#15 A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives
A Reference Library
Capsule: #15 A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives is a response to a sort of written, detailed confession that in liberal minds the world is full of evil monsters hiding beneath every rock. The imaginary straw man armies that liberals battle are vast, and the conundrums liberals create for themselves through their inherent paranoia are simply bizarre. Let the fun begin…
By Their Own Definition Liberals Should
All Be Living Under Bridges
Focus: If liberals agree that conservatives should not use government healthcare if they oppose it as a policy, shouldn’t liberals move to Cuba if they object to the free market as a policy?
Details: #15 A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives illustrates that liberals are at war with a vast army of scare crows. Dealt with are a litany of dozens and dozens of straw man zombie arguments that liberals imagine are conservative positions, but are actually creations of the inherent paranoia endemic to liberalism. Liberal reasoning, if one can call it that, is funny too, where they repeatedly back themselves into conundrums that require bizarre solutions to assuage their own guilt. Although definitely informative, ‘A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives’ is more entertaining than anything. Bring popcorn.
Excerpts: ~In March of 2010 a list of compulsively paranoid grievances about conservatives and Republicans went viral throughout the liberal blog and message board community on the internet. … This blog entry is literally a gold mine of liberal talking points (demagogic sophistry liberally mixed with noble lies), ideal for illustrating the superficiality of the collaborative groupthink of an alpha liberal and his alpha and beta liberal followers (see the following comments). … Hello [RK]. In advance I would like to thank you for your wonderful example of liberal sophistry and demagoguery mixed with your own personal disingenuousness. It is like you wrote this letter just for my essay series! I feel like I should get a sworn affidavit from you so that my readers don’t think I invented this as a put-up job. I thoroughly enjoyed critiquing your letter and expect this essay will be eye-opening for my readers – and you.~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
Perhaps the most disturbing example of hypocrisy is a liberal demagogue who attempts to clothe himself with a selfless concern for the welfare of those he demagogues. Notice one major theme throughout this essay: Liberals are all accusation and no substance. Tell me, American neighbor. Would it be hypocritical to criticize something, but still utilize it anyway, regardless of context?ab
• Liberal demagoguery disguised as compassion
In March of 2010 a list of compulsively paranoid grievances about conservatives and Republicans went viral throughout the liberal blog and message board community on the internet. For unknown reasons to me TPM has since scrubbed it from their website, but here is the post as saved in the Internet Archive: [*86ytj2h] If that link ever ceases to work just place some of the text from the post (presented below in full) within “quotation marks” in a search engine. There are multiple places it is posted in its entirety with the links included.
This blog entry is literally a gold mine of liberal talking points (demagogic sophistry liberally mixed with noble lies), ideal for illustrating the superficiality of the collaborative groupthink of an alpha liberal and his alpha and beta liberal followers (see the following comments). While the author, Russell King, attempts to play the liberal compassion game, pretending to reach out to conservatives and Republicans, this really is nothing more than concern-troll liberal demagoguery at its finest, and is therefore unsurprisingly shallow in thought and presentation. He attempts to portray himself as an ex-Republican who has been wounded (the poor dear) by what he sees as sins unique in their severity committed by conservatives and Republicans. Russell King has taken the concept of Christian original sin and run with it. Original sin theory is where Adam, being the first man, sinned and through him all who followed became contaminated with the condition of sinning. In Russell King’s strange mind he considers that when one conservative or Republican sins, according to him, all conservatives and Republicans must answer for it. This goes way beyond original sin theory where each person is responsible for their own sins. For example, if my brother steals an apple from the neighbor’s tree I am not considered a thief because I am related to him, but not so in Russell King’s fanciful world. For him, I am considered as guilty as my brother. In fact, even if my brother did not steal an apple from my neighbor’s tree, if Russell King deems that he had, then I am again guilty of a crime never committed except in Russell King’s fanciful head. In fact, according to Russell King some Republican sins are committed by Democrats – sort of like when the devil sins you get the blame (it is quite hilarious). And it is not like this is some universal rule applied to all of mankind like original sin theory. There is this liberal idea that because conservatives and Republicans promote morals more so than do liberals, only conservatives are guilty of immoral behavior (I’ll deal with this later). It seems in Russell King’s warped mind that liberals do not commit sins and if conservatives and Republicans would only “come back” they could be as sinless as he is.ac
300-word pages of text = 67
Reference citation links = 44
Recommended-reading links = 25
Profound insights = 32
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-10 PRISCILLA
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• Dozens of examples of how weak liberal arguments are
This is a prime example of the double standard liberals have regarding guilt and shame. For a liberal, guilt and shame are only for their opponents, never for themselves, so they can easily point to conservative moral failures with disdain and judgment, but exempt liberals when they do exactly the same things or worse.
There are many links in the original blog post which I have identified with underlines in the text here. I encourage you to note exactly what he claims for each point and then visit his links and witness his hallucinations in his quest to demonize conservatives and Republicans. They are wonderful examples of just how weak liberal arguments can be and yet still be accepted as liberal truths by the herds of sheeple. However, with a little contextual investigation and critical analysis almost all of his points turn out to be liberalisms – self-evident frauds. See for yourself, American neighbor.
(Since ostensibly this is a “letter” I will reply directly to the letter writer (although I do not consider my response to be a letter), and since he is purposely partisan and condescending I am going to suspend my customary civility and respond in kind. Also, the author is obviously a gleaming example of the liberal public school system, since he is a very poor speller and apparently doesn’t know how to use a spellchecker, and/or he has so little respect for his readers and himself that he could care less to go through the bother of proof reading and correcting his letter before posting it. I suspect both are true. Here is the link again: [*86ytj2h])ad
• Responding to ‘An open letter to conservatives – by Russell King’
Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation. Hello Russell King. In advance I would like to thank you for your wonderful example of liberal sophistry and demagoguery mixed with your own personal disingenuousness. It is like you wrote this letter just for my essay series! I feel like I should get a sworn affidavit from you so that my readers don’t think I invented this as a put-up job. I thoroughly enjoyed critiquing your letter and expect this essay will be eye-opening for my readers – and you. (As you probably heard about this essay series containing a critique of your letter and probably came directly to this essay, I would advise you to read the previous essays in the series before reading this. Otherwise I doubt my critique will be of any benefit to you.)
This first paragraph of your letter is actually one of those blind squirrel finding an acorn kind of observations about the ideological transformations that the Republican Party has gone through. However, since you are obviously a liberal, Russell, your claim rings rather hollow when you declare the Republican Party “lost me” (800 pound gorilla alert!). In the nineties the Republican Party, after previously moving left away from Reagan under George H.W. Bush, distinctly moved back to the right toward conservatism and captured both the House and the Senate. Then they won the Presidency with George W. Bush, but Bush was a neoconservative and moved the party back to the left. Republican voters became frustrated and stayed home in 2006, handing the House and the Senate back over to the Democrats. Then in 2008 the Republican Party made a huge mistake and nominated an even more moderate neconservative in John McCain. This led to a loss to Barack Obama. While I definitely agree after reading your letter that you are indeed “lost”, how could the Republican Party lose you, Russell, when the last administration under W was about as liberal as Republicans have ever been, and they were proposing to move further left with John McCain? Sounds to me like you moved to the left even further than the Republican Party did (if you ever had to move, that is), and therefore it is you who departed from the Republican Party even though they had been chasing after you to the left for the previous eight years prior to 2009. Right off the bat we have determined that you are disingenuous, Russell. I expect that, at most, you were a moderate at some time, and have since veered off the road into the ditch.ae
• Russell King running in full retreat
Now, I have read your subsequent comments at TPM and realize that you have been running in full retreat from what you originally wrote, Russell. For instance, after having your knuckles rapped by a few conservative commenters, you began to subsequently claim that your post was just to get conservatives to clean up the dishonesty in the Republican party, but it is quite obvious that you are a liberal and your letter is nothing more than a hate-attack on all conservatives and Republicans (and even a few Democrats) with anything you could find whether legitimate or not (mostly not). It isn’t about the honesty of the Republican Party, because you are not even honest in your blog post, and even if it was about honesty, what you would in effect be saying is that as the Republican Party moved left they became less honest. Now, if that was your message you definitely would be correct, since as I document throughout this essay series, liberalism is inherently dishonest, and moving left produces ever more dishonesty.
I also noticed in the comments section that you refused to answer when you were asked, “Just what was so good about the [Republican] party before it became so absurd you had to leave?” Your silence speaks volumes, Russell. The only questions left unanswered by it are where do your lies about your past begin, and do they end?af
• Russell King thinks conservatives used to be liberals that need to ‘come back’
First, the invitation: Come back to us. Not sure who the “us” is, but this pleading is a confirmation of your disingenuousness, Russell. Do you actually believe that the Republican Party and conservatives in general were ever as liberal as you are now (or as dishonest as you are)? How could you expect them to “come back” to you when they have never been where you currently are on the far left? You are either being deliberately irrational (actually deceitful, an Alinsky strategy) or you are delusional.ag
• Russell King’s active imagination
Now the advice. You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.
