deficit-- if the administration takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. But Medicare itself does not have enough money to pay its own way over time."


This one's a personal favorite: "No, because our military lost Vietnam..." I've hardly witnessed such a loose grasp of the facts surrounding Vietnam. How, in fact, did the military lose the Vietnam war?

Facts, learn them. It'll do you some good.

BTW, I linked your post "Sadness in the Center." Have you ever lived anywhere but LA?

Infidel753 said...

CL: Just what is it that is out of control at the insurance companies?

Premium increases and recission, among other things.

Green Eagle said...

1. What is out of control at insurance companies? 30% overhead, compared to one tenth of that for medicare, executives ending up as billionaires while the insured are denied coverage, a system which expends 5% of our entire gross domestic product in denying claims...how's that for a start?

2."Unconstitutional, Abortion-Funding, Power-Grabbing, Racist Health Care Bill"- These are all cheesy lies. That 's what makes Jim Hoft look like a moron. And I'm not going to waste my time responding in any detail to Republican smears and baiting.

3. Our military lost the war in Vietnam by being unable to control its territory. By the end, 90% of South Vietnam was totally outside the control of our forces, and much of the rest was only nominally controlled by us. That's pretty much the definition of an army losing a war. By the way, if you engage me on this issue, I think you will discover that I know a good deal about the period, which I lived through, including the fact that the entire Vietnam "war" was a murderous U. S. aggression against an innocent country, in which between two and four million civilians were killed by our soldiers. Kind of like our recent foray into Iraq.

4. I grew up in a small Midwestern city. I've lived in a farm town in Michigan, in Oregon, in San Francisco and Boston, in Cambridge, England, Paris, Honolulu and Tel Aviv. I've spent time on jobs in Shreveport, LA, Alpine, Texas, Baltimore, Prague, Chicago, Moses Lake, WA, etc.

Well, that's about it. Where have you lived?

Green Eagle said...

By the way, Classcaliberal, although sometimes I do try to make serious statements, I hope it is fairly obvious that Wingnut Wrapup is really more in the way of comic relief. I know I am not always fair to some of these people, but I don't really expect anyone to take my remarks there that seriously. After all, when these people routinely call Obama a Communist Muslim terrorist illegal alien who is deliberately trying to destroy the country, how seriously should they be treated?

Derek said...

"Premium increases and recission, among other things."

You do know that 87% of us will see an increase in premiums under the Senate plan, correct?

Derek said...

"What is out of control at insurance companies? "

You listed traits which could be attributed to any company. Remember that medicare/medicaid deny twice as many claims as private insurance companies. Medicare/Medicaid are costing more and more every year, while various recipients are denied care for more and more reasons. Medicare/medicaid is out of control.

"And I'm not going to waste my time responding"

Aka I have no answer so I'm going to go pfttttt tist psh bah!

"That's pretty much the definition of an army losing a war."

Not according to any theory of war. You can control 1% of the land and win the war. It is all about morale and the will to fight. The reason why we lost is due to politics here in the US and our leadership's inability to know our enemy. We were involved in a civil war and so many constraints were put on our soldiers due to politics we were unable to attain victory. That is the consensus amongst most historians and IR scholars.

Green Eagle said...

"You listed traits which could be attributed to any company."

What, you mean they are all massively less efficient than the government? I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with that, given private sector performance the last couple of decades, but I'm pretty surprised to hear it coming from you, Derek.

Green Eagle said...

And while we are talking here, Derek:

"You can control 1% of the land and win the war."

Can you give some examples of a country invading another country and winning the war while controlling 1% of their territory?

Germany certainly lost World War I without having foreign troops on their prewar territory, but they were the invaders, and their military had collapsed by the time it had been pushed back to their borders. I can't, offhand, think of a significant case of things working the other way around.

classicaliberal said...

I wanted to reply yesterday, but I'm glad that I didn't and that Derek had a chance to chime in.

"What, you mean they are all massively less efficient than the government?"

There is a huge price for 'government efficiency.' Medicare denies on a percentage of coverage more than twice that of private insurers. Yes, Medicare may as a whole provide coverage for more people than private insurers, but they deny a larger percentage of the claims they receive. Does anyone really think that switching to a system run by the same entity which denies more claims than any other provider available is the best option?

Green Eagle said...

You know, at this point the government and the corporate world are equally bloated bureaucracies. With government, you get a lack of motivation, and with corporations, you get too much motivation- to strip everyone of their money, no matter what the consequences. Which is worse? Whichever one is more out of control at the moment. Right now, that would be the corporate world, which needs very badly to have its chain jerked really hard. A good first step would be to make the insurance companies and hmo's suffer for what they have done to our health care system. Then, I say let's start in on investment bankers. Once these guys have the fear of God put into them, it will be time enough to turn our attention to government.

Derek said...

"efficient than the government"

I've never seen "efficient" and "government" used in the same sentence without the word "not". The post office or medicare/medicaid are great examples of government "efficiency". Bankrupt and poor quality.

"Can you give some examples of a country invading another country and winning the war while controlling 1% of their territory?"

Think of the USSR and Serbia. The Serbs were able to destroy the soviets while literally controlling only their own secret hideouts. They won the war while controlling next to nothing. What they did was crush the Soviets will to fight. You can control every piece of a country but still not have won the war. Look at Iraq, we have been in control of +99% for years but I bet you wouldn't consider it a success yet.

"it will be time enough to turn our attention to government."

As long as you are still allowed to pay attention to the government ;]

Derek said...

"but it's pretty hard to back it up."

Shall I give sources?

http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/07/27/rep-conyers-dont-read-the-bill/

1434 page stimulus bill, given at 7pm, voted on at 8am. [1434pg/13hr]/60min = 1.8 pages per minute. That clocks to 600ish words per minute. The average person clocks in at 300ish words per minute. Not one person read that entire bill. Even if they had people helping, they wouldn't have been able to discuss even a majority of what is in the bill. The bill was rushed through without anyone reading it. Do you disagree?

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf3/fco_iraqdossier

That would be from the British government. If you are still touting your conspiracy theory after reading it you are no better than birther/truther.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

This is a decent explanation of the CRA and its effect on our economy.

"but I've had a pretty hard time finding conservatives willing to say the same about the birthers."

The only reason why I say birthers are better than truthers is because they are clever. They are both a big group of morons though. I do not know a single conservative who is a birther. I personally have not met a true birther. I have met truthers who are liberal though.