WOW! Russell, you sure have an active imagination – you got all of that from your one link?!? You claimed that “95% — of what I wrote were statements of fact with links to sources to back them up” (more blatant dishonesty). I guess the garbage in this statement would have to go under the other 5% that you just made up out of your head, except that you wrote it as though it all came out of your one link. Here is how Wikipedia describes the use of a colon (which you used immediately following your link): “As a rule, however, a colon informs the reader that the following proves, explains or simply provides elements of what is referred to before.” The only thing I could find in your link was, “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!” Seems like a sound warning to me. Your silly accusations above are nothing more than Democrat talking points and demagoguery. There is NOTHING in that link to support your demagoguery even though you imply it does. The evidence of your disingenuousness just keeps piling up, and we’re only at the second link of your third paragraph. Looks like it is going to be quite a mountain by the time we get to end of your “letter”.ah
• More back peddling from Russell King
In fact I found this post from you in the comments section:
~Funny how you think I smearing ALL conservatives when I say that most — and real — conservatives are NOT represented by the people, acts and statements presenting in the post. That, in fact, the links show us the non-conservative false face presented by the most vocal on the political Right, most especially the GOP, Fox and the Tea Party thugs.~
Now c’mon Russell – this is just more of your furious back peddling and dishonesty. It is quite evident to anyone who reads the introduction to your lists that you are addressing “ALL conservatives” without qualification. It doesn’t say, “Dear Some Conservative Americans” or “Dear Real Conservative Americans”, and you never said “that most — and real — conservatives are NOT represented by the people, acts and statements presenting in the blog posts” or anything close to it in your letter. You simply smear conservatives and Republicans in general. You seem to have a serious honesty problem, Russell. Look at your next sentence, for heaven’s sake! You state that “the GOP” and the “conservative end of the American political spectrum” are “irresponsible and irrational” and are “tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred”. That’s about as broad a brush as I have ever seen! How can “most” conservatives not be included in that ugly statement which contains no qualifying adjectives? Talk about being “irresponsible and irrational”.
So which are you Russell? Are you a prime example of liberal programming or are you just disingenuous? Do you actually believe your claim that conservatives/Republicans left you? Or are you just saying this to scapegoat for your obvious disdain for conservatives/Republicans? I see by your photo that you are at the most fortyish and likely younger. You said above, “I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now.” So you are saying that only twenty years ago conservatives/Republicans did not have a “platform … built on a foundation of cowardice” and didn’t “fear people with colors religions, cultures and sex lives” that differed from them, and didn’t fear “reform in banking, healthcare, energy” etc.? Just when exactly did this mass transformation of conservatives/Republicans into the monsters you now describe take place, Russell? Or isn’t it more likely that it was your view of conservatives/Republicans that changed (or are you just making it all up)? In fact, are you not a prime example of the programmed liberal that I am describing in this essay series? You at one time, by your own admission supposedly had a somewhat level-headed view of conservatives/Republicans, but somewhere along the path of your life you began accepting those two unequal lines as equal, and here you are now, fully developed into an example of an extreme alpha liberal where two unequal lines are the new normal for you.ai
• Russell King admits that he hates his family
Your party — the GOP — and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it’s tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some expamples — by no means an exhaustive list — of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred. Bravo Russell! Liberal projection at its finest! Didn’t I also read in your comments that you think your post is like “tough love” for a “family member”? So this is how you treat your family? You smear them all publicly as being “irresponsible and irrational” and that they promote and celebrate “prejudice and hatred”? It must be quite a long distance relationship you have with your family. I’m sure glad you didn’t give us your “tough hate” feelings instead. Didn’t you also claim to one commenter:
~You’re the second conservative who seems confused by the conservative vs Republican notion. I’m not mixing them or blending them~
I don’t see any differentiation between “the GOP” and “the conservative end of the American political spectrum” and “the Right” in your whitewashing insult above. Indeed, it seems your intention was to make sure not to leave anyone out. This comment is just another example of your subsequent flip flopping and repetitive dishonesty. (Sigh…)aj
• Russell King – the admitted ‘lost’ cause
If you’re going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you’ll have to start by draining this swamp: Well, on this we can sort of agree. The GOP had definitely wandered off the reservation, chasing after moderates toward liberal-land. Time to start “draining the swamp” as you say, Russell. Time for the GOP to move back to the right and give up on “lost” causes like you. The 2010 election was a move in the right direction.
One more thing before we get started with a critique of your lists, Russell. Go learn what ‘context’ means. Contextual investigation will keep you out of a whole lot of trouble in the future. Then again – you may no longer have anything to say, because context is a killer for liberal sophistry like yours. Here, I’ll give you an education – at no extra charge…ak
• Nuking Russell King’s ‘Hypocrisy’ arguments
You can’t flip out — and threaten impeachment – when Dems use a prlimentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that’s centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all. Straw man. Sophistry. So size and significance doesn’t matter to you, Russell? A shoplifter of a candy bar should be seen under the law the same as a serial killer? Janitors and CEOs should make the same wages? A caterpillar is as threatening as a tiger? What planet are you from again? Please name one bill that comes even close to the scope of Obamacare that was forwarded by deem and pass. Your third link probably gives the largest example of a “$40 billion deficit reduction package”. (Weren’t liberals all for smaller deficits during the Bush administration?) This hardly compares to the multi trillion dollar Obamacare bill. One was small, temporary and meant to benefit the economy, whereas the other is potentially economy crippling and permanent. Please name one bill that was forwarded by deem and pass where the bipartisanship was 100% against the bill, and where the American people were equally outraged at the bill and the process. Please name one bill forwarded by deem and pass where, even after a year of government propaganda 55% of voters still wanted it repealed. [ydsmum7] This deem and pass was to be just one of many sleazy steps used to ram through Obamacare, but in the end it was even too sleazy for the House Democrats – they abandoned it.
You can’t vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it’s done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) — 114 of you (at last count) did just that — and it’s even worse when you secretly beg for more. Yawn. Double standard. Shortsighted. Both parties play the same game. Russell, you actually believe this is not standard procedure for politicians throughout the history of the country? This is just politics as usual, no different than when liberals claim responsibility for the wildly successful Welfare Reform legislation of the nineties because Bill Clinton signed it. I bet even you have at one time or another boasted of it, except that it was enacted from the Republican Contract With America and most Democrats voted against it every time it came up, and Clinton vetoed it twice before finally signing it when the polls suggested that the mid term election would be a disaster if he continued to refuse. Even then, Clinton and the Democratic caucus vowed to repeal it in the future. However, because it was so successful they never did attempt to repeal it, but instead have tried to co-opt it as their own. See any similarities, Russell? Or how about the administration claiming credit for itself in Iraq when it was Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton who all opposed the surge and demanded that the troops be immediately brought home and America surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and a sure Middle East war including up to a dozen nations including Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and many others? The difference with this example is that the Democrat position that thankfully was ignored, is that following the Democrats’ advise of surrender would have developed into an Middle East disaster, whereas if the Republican position had been implemented in regard to the stimulus, the country would have been much better off (#11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?).
You can’t fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal. Dodge. Sophistry. Shortsighted. The idea that a majority Democrat “deficit commission” would listen to any Republican ideas has been proven false with Obamacare, and don’t give me this garbage that there were some piddling issues that Republicans wanted in the bill (many were corruptions of their positions anyway). Name for me one significant issue, like tort reform, that most Democrats opposed and most Republicans supported that was implemented in the bill. When you can, then I’ll admit there was a bit of bipartisanship in Obamacare. And this “deficit commission” is like closing the barn doors after the horses have bolted. President Warren Harding proved in the years 1920-21 of the Roaring Twenties that drastically cutting government spending, size, regulations and taxes is the way to fix a depression (much more severe than the beginning of the Great Depression and the current economic recession). It lasted less than two years in comparison to the Great Depression lasting over a dozen years using FDRHoover’s strategy, unfortunately the same failed strategy that Obama is using. The time to cut the deficit was when Obama was elected, but instead he doubled down on spending and has made the situation far worse than even he himself projected, promising unemployment would not exceed 8% while within months it exceeded 10%! And he said it would not exceed 9% if we did nothing, so in effect, by his own numbers he made things worse than if he had done nothing. Instead of creating jobs, millions of net jobs have been lost since those vaunted promises were so loftily and naively made (if you are not sure of this, go reread #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?). Obama is making the same mistakes FDRHoover did. The American public sensibly wants tax cuts, spending cuts, reduced regulation, no bailouts, and prosecution of the financial crisis offenders. Does Obama listen? No. Do you actually think Obama or the Democrats give a hoot what Republicans think, or the American people?
You can’t call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.Wrong. Sophistry. Shortsighted. Who do you think you are fooling, Russell? It is evident to all that pay-as-you-go to Democrats has become the same as tax-as-you-go or make-everything-an-exception-as-you-go [yzba3fb], and as mentioned in the last point, Democrats have demonstrated that they have no interest in the ideas of Republicans or the desires of the American people. Why would Republicans want anything to do with it?
Are they “unlawful enemy combatants” or are they “prisoners of war” at Gitmo? You can’t have it both ways. Irrelevant. Dodges real issue. I explained this in #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments, but I’ll recap here. Though like a prisoner of war, terrorists can be kept incarcerated for the duration of the war, they certainly are not prisoners of war. They were not captured while practicing under the rules of war. Unlawful enemy combatants is an appropriate title. They are outside the bounds of the Geneva conventions and the rules of war. They certainly are not entitled to a trial. Prisoners of war are not even entitled to trials. They are kept incarcerated for the duration of the war without redress to trial. Why should unlawful enemy combatants be entitled to rights denied to lawful prisoners of war? What kind of an upside down world is this planet you are from, Russell?
You can’t carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts. Wrong. Sophistry. Double Standard. So I take it you have never criticized the Reagan tax cuts, the Contract With America tax cuts or the Bush tax cuts while you have willingly accepted them – right, Russell?
You can’t refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn’t meet with you. Debatable. Looks like a he said/she said scenario to me. If this sort of trivial politics gets your panties in wad, Russell, maybe you should exchange it for basket weaving or crochet. It would probably add ten or twenty years to your life.
You can’t rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly. Wrong. Shortsighted. Of course you can when the supposedly smartest man to ever be President stumbles and fumbles with gaffe after gaffe without one. I don’t have to list his multitude of hilarious off-prompter knee-slappers do I? Or he rambles on like a man in search of a thought. Is he just in love with hearing himself talk? Who speaks for 17 minutes to answer a simple question, and still does not answer the question? [*yh5esnf] He takes teleprompters to press conferences for gawd’s sake! (When he still used to grant press conferences, that is.) What it boils down to is that Obama cannot think on his feet – he is an automaton that can’t operate without being scripted.
You can’t rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening. Wrong. Shortsighted. Dodges real Issue. TARP was not implemented the way it was voted on. [3w8jeet, 3n7gokq, 23uw8u9, 2azys7o, ydfsxne, 3474msy] It was never meant to be a bank bailout as in just handing money to troubled banks, bailing out auto unions (sorry, G.M. and Chrysler), and using it for so-called “job creation”. It was meant to stabilize mortgage securities and buy troubled assets. The Treasury arbitrarily changed it to a handout to favored institutions with few strings attached except being beholdened to the Obama administration, and the Inspector General report confirms that it was used as little more than a slush fund by both the administration and the banks. [*8cpt5rv]
You can’t be for immigration reform, then against it . Wrong. Shortsighted. Sure you can, if you are listening to the people. That’s why it failed under Bush. Many politicians wanted it, but the people didn’t. So it was scrapped. Of course, for the Democrats and President Obama now in control, they could not care what the people want – just ram it through, like Obamacare.
You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it. Wrong. Double standard. Based on that attitude, you can send your accumulated Reagan, Contract With America and Bush tax cuts with interest here: Attn Dept G, Bureau of the Public Debt, P. O. Box 2188′ Parkersburg, WV26106-2188. Thanks for reducing the national debt, Russell.
You can’t flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford. Wrong. Dodges real issue. Yeah you can when the Oval Office has already been “stained” by a previous Democratic President with little respect for the office of the Presidency, selling sleepovers in the White House for campaign contributions, and the childish trashing of the White House computers upon leaving office. Obama shows even less respect, turning the White House into a frat “party” house (every three days in the first year – no recession here apparently [ktw73qj]), manipulating time-honored traditions like not allowing students from private or religious schools to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll (I guess that leaves out his two daughters, huh?), putting a picture of Mao on the White House Christmas tree, and insulting America’s best ally by returning gifts previously given to the White House, and then giving out lame and unusable DVDs and an Ipod with all of his speeches downloaded as gifts (is this guy full of himself or what?!?). Every dissing of decorum by this President, like his long refusal to wear a flag pin or place his hand over his heart, leaving visiting, allied heads of state cooling their heels as he goes off for dinner [86pca7e], and purposely encouraging Democrats to mock and jeer the Supreme Court Justices during the State of the Union Speech, is further evidence of this President’s disdain for the office of the President and the traditions of America. No one ever felt that Bush or Ford had anything but honor and respect for the office of the Presidency, so they can be excused for the odd small indiscretion. President Obama certainly does not warrant that latitude.
You can’t complain that the president hasn’t closed Gitmo yet when you’ve campaigned to keep Gitmo open. Wrong. Sophistry. Steele wasn’t “complaining” – he was taunting. Obama is the man of broken promises. Hell’s bells, Russell – are you really that lame-brained?
You can’t flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn’t even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on “kissing terms” with the US. Wrong. Sophistry. The Bush and Nixon photos are obviously not formal bows (Bush is accepting something being placed around his neck). Without some context I’ll reserve judgment on Ike. This supposed kiss looks like a photoshop. The hand holding is irrelevant. At worst it is a show of mutual respect. Whereas, a solo bow is an act of submission or offering of one’s service. The POTUS is at the service of the American people, not communist Chinese leaders. Indeed the American people do not give him leave to be at service to others. He is exclusively a servant of them. Even if other Presidents have bowed, it should be stopped. The President of the United States should bow to no one. Instead, Obama bows seemingly indiscriminately. (I bet he didn’t bow to Benjamin Netanyahu though. I wonder if he even shook his hand.)
You can’t complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt — the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.) Wrong. Shortsighted. The shoe bomber incident happened on December 22, 2001, just months after 9/11. Policies were not set up for months. Subsequently, those policies like the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and military tribunals had been in effect for many years when Obama recklessly ignored them. (See essays #1 and #5.)
You can’t attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hourswhen you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn’t issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event. Wrong. Dodges real issue. Whether the Bush policy was to deliberately downplay the event or not, no one doubted that the Bush administration took the incident seriously as an act of terrorism. By the time Obama responded to the Christmas bomber attack Obama had already telegraphed to the country that he did not take terrorism seriously. In the Fort Hood attack the media cut to a speech he was scheduled to give that day, but even knowing that the country was waiting in anticipation for his response to this mass murder terrorism event, the first of such magnitude since 9/11, he starts off thanking staff officials for organizing the conference and gives a shout-out to some buddy like this was just another rah-rah union speech, and then goes on about dialog with Native Americans. [ce435t6] This single moment told the whole nation and the world, including our enemies, that Obama obviously has no sense of the immediate – a very dangerous quality to be lacking in a President (just what Hillary warned us of with her 3:00 AM campaign ad). For weeks the administration refused to definitively label the Fort Hood attack as terrorism, and now in 2011 they have labeled it “workplace violence”. [rolls eyes] So naturally, with the news of the Christmas bomber the American public couldn’t help but wonder if the security they had come to take for granted under the Bush administration was all unraveling under an Obama administration that insisted that “the system worked” when everybody and their dogs could plainly see that the system did not at all work. This was from the head of the Department of Homeland Security who had early on in the administration made clear she did not take terrorist attacks seriously, instead labeling them “man-caused disasters”. When it had become apparent that she had so badly screwed up the administration response, the President should have immediately been on nationwide television addressing the situation and cleaning up the mess Janet Napolitano had made. Then when Obama finally does make time for a response, he defends treating it as a criminal event and downplays it as organized terrorism, in effect confirming for everyone that he stands by Napolitano’s incompetence and that it is blessed from the top down. (Update: During the uprising in Egypt, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated that the Muslim Brotherhood was “largely secular” and had “eschewed violence”. This is a terrorist organization with a rich history, aligned with Hamas – more Obama administration incompetence.) This is why Obama deserves much more scrutiny and criticism than Bush. For these and other reasons America is no longer as secure as it was just a few of years ago. (I’ll add more in subsequent points below.)
You can’t throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when — in fact — only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack. Wrong. Shortsighted. Yeah, you can. The only reason any of them were released is because of liberal and Democrat political pressure. Without that pressure virtually all Gitmo detainees would still be detainees. Look in the mirror for your culprit, Russell. Oh – and this is another reason America is less secure than in the recent past.
You can’t condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attemted terror attack on his. Wrong. Dodges the issue. Shortsighted. Bush had made America more secure than at any time since Muslim terrorism began decades ago. Obama, by threatening to prosecute American security personnel, has made their jobs impossible. (See #5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head.) No one wants to be the one that a vindictive Justice Department comes after in a couple years, with their names made public so the terrorists can target their families. This is the single most egregious policy Barack Obama has threatened to implement, so when the intelligence computer systems inevitably fingered the Christmas bomber it became an analyst’s decision of what to do with the information. Fear of an administration prosecution if anything screwed up, pushed the decision up the chain of command until someone decided to bury it and hope for the best. That is how Barack Obama has made America grossly insecure. The same thing happened with the Fort Hood shooter. A lot of people in the chain of authority knew something should be done about that guy, but all were afraid of being the one fingered for future prosecution, so everybody washed their hands of an obviously very dangerous person. Why do you think the TSA have so over-reached with body scanners and invasive pat downs? It is not to fight terrorism. It is to cover their butts in case we don’t get lucky with the next Christmas bomber. These over-reactions are so they can say look what we did – don’t blame us. Take a bow, Russell. Its because of support and whining from liberals like you that this fear is generated through the policies of the Obama administration.
You can’t mount a boycott against singers who say they’re ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he’s ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Moaist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail. Irrelevant. Why not? We’re talking entertainers for heaven’s sake! Get your priorities straight – sheesh!
You can’t cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it’s too short. Sophistry. Do you even read the links you provide? Boehner and Steele were talking about Obama’s 11 page outline being too short, not the bill. The total bill size of over 20,000 pages of new bureaucracy and taxes is a bloody outrage! (You can see a photo of the 20,000 pages in essay #1.) [*32b58j2, *3yo52at] Only a liberal would think a giant step toward statism and bankruptcy is a good for the country. The Democrats voted for a bill none of them read and none fully understood (no one can – it is just too big). It was missing things they claimed were included, like some children’s coverage, and they have been surprised by things they had no clue were in there, like extra cost burdens on large corporations, and continuing coverage for themselves – ROTFL! [y45y2ek] What a bunch of buffoons! LOL! (Oh drat – those same buffoons are running the country!)
You can’t support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas. Irrelevant. Yup, you’re right – Grassley was wrong to support mandates (as is everyone else who does). Someone obviously explained to him that car insurance is for protection of other people, unlike health insurance, which isn’t really insurance, but a maintenance plan. Thanks for pointing out what a dumb idea it was for Grassley to support mandates, Russell.
You can’t demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly. Straw Man. Shortsighted. So let’s see. Televise that which is political and will have nothing to do with the makeup of the bill, but make up the bill in secret, even after promising throughout the campaign that all deliberations would be on C-SPAN. [74ug3sq] Yeah, right…
You can’t praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it “treasonous” under a Dem president. Irrelevant. Shortsighted. Whatever Giuliani said (the video does not work for me because of my location) it does not change the fact that trying any of the Gitmo terrorists in NYC now is a big mistake that even some in the administration have realized. It would be just like painting a large target in Times Square, and it is just one more piece of evidence that Obama does not take terrorism or the security of the nation seriously.
You can’t propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill. Irrelevant. Shortsighted. There is no such thing as a jobs bill. It is simply a money laundering slush fund, no matter who supports it or not. Circuitously the Democrats give government stimulus money to the unions, and the unions give it back to the Democratic Party. In the fourth quarter of 2009 each job purported to have been created with stimulus job money cost $286,000 per job (which counted temporary, part time and pay raises for existing jobs). [q5lrw4l] If we guess at a rather generous $86,000 per job going to the worker, where did the other $200,000 go? It would have been better just to hand out the money as welfare. Notice also in the link that “Democratic districts also received two-and-a-half times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts”. To think that jobs bills are anything other than money laundering political slush funds is to be gullible or deceitfully partisan. Which are you, Russell? (For an explanation of stimulus so-called jobs creation go to #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?.)
You can’t be both pro-choice and anti-choice. Wrong. Yes you can – ask Bart Stupak.
You can’t damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you’ve paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines. Straw man. Shortsighted. Dodges real issue. Beck has no power over anything. Whereas Timothy Geithner became Treasury Secretary and responsible for the IRS and government taxes, even though he was an ongoing tax cheat. Charles Rangel was the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee that was also responsible for the IRS and government taxes, even though he too was an ongoing tax cheat. Sheesh! Even the Democratic National Committee is run by tax cheats. [6vfgr7c] Try thinking at least a little bit before you rant, will you Russell?
You can’t condemn critizising the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president’s party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up). Wrong. Shortsighted. You can when he implements politically correct restrictions on enemy engagement that puts the troops at greater risk. For instance, it is now policy that American troops cannot shoot at the enemy if they are not visible and shooting at them, so what the Taliban has done is shoot from a fortified structure until they run out of ammunition or are pressured to retreat, then they come out with their hands up and run away to another fortified structure with more weapons and ammunition and begin firing again. [8a9fq2c, 759frul] These and other politically correct restrictions, and releases of captured Taliban fighters [dxd4acl] have demoralized the troops and made defeating the Taliban almost impossible. Thank you Barack Obama, and thank you liberals. It seems Obama is now prepared to surrender Afgahnistan to the Taliban just to get out of the war, just as he opposed the Surge and was willing to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and civil war. [2b63b7h] Then on top of this there are the same threats to security personnel mentioned above. The troops are scared to death of being prosecuted for any politically correct slipup, and then being publicly exposed and their families coming under threat. Thanks again to liberals and Barack Obama.
You can’t be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it. Smart man. At least smart enough to know when he has been scammed, and man enough to admit it.
You can’t vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of ‘open debate’. Addressed this above. Jobs bills are slush funds for union political payback.
If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it’s 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you’re taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution. This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God’s stand, too. I remember opponents to homosexual rights back in the eighties warned that it would lead to demands for gay marriage, but the gay movement at the time insisted that it was just scare mongering to suggest they would ever go so far as to demand homosexual marriage. (A perfect example of the Overton Window principle. [ysftnb])
When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can’t send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well). Yes there are perverts out there. This one was removed from the party and his seat, but perhaps it would have been better to replace him with someone who wasn’t paying hush money to conceal an extramarital affair – Tim Mahoney, Democrat.
You can’t criticize Dems for not doing something you didn’t do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16. Dodges real issue. It seems that Democratic earmark reform only has any teeth when two of their worst earmark spenders die (Murtha and Byrd). The Republicans proposed a freeze on them for a year. If the Democrats are such earmark reformists, why didn’t they support it?
You can’t decry “name calling” when you’ve been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile. Double standard. Shortsighted. Please… just visit a few liberal blogs and forums. And what was that ‘pleasant’ name that the liberal media and Democrats from the President [23cmbr3] and congressional leaders on down keep calling the Tea Partiers? You know, Russel – that t-b-word you use in your blog over and over – hypocrite!
You can’t spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare. Shortsighted. Dodges real issue. This has nothing to do with whether Medicare is good or bad, but on how dependant American seniors have become on it. Sad…
You can’t praise the Congressional Budget Office when it’s analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it’s unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don’t. Shortsighted. Sophistry. The CBO must examine what it is given. [ykofexy] When the Democrats hold things back like the reconciliation amendments, the numbers that the CBO produces are a fraud (not necessarily due to them, but due the Democrats). Without the amendments the CBO forecast a surplus. With the amendments, and the other sleights of hand then included, the forecast is for a huge deficit. Guess which one the Democrats touted and the media filter ran with? See? It is not the CBO that can’t be trusted in this case – it’s the Democrat’s propaganda about what they gave to the CBO to analyze.
You can’t vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don’t. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism. Shortsighted. Sure you can when you can see that the governing party is doing nothing to fix the economy and is actually hurting the recovery with gross overspending and promises of huge tax increases. All expenditures should be cut, but instead Democrats are more interested in ramming through their agenda even if it destroys the economy.
You can’t call a reconcilliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly. This was addressed above.
You can’t spend tax-payer money on ads against spending tax-payer money. Shortsighted. Why not? There are a heck of a lot of other things I would rather taxpayer money not be spent on than promoting the controlling government spending. People needed to know and pressure the Democrats to stop their out of control spending. If the Democrats would have just stopped their extravagant agenda spending there would have been be no need to advertise against it.
You can’t condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the madates were your idea. Dodges real issue. Shortsighted. It was a bad idea then, just as it is now. And even Obama condemned mandates when he dissed Hillary Clinton during the primary. [yj392c4]
You can’t demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don’t. Wrong. Petraeus denies ever saying it. [ybynlfv] Wasn’t this the same general that devised the surge in Iraq that Obama treated as folly at the time, and isn’t this the same general that now runs his Afghanistan war?
You can’t whine that it’s unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party’s former leader admits you’ve been doing it for decades. Double standard. Shortsighted. Based on what evidence? Democratic race baiting is obvious on the television almost every day. The Democratic Party even has its own hired guns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Who are these Republican race baiters? Sounds like an empty accusation. Actually it is Democrats like Jackson and Sharpton who drove southern whites away from the Democratic Party, continually demonizing them as racists, and for the southern white who is not a racist, why would they support a party that constantly insists that they are?
You can’t portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists. Sophistry. Double standard. See Ted Kennedy. I guess that makes just about everyone in Ireland a supporter of terrorism who supported one side or the other, since both sides committed terrorism.
You can’t complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you’ve routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain — threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented — and admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas. Shortsighted. Woe – that’s chutzpa, Russell. Barack Obama said he was going to Washington to create bipartisanship. It was all a farce, just like most promises he made during the campaign. All we have seen from him is Chicago machine politics.
You can’t question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn’t object when your own Republican president appointed them. See below.
You can’t preach and try to legislate “Family Values” when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer’s wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheatingon your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coherce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife’s mother; Irrelevant. Shortsighted. Sophistry. We have already agreed that there are perverts out there. So what’s your point? That no Democrats would or have ever done these things? What planet was that again? And the accusation, “authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coherce [sic] their parents into providing information” is way over the top. What happened at Abu Ghraib was a terrible stain on the military, but your link provides no evidence of ‘authorization’ or ‘coercion of children’s parents’ and has nothing in regard to gathering intelligence. In an organization as large as the military there are going to be some rogue situations, which is what Abu Ghraib was. Your cheap shot at the military suggesting any personnel placed in a similar position would have followed illegal orders from the top right down through the chain of command is an outrageous disrespect toward all military personnel, and only illustrates that you are a bottom feeding demagogue who gets your kicks out of smearing others with your own filthy fantasies.al
• Nuking Russell King’s ‘Hyperbole’ arguments
You really need to dissassociate with those among you who:
• assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet Sophistry. In Manhattan or Silicon Valley a quarter million dollars does not make you rich. or that $1 million “isn’t a lot of money”; Shortsighted. The link itself calls it a gaffe. When you liberals have glass-housed gaff machines as President and Vice President I wouldn’t go around throwing stones at other peoples’ houses.
• say that “Comrade” Obama is a “Bolshevik” who is “taking cues from Lenin”; Shortsighted. Uh – Cramer is a Democrat and a liberal.
• ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it; Double standard. Sorta like when black liberals use the N-word? But I do believe that political correctness has gone way too far.
• liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and “this Muslim guy” that “offed his wife’s head” Wrong. Sophistry. Geez – did you even bother to listen to what Limbaugh said? He did not “liken political opponents to murderers, rapists,” etc. or call then “un-American”; Shortsighted. If you are willing to govern against the Constitution you are “un-American”. There are a lot of Democrats who wish to ignore the Constitution. That’s what a ‘living constitution’ means – ignore it.
• say Obama “wants his plan to fail…so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy”; Dodges real issue. I don’t see any refutation of Morris’ reasoning.
• equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism; Irrelevant. Limbaugh used a colorful metaphor – big deal.
• smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics; Shortsighted. Sophistry. Another Democrat and liberal. Try looking in a mirror. This would be like smearing all pro-lifers with the murder of George Tiller, which you do below.
• say that the president wants to “annihilate us”; Sophistry. Context, context – sheesh! She was talking about Obama wanting to defeat conservatives.
• compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Shortsighted. Beck was talking about the effect on America. a Bolshevik plot Wrong. Shortsighted. I could not find anywhere in the link provided where health care reform was compared to a “Bolshevik plot” other than by Obama himself. (I had no idea that Obama was a Republican mole. Thanks for the tip off, Russell.) the attack on 9/11, Wrong. Shortsighted. Actually he compared the peoples’ willingness as in the necessity to examine a “2,000 page” health care bill, to the beefed up airport security of having to remove one’s shoes and wait up to two hours to board. I also notice that the Crooks and Liars website lives up to their name. In the second last paragraph that they textually quote, they fraudulently inserted “to work against the enactment of health care reform.” It is not in the video. Beck never said it, so I guess this is one website that cannot be trusted. or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators Shortsighted. Metaphor – big deal. (update: it’s also not Armageddon); Shortsighted. Another metaphor. (Boring…)
• equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with “what the Nazis did”; Shortsighted. If a person believes an embryo is a life then the assertion stands.
• call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath Sophistry. Please… Who do you think you are kidding? This was Chicago style arm twisting, kneecapping, bribery politics. (Oh – I forgot your sensitivity to metaphors – hope you won’t have a breakdown.) No refutation of what Romney said. or “the end of representative government”; Might be a bit hyperbolic, but Chicago style politics in Washington is not a good sign for the future of America.
• shout “baby killer” at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing — cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities); Double standard. You mean like when the President and virtually all of the Democrats taunted and mocked the Supreme Court Justices during the State of the Union speech?
• prove your machismo by claiming your going to “crash a party” to which you’re officially invited; Shortsighted. Again a metaphor – do all liberals have an inborn problem understanding symbolic communication or are you an unusual case, Russell?
• claim that Obama is pushing America’s “submission to Shariah”; Yup, occasionally an odd nut can be found under the tree. (Then again, there is that thing in Oklahoma…)
• question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law; Wrong. Straw man. These were not “defense” lawyers when they acted on behalf of terrorists. They acted as legal antagonists. No ordinary criminal gets this sort of representation. These lawyers were trying to undermine the incarceration of these terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. The Constitution is not defended when it does not apply. There were no “cherished American values” being upheld. These lawyers were attempting weaken the country’s ability to defend itself against terrorists similar to their clients. Theirs was a game of politics and ideology, not law. And they succeeded. Many have been released based on political pressure and are back in the terrorist game. [25yk528] And liberals like you applaud.
• claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence; Dealt with above.
• call a majority vote the “tyranny of the minority,” even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority — it’s democracy, not tyranny; Wrong. Shortsighted. She meant the minority were being tyrannized by the majority as when James Bovard said, “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
• call the president’s support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect “treasonous” (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party); Addressed above.
• call the Pope the anti-Christ; Straw man. Sophistry. Double standard. I don’t see anyone “call” the pope the anti-Christ in the link. But based on this sort of guilt by association Barack Obama is a communist since he attended a church with a communist pastor and theology. Oh – and I guess Obama hates America too.
• assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us; Shortsighted. Another metaphor… (shakes head).
• accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers, Questionable. This may or may not be true. The link does not refute the claim. drunk and suicidal; Shortsighted. And another metaphor…
• equate family planing with eugenics or Nazism; Sophistry. Shortsighted. There is no quote of “Nazism” at the link. And progressives ‘birthed’ eugenics that ‘birthed’ family planning.
• accuse the president of changing the missile defense program’s logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity; Already dealt with.
• accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists; terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and Double standard. This is a joke, right? See #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium.
• advocate a traitors act like seccession, Sophistry. Shortsighted. “Seccession” [sic] is not a “traitors act” [sic]. See Quebec, where legal votes on secession have been held. violent revolution , Even the link does not state that “violent revolution” is the intent. military coup Yep, seems farfetched, but I doubt it has many followers. or civil war (just so we’re clear: sedition is a bad thing). Shortsighted. She wasn’t advocating “civil war”. She was responding to a hypothetical question.am
• Nuking Russell King’s ‘History’ arguments
If you’re going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they’re NOT synonymous!) Wrong. Sophistry. See #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty and #7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense.
You can’t cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you’ve decided you don’t like his ideas. Wrong. Sophistry. This is a inaccurate (deliberately?). Jefferson was only removed from one section on world history that focuses on the enlightenment and was expanded with two other historic figures. [3z2k73p]
You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word “terrorism” or say we’re at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words. Sophistry. Straw man. The link claims that Dick Cheney supposedly said, “President Obama not only refuses to say we are at war with terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, but won’t even talk about terrorism at all.” It provides all kinds of video but none with this supposed claim by Cheney. The only actual quote of Cheney is “He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror’ we won’t be at war.” In fact early in this administration Janet Napolitano distanced the administration from the term “war on terror” by calling terrorism “man-caused disasters”. [5qp27s] Only once in the 27 Obama quotes is the “war on terrorism” mentioned, and without context. The fact that Obama insists that terrorists be tried as criminals is strong evidence that he does not consider America at war with terrorists, but sees them simply as criminals (except when convenient to execute with Predator drone missiles – see #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments). More evidence is the administration’s initial resistance to viewing the Fort Hood and the Christmas bomber incidents as terrorism. And more evidence is a policy of cleansing security documents of ‘offensive’ words like “Islamic extremism”. [ya2bqbq, 6rs2y6c]
If you’re going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one. Sophistry. McCarthy accused communists of being communists. Perino obviously misspoke.
You can’t just pretend historical events didn’t happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn’t make it better.) Sophistry. Shortsighted. Whatever the circumstances of earthquakes in Hawaii, it is apparent that Obama was simply attempting to somehow rationalize his buyoff of Mary Landrieu’s vote on health care reform. If his rationalization was legitimate, Mississippi would have received the same deal since they were also hit badly by Katrina, maybe even worse than Louisiana. The Hawaii statement was a canard. Obamacare will expand coverage by millions where insurance companies must pay for health problems not previously covered, and will tax the job-creating rich who provide many of the health coverage programs. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that premiums will have to increase and many people will lose their current coverage when they lose their jobs. [yfzy7yx]
You can’t say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from “socialist utopia”; health care reform is not “reparations”; nor does health care reform create “death panels”. Shortsighted. Straw man. The first link was dealt with in the last rebuttal. Liberalism is an offspring of John Dewey who espoused a progressive utopia. Utopia in a political sense refers to a belief that collective control leads to a better society. Obamacare fits this bill. People are already being pushed out of their private insurance. On the reparations issue, Beck raises a good question. Why, after faithfully attending, defending and praising a church of Black Liberation Theology for twenty years would Obama not have a chip on his shoulder, desiring to make things right? Remember above, you established your principle of church association. Coining Obama’s agenda as “back-door reparations” may have some legitimacy (do a search on Pigford). The death panel comment by Sarah Palin was obviously a metaphor for government managed care since she used her infant son as an example, who might live another hundred years (dealt with in #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel).an
• Nuking Russell King’s ‘Hatred’ arguments
You have to condemn those among you who:
• call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot; Wrong. Fraud. Videos of the supposed incident did not support the assertions, but even if some of the slurs happened there is no proof that they were from Tea Partiers and not from liberal trolls planted in the crowd attempting to bring a bad light on the Tea Partiers. (The supposed n-word incident will be dealt with in detail later.)
• elected leaders who say “I’m a proud racist”; Sophistry. He was obviously turning around the accusation of racism, claiming that if by the fact that “I happen to believe in America” that that means he is a racist, then he will accept that on those terms.
• state that America has been built by white people; Sophistry. He was simply responding to a Rachel Maddow question. This is an historically accurate statement: “This has been a country built basically by white folks in this country who were 90% of the entire nation in 1960 when I was growing up, Rachel, and the other 10% were African Americans who were discriminated against.” He correctly qualified the statement with “basically”, leaving room for others’ contributions, but correctly relegating them to a minor roll. What is there to argue with?
• say that poor people are poor because they’re rotten people, call them “parasitic garbage” or say they shouldn’t be allowed to vote; Wrong. Sophistry. Nowhere in the first link’s recording do I hear “poor people are poor because they’re rotten people”. As to the second link, it seems a bit over the top, but that some “parasitic garbage” gaming the system might turn up to get handouts from the government is not a long stretch. The third link is quite a rant against living off the government teat.
• call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don’t like their politics ( re – pea –ted – ly ); Sophistry. Double standard. After all of the sexist and much worse things liberals have said about Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and other conservative women these liberal complaints seem pretty lame. (More on this issue below.) [*y9srlzl, *34b9zns]
• assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers; Wrong. Sophistry. The link provided does not contain the accusation posited. When taken in context the metaphor in the audio link actually provided makes sense.
• mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son’s politics; Wrong. Sophistry. This is quite a stretch. This is a mocking of Obama. And lists of mocking liberal blog comments about dead conservatives or one’s who have had a medical emergency could fill the Alberta oilsands mining pits – sheesh! Two examples are the recent hospital admissions of Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. Liberals just couldn’t wait to express their hopes that they would die. Another even more recent example was the death of another prominent conservative, Andrew Breitbart, on the day he died! [*7qc4sto]
• declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just “Marxist radicals” but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too); Sophistry. The virus reference is just a colorful metaphor. And there are many avowed Maoists and other Marxist sympathizers in the Obama administration. (Yawn.)
• joke about blindness; No evidence that anyone thought it was funny and he apologized.
• advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent; Obviously he was being sarcastic to make a point, but I’ll grant it may have been a little too personal. Hope he apologized.
• taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases Yeah, there are stupid people in every crowd – so what? — especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast; Wrong. Sophistry. The “attack” on Michael J. Fox was for his shameless exploitation of his illness in the name of partisan politics.
• equate gay love with bestiality — involving horses or dogs or turtles or ducks — or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia; Yeah, they are over the top, but as mentioned above, didn’t the homosexual movement back in the seventies and eighties, when they were first demanding rights, assure us that they never would go so far as to demand homosexual marriage?
• casually assume that only white males look “like a real American”; Sophistry. Except that Noonan was an Obama supporter.
• assert presidential power to authorize torture, Wrong. Sophistry. There is no evidence that “presidential power” was used to “authorize torture”. torture a child by having his testacles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress; Sophistry. Most of these are spurious hypotheticals without context and are meaningless.
• attack children whose mothers have died; Wrong. Sophistry. The attacks were against the partisan politicians who exploited this child.
• call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they’ve said or done something that would even smell like racism — same for invoking racially charged “dog whistle” words (repeatedly); Sophistry. Double standard. This is rich, coming from a liberal, considering liberals use race baiting as a demagogic tool almost every day. Beck was not calling “people” racists. He singled out Obama for the considerable evidence that he dislikes white people. The Beck/reparations issue was dealt with above.
• condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on; Wrong. Sophistry. Few religions agree on “social justice”. And Beck was right that if a church that actually knows the meaning of social justice, and promotes it, they are promoting the egalitarianism of Marxism. [6ffevm] Of course some churches may not actually know the original meaning of social justice and just included it because it sounded nice or something.
• complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americansbecause of their race; Wrong. Sophistry. Another stretch. It is obvious he was talking about the ignorance of voters. (Sigh…)
• blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses; Wrong. Sophistry. They didn’t blame the victims. They blamed sins of the past. (Sheesh again!)
• celebrate violence , Wrong. Shortsighted. The guy was a leftwing nut. Here’s what he included in his suicide note: “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” joke about violence, Double Standard. You mean like as the Nation did? [*ygr9w3t] prepare for violence Wrong. Shortsighted. Neonazis are authoritarians and therefore are leftists – see #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty. or use violent imagery, Shortsighted. Another well known and used metaphor. Used as a metaphor it has nothing to do with violence. “fun” politicalviolence, Sophistry. “Fun” yes – “political violence”? No. (Talk about humorless.) hints of violence, Shortsighted. Again another metaphor. (Sigh again.) threats of violence Wrong. There was not one threat of violence at the link provided. (this one is rather explicit), Shortsighted. Yes, signs at rallies can get rather ‘creative’ – big deal. See #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium again. suggestions of violence Sophistry. C’mon – you can’t be serious… oractual violence This proves what? That there are nuts out there. Welcome to the real world. (and, really, suggesting anal rape wth a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); Yes, it is a silly thing to say. and
• incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a “bloody battle” with the president of the United States. Wrong. There was no inciting of “insurrection”, simply a warning to be prepared. Maybe a little over the top.ao
• Nuking Russell King’s conclusion
One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me. Agrees with what? That Obama was his choice for President? Yeah, that’s what Powell did, so he became a Democrat without the name. Big deal. You won’t impress any conservatives with Colin Powell.
So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Well, apparently conservatives got a good start on draining that swamp when you were scared off. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. I sure hope the Republican Party can do this. We certainly don’t have a “calm, responsible, grownup agenda” from the Democrats. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we’ll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you. Being an extreme liberal hardly makes you mainstream, Russell. America is a center-right country. [ycvapqh] Like I said earlier, America was rightfully upset with the leftward drift of the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 and were deceived into believing Obama and the Democrats would govern from the center. Voters have now seen that the Democrats are much worse than the Republicans ever were. With Republican’s current move back to the right in 2010, voters have followed.
(Anticipating your initial response: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.) With some context almost every accusation in your diatribe has been proven to be inaccurate or outright false. However, the handful of points that have any accuracy are highlighted by your references to liberal Democrats like Cramer, Koch and Obama – LOL! Your endemic dishonesty and hatred has been thoroughly exposed, Russell.ap
• Nuking Russell King’s moral hypocrisy argument
I see in your comments that you like the moral hypocrisy angle for condemning conservatives and Republicans, Russell. (For those who don’t know, the argument goes that because conservatives espouse moral values more so than do liberals, when conservatives cross them they are supposedly more culpable.) Moral hypocrisy is one of the most illogical of liberal arguments. The best way to illustrate this is to establish a basic principle, and the best way to illustrate a basic principle is to use a foundational example that produces a black and white result that can then be applied to less obvious but just as relevant examples. What a liberal is saying when they claim moral hypocrisy as their argument, is that if someone murders a person, but knows murder is wrong, he is a hypocrite. This would be equivalent to our conservative position in the moral hypocrisy argument, but if a person murders and thinks murder is OK, then this person is not a hypocrite. This would be the liberal position in the moral hypocrisy argument. The liberal moral hypocrisy argument states that somehow the liberal murderer is less culpable than the hypocrite conservative murderer, because at least the liberal murderer is not a hypocrite. So let me ask you this, Russell. Which one is a psychopath? Or more poignantly, which murderer would you be more comfortable with living next door to you? The one who, in a fit of passion, killed someone he found having an affair with his wife? Or Hannibal Lector? Once you figure that out you will be able to see the illogic of the liberal moral hypocrisy argument.
So who are the authentic group of hypocrites? The real hypocrites are liberals like you, Russell, when liberals like you claim that Republican tax cuts steal money from the poor to give to the rich. In #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?, I quoted a litany of alpha liberal leaders and organizations with this very assertion and illustrated how to verify that it is a universally accepted liberal “truth” with a number of Google searches. And like I said before, I have never witnessed a liberal denounce this liberal line of reasoning, and of course, I also proved with government revenue numbers that it is an utterly fallacious belief. However, it really doesn’t matter whether it is fallacious or not when it comes to liberals. The fact of the matter is that they believe it is true, but act in their own life as if it is not. This is an example of a true 100% hypocrite right to the core. Am I describing you, Russell? You are a classic case of an extremely paranoid alpha liberal. The odds that you would be the first liberal that didn’t believe tax cuts steal from the poor while keeping those very same tax cuts for yourself would be unimaginable. I found this statement on your blog: “Teapublicans can afford tax cuts for millionaires but cannot afford immunizations for low-income children.” Sounds just like a reverse Robin Hood scenario to me. In fact, you have painted yourself into a proverbial corner. Remember above, how we established a basic principle using a blatant example of two murderers? You have done the very same for us in your ‘letter’, Russell.aq
• Russell King’s own moral hypocrisy
In your Hypocrisy list above you wrote this: “You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.” So, in effect, we don’t even need the stolen tax cuts fallacy to illustrate your hypocrisy, Russell. We can extrapolate from your statement a basic principle that ‘one cannot enjoy what one condemns‘. This is the very basis of what I call a sophistic conundrum, where in your zeal to demagogue conservatives you so tie yourself in rhetorical knots with your own illogic as to make yourself out to be an utter fool. Russell, have you ever condemned Republican tax cuts? It is only a small step sideways within your own principle from: “You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it” to “You can’t enjoy a Republican tax cut while condemning it.” In fact, I see on your blog you have condemned (lied about) Republican tax cuts many times.
So have you paid back those Republican tax cuts, Russell? I didn’t think so. Do you realize what that makes you, Russell King? It makes you one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever witnessed (and one of the dumbest [shakes head]). First, you repeatedly throw out illogical moral hypocrite accusations attempting to somehow prove that liberals like you are superior to conservatives because you think a psychopathic killer is less culpable than a remorseful one. Then, you knowingly in your own mind, steal money from the poor and don’t give it back. This makes you a class A alpha hypocrite, Russell, but now we have hypocrisy that can even top that. Then, you announce that you believe in a principle that ‘one cannot enjoy what one condemns‘, and still you have not returned those Republican tax cuts that you have condemned. This now makes you a class AA alpha hypocrite, Russell.ar
• Reconciling Russell King’s moral hypocrisy problem
So I have a suggestion for you, Russell. I know how much you hate hypocrisy. Of course, you don’t want to continue to be a hypocrite yourself, but the problem is that thanks to your sophistic conundrum you are currently one of the biggest hypocrites around, Russell. Now the way I see it, you can clear your name by having a chartered accountant go through all of your tax records and calculate how much money you have benefited from Republican tax cuts over the years (of course including interest and any relative investment profits you may have made), and then make out a check for that amount to the Treasury Department address I gave above. Then you can post the cancelled check and the accountant’s breakdown of how he arrived at the amount on your blog for everyone to see (and perhaps an apology to the poor people you believe you stole from, like the mentally and physically handicapped, the homeless, and the “low income children” you deprived of “immunizations”). Until you do this you are a H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E by your own definition! (And a thief.)
Oh, oh. I just thought of something else. I see you live in Wisconsin, Russell. But I think you are going to have to move to Canada. You see, Wisconsin has a very free market healthcare system (relatively). They have the second lowest public health funding in the nation. [yfp5crz] That means your state’s health care system is overwhelmingly based on a private, free market model. And it works too. 91.5% of residents have health coverage. Very commendable. It also has “a very low number of preventable hospitalizations” and “a very high rate of primary care physicians with 12 physicians per 10,000 residents”. Sounds like for the most part the limited, private health care model is working relatively well in your state. Too bad you’ll have to give it up, Russell. After all, aren’t you the one with the principle that led you to write “You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it”? Let’s just change it a bit based on your own principle. “You can’t enjoy private medicine while condemning it.” Have you ever ‘condemned’ free market principles in healthcare, Russell? Indeed, how could you not, since it is the inverse of what you support. Sheesh! Again, you have stumbled head first into another sophistic conundrum. You are like a lame-brained spider that gets tangled in its own web, Russell.
In order to avoid this particular hypocrisy I suggest that you move to Canada, but beware, many clinics and hospitals are privately owned. Even family doctors operate as private businesses. Maybe you should instead move to Cuba where I’m pretty sure all of their health care is socialized from top to bottom. I’m not sure how you can prove it to the satisfaction of your blog readers – maybe you could post a copy of your mortgage for your new Cuban home. On second thought, they probably don’t have mortgages there since as a communist nation the government owns everything and you’ll probably just be assigned a hut. Anyway, at least you can post a picture of yourself and your family at the beach with your new government issued rice cooker. Say hi for me to whatever Gitmo detainees are left, will ya?as
• Bon voyage to Russell King & his liberal friends
However, it gets worse, Russell. You inadvertently turned all of your liberal sycophants across the internet into hypocrites as well when they praised your blog post without exception to the above noted entry. The only solution I can see for them is for you to offer your blog as a witness and apology site for them to post their apologies, cancelled checks, accounting breakdowns and Cuban beach photos with their rice cookers. After all, Russell, you wouldn’t want to be the cause of thousands of fellow liberals continually being hypocrites as well – would you? I guess there is going to be a large influx of liberals moving to Cuba. Bon voyage, all…
One last thing, Russell. Thanks for producing your ‘letter’. I couldn’t hope to find a better collection of liberal sophistry and demagoguery anywhere. You truly are a master paranoid demagogue. A tip of the hat to you – and have a nice day as you contemplate your move to Cuba!at
• Manufacturing an issue
Liberals love to manufacture issues of out nothing. Here’s one that backfired, hypocritically speaking.
2-16-12 “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”:
~ “Today’s hearing is a solemn one. It involves freedom of conscience. Ultimately, without the first pillar of our freedoms, the freedoms that we did not give up to our government, the American democracy and the experiment that has lasted for over two hundred years falls for no purpose. The architects of our constitution believed that our country would be a place that would accommodate all religions. In fact, it could not agree on religion more than anything else. Our founding fathers came from different religions, and they did not trust that one religious order would not circumvent another. For in fact, many came from a country in which they were of one religion and had to change to another on a government edict. Many look at establishment of religion as all it’s about, but ultimately our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, including George Washington and others all understood that in fact, their conscience was their guide, and their conscience came overwhelmingly from their religious convictions. […] Many will frame today not as about the first amendment, but about the particular issue that comes before us related to the Obama healthcare plan. This is not about that. In fact, if it is about that, we should be over at the energy and commerce committee or some committee dealing with health or other issues. This committee wants to fully vet with the most knowledgeable of both clergy and lay people that we can find, the real questions of where does faith begin, and where does it end. Where does government’s ability to influence decisions made by people of faith, and where does it end. These basic questions go to the heart of the constitution.”~ [83mx8ts]
I have a question for you, American neighbor. Now that you have read the opening statement from Congressman Issa of the Committee On Oversight and Government Reform, would you think this was a hearing on whether college coeds should have their contraception paid for by someone else just because they are college coeds? Read this again: “Many will frame today not as about the first amendment, but about the particular issue that comes before us related to the Obama healthcare plan. This is not about that.” The “particular issue” referred to was contraception, but the topic of discussion was not: “This is not about that.” For some reason feminist activist, Sandra Fluke didn’t understand that. Issa refused to allow her last-minute submission to testify, because who paid for her contraception was not the issue. The issue was whether the government has the right to impose those costs or other costs of conflict on religious institutions.
Democrats and the media jumped on this, holding up this refusal to hear a supposedly innocent 23-year-old coed as an attack on women’s rights. As it turned out, Fluke was not just some random, young, innocent coed, but a 30-year-old feminist with years of activism behind her. She specifically chose the Georgetown University because their insurance policy did not include contraception so that she could target their policy. [*728t8vd] Since this is her chosen activist issue, one would assume that she had thoroughly researched it. She claimed that she and other coeds could not afford the supposed $1000 per year for contraception. Did she present her receipts? Where are they? Why haven’t they been published? Why didn’t she just go to Target and buy her contraception for $108 per year? It was only one bus ride away. Probably she could have received free contraception from any of three Planned Parenthood clinics near the school. [*7mdxa59, 6lomqvw] Did she investigate these alternatives? Did she knowingly leave out that there were much cheaper options easily available. A lie of omission is still a lie. Of course, it could also be that she is just not very bright and has never heard of shopping around for the best price. Maybe she should have enrolled in a home economics class. (By the way, American neighbor, the pill is notorious for a side effect causing blood clots. The estrogen also passes right through water treatment plants, damaging aquatic life. Shouldn’t liberals like Ms. Fluke be marching on Washington demanding that it be outlawed? Jus askin’…)au
• Jumping on the double standard bandwagon
Rush Limbaugh made the admitted mistake of lowering himself to a liberal level of demagoguery (see #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium) when he compared Fluke to a slut and the situation to prostitution (he later apologized). He should have just looked on the internet for the cost of contraception and called her a liar or an idiot and left it at that (of course, hindsight is 20/20). Naturally, liberals jumped on their double standard bandwagon, protesting just as they did when liberal talk show host, Ed Shultz called Sarah Palin a “bimbo” and conservative talk show host, Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut”. Oh – wait. Liberals didn’t protest. Liberal talk show host, Keith Olbermann suggested it would have been better if female conservative commentator, S.E. Cupp had been aborted by her parents, called conservative commentator, Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick”, and suggested that Hillary Clinton be murdered to stop her from further participating in the 2008 Democratic primary. Liberal outrage? I don’t remember outrage at any of these comments. Matt Taibbi, featured writer of the Rolling Stone wrote, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” Crickets. Liberal talk show host, Chris Matthews has called Hillary Clinton a “she-devil”, “Nurse Ratched”, “Madame Defarge”, “witchy”, “anti-male” and “uppity”. Liberals yawn. Liberal talk show host, Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” and the c-word many times. Liberals think he is funny (I told you liberal humor was bizarre – it goes with that fourteen-year-old thing). In effect this condemns almost all liberals: [*8u42zdu] There are many more instances, including calling Condoleezza Rice an “Aunt Jemima”. [*7qswnew, *7nwyura] Infamous feminist, Gloria Steinem goes on Maher’s show, apparently not bothered by his juvenile taunts against women. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz still does too, but magnifies her double standards by criticizing Rush Limbaugh and berating Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney because he supposedly did not “call him out and ask him to apologize”. [838uer8] She already knew Rush had apologized, so what kind of convoluted thinking is that? Of course, Bill Mayer hasn’t apologized, but he is a liberal, his motives are pure, and Rush is a conservative, his motives are evil, so his apology is worthless. [/sarcastic illustration of liberal principles]av
• Rush was ‘Fluked’
I have already seen this a couple of times on the web: “Rush Limbaugh is being Fluked!” as in being “Borked”. It will probably stick as the new word describing liberal hypocrisy when attacking conservatives while looking the other way when liberals do the same thing or worse in larger numbers. Here is blatant example of being Fluked where the author writes as though only conservatives ever say anything bad, and liberals don’t seem to even exist in his universe (he obviously doesn’t realize that Father Charles Coughlin was a progressive collectivist). There are only evil conservative talk show hosts, a few loyal “radical” listeners, and an angry American populous. Talk about playing stupid… [*9ndurv4] (Go to #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium, for liberal talk radio examples that make Liddy and Limbaugh look like choirboys.)
Has Ms. Wasserman Shultz called for President Obama to apologize for smearing Tea Partiers as “tea-baggers” – a particularly nasty and demeaning term much worse than “slut” or “prostitute”, and more comparable to using the c-word of Sarah Palin. [772zj49] Rush Limbaugh is just one of many talk show hosts who have used questionable language to criticize their opponents, but Barack Obama is the sitting President of the United States. Former Senior Advisor to the President and now leader of his re-election campaign, David Axelrod claimed that Rush slandered “all women of America” [74dhhdr] That is a stretch. Rush was only talking about Fluke. Axelrod went on to say:
~ “I think one of the reasons why Gov. Romney and others were so timid in speaking out is because he’s the de facto leader of the Republican Party and to take him on would be to risk your own standing within the party.”~
So when are Democratic leaders going to “risk” their “standing within the party” and call out Barack Obama? (Hello! Calling on David Axelrod!) Update: When Axelrod said this he was scheduled to appear on Bill Maher’s show within a few weeks. [75rzqkb] When Obama slandered Tea Partiers, he really did slander a large portion of the America populous. It is one-hundred-fold more shameful than what Rush did, for a sitting President to label a significant portion of the population of the United States as this deliberately denigrating, sexually nefarious term.
What about Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and her 75 Democratic colleagues? [6s5b3rz, 6suhkvu, 7sh4t49] When will they demand an apology from the President? As for liberals calling for a boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors, in order to avoid being hypocrites (we already know how much liberals hate hypocrisy), I suggest that they demand and conduct a boycott of Barack Obama in this current presidential election campaign.aw
• Conservatives & Republicans have been ‘Fluked’ for a long time
Look, American neighbor, if you want nasty slurs just go back to the Conservatives are Motivated by Evil list in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion, where conservatives are accused by numerous liberal leaders of the most vile and heinous crimes against humanity, like deliberately putting Americans out of work, deliberately fomenting a race war, strategizing to get away with corruption, rejoicing in Democrats dying during Katrina, deliberately attempting to steal the American Dream away from the middle class, deliberately not caring about children, deliberately attempting to take healthcare away from the poor and wishing them to die, deliberately making enemies out of minorities, deliberately and casually attempting to profit from disasters, deliberately attempting to destroy the country, having a mindset of the Hitler youth, hating teachers, police officers, first responders and firemen, deliberately attempting to incite crazies to shoot Democrats, and deliberately desiring to destroy food safety, clean air and clean water. These are all much more severe slanders than calling a lying and/or not very bright feminist activist a “slut” and a “prostitute” based on her wanting to take other people’s money to fund her sex habits. The President of the United States called Tea Partiers “terrorists” just because they disagree with his healthcare program! (But he is too timid to call real terrorists, “terrorists”.) Liberals really should look in a mirror…ax
• Sandra Fluke was a plant & liberals don’t care
Updates: So, now we find out that Sandra Fluke was not just some innocent, wide-eyed coed pleading for a little financial help to get her through school. It also turns out that she was not just some lonely activist boldly taking on the machine, but she was actually a White House plant all along. Surprise, surprise – not! So much for the excuse that Limbaugh was supposedly attacking an innocent civilian. She really was prostituting herself – for Barack Obama. No wonder he was so quick to phone her with condolences congratulations on a job well done, and an assurance that the check was in the mail. [*7l45m4j] It also turns out that the whole war on women angle and the boycott against Rush Limbaugh was a well coordinated astroturf project between Media Matters, the White House and House Democrats. Nothing here is as what it seems. [*88j2chg] The boycott was basically an attack by the liberal 1% of rich Americans against what the majority of the 99% want to listen to on the radio. If it was al Qaeda doing it, we would call it a terrorist assault on America’s freedom. [*6lqvqnn, *cpk69t5] Be sure to read that last link all the way through, American neighbor. Liberty is about the free exchange of ideas, not intimidation – that is fascism.
New York Times writer, Stanley Fish wrote a particularly pertinent column about this episode which clearly defines the contemporary liberal attitude toward morals:
~Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?~ [6su5szv]
In other words, Schultz and Maher have proper motives, so they can be excused or even applauded, but Rush Limbaugh has evil motives, so “Why should he get an even break?”
From one teen mom to the son of a teen mom, Bristol Palin has called out the President: [*cn7r3v2] Expect liberals to call her more names, and Barack Obama to pretend he didn’t hear anything.
So, let’s get this straight. Rush Limbaugh called an activist a slut for demanding other people’s money for sex, apologized, and still became a target of a preplanned astroturf campaign. Spike Lee tweeted the wrong address of George Zimmerman to sick his sicko fans on him, instead placed an innocent retired couple in danger from his sickos, Lee refused to call off his sickos, send the couple money to compensate them for their inconvenience, or to even apologize, and liberals yawned. Uh-huh… [ccsa2se] (I’m sure the President will call the couple and offer his condolences soon.) [/sarcasm]ay
• Liberal creates a straw man army
Recall from #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, I wrote this:
“The uber-liberal Daily Kos social website, of which I read often, is filled to overflowing with alpha liberals who are blindingly ignorant about the conservatism they think they are despising – they have a completely caricatured view of conservatism. Even when they watch Fox News or listen to rightwing talk radio their ingrained scoff response distorts what they hear and prevents them from accurately understanding the issues from a conservative viewpoint. They are at war with an army of straw men that Genghis Khan would fear.”
Here is an example in the form of a Daily Kos Diary with an animation video and poll where a supposed Tea Partier and Barack Obama square off in a fictional debate: [*4nw5z6o] It is little different than Russell King’s rant in its compulsive paranoia and detachment from reality.
Straw Man #1: He begins by having the supposed Tea Partier claim he fears “my government”. The Tea Party does not see the current government as “my government”, but as usurped by a foreign mindset. The diarist has Obama say, “In a democracy we are the government.” This is a platitude that in no way precludes someone from legitimately fearing their government – liberals feared George W. Bush’s government for a whole host of perceived evils. (Indeed, go back and look again at the List of Evils in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion – it can be argued that liberals are paranoid of just about everything in America.) When a government passes legislation that takes over one sixth of the American economy, on Christmas eve, by purchasing votes from its own party members through earmark payoffs, with no bipartisan support, and with a vocal majority of Americans rejecting the bill, that is a government that does not respect democracy and is to be legitimately feared.
Straw Man #2: Next, he has the supposed Tea Partier claim he fears the government because it makes him pay taxes. Nice. Do I really have to explain that conservatives are not against paying taxes, but are for limiting the amount of taxes paid? Sheesh!
Straw Man #3: Then, the supposed Tea Partier is made to look unserious by stating, “I just want the government to be small so I can drown it in a bathtub. Ha ha ha!” Demagoguery without context.
Straw Man #4: Obama is then made to conclude that the supposed Tea Partier wants to “destroy” democracy. This is what happens when you see your opposition as motivated by evil. Conservatives obviously just want to totally destroy what is good and noble. [rolls eyes]
Lie: Then he has Obama state a flat out lie, “I agree that the government should be careful about how it spends taxpayer money.” Barack Obama has shown NO CARE for how his government has spent taxpayer money or money borrowed from future generations.
Straw Man #5: Of course, there is the obligatory scapegoating of Bush and Reagan for increasing the debt, claiming that the supposed Tea Partier did not complain then. Conservatives did complain, but had no public voice during Reagan with the media wholly controlled by liberals, and even when they did have a voice during Bush, few Americans listened, and we have already seen with our Governance Indicators from #12 Can Governance Indicators Tell You Who Governs Best? Absolutely!, that Democrat governance correlates with much more of the national debt creation than does Republican governance.
Straw Man #6: In addition there is always the old liberal favorite of, “Cheney even said, ‘Deficits don’t matter.'” We dealt with how liberals take this quote out of context in #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, and illustrated that in context Vice President Cheney was 100% correct.
Straw Man #7: Then there is the myth about the Clinton surpluses that we have already dismissed in #3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths.
Straw Man #8: The diarist then claims through Obama that the supposed Tea Party “held the entire government hostage to force it to give away trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich” (of course we dealt with this #4 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?). Notice this presumes that money first belongs to the government and is given away to the rich. Also notice that the diarist seems to be clueless about the fact that Barack Obama pushed for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, warning of catastrophic results for the economy if they were not extended. D’oh!
Straw Man #9: The diarist goes even further making the ludicrous claim that, “One hundred percent of the money for those tax cuts has to be borrowed and added to our national debt, so the reason we have no money left is because you gave it away in tax cuts for the rich.” Again we have the same silly presumption that the money first was in the government’s hands and then given to the rich. This guy obviously has no clue as to how the marketplace works. It was never the government’s money and the government never had that money. I get the feeling this diarist is not playing stupid. And again – Obama was a backer of this policy and led the charge for it. Daily Kos was in full mutiny at the time. Sheesh again!
Straw Man #10: Another liberal favorite is to claim that George W. Bush only created one million jobs over his eight years in the Presidency. Of course, they leave out that this is “net” jobs, and that he inherited a market crash along with a recession and then there was the negative impact on the economy of 9/11 which destroyed jobs for the first 2 1/2 years of his administration, and then there was another economic crash at the end of his two terms that we have already discovered was a result of liberalism’s unintended consequences in #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis. In between however, eight million jobs were created between June, 2003 and December 2007. [n8g5cl] And again, in #12 Can Governance Indicators Tell You Who Governs Best? Absolutely!, we discovered with the Governance Indicators that Democrats correlate with much more unemployment over the years than do Republicans.
Lie: Then there is the lie about the 2009 stimulus legislation that he has Obama state, “I spent less than one trillion dollars on the stimulus act and created over 3.7 million jobs.” This is that old dog about 3.6 million jobs “saved or created” that we debunked in #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?. Notice that this diarist stretches the number to “over 3.7 million jobs” and omits the “saved” part.
Mind Boggling Ignorance: The diarist then has Obama say, “If we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and get healthcare costs under control we can pay down the national debt when the economy recovers.” Please tell me I don’t need to explain how ludicrous this statement is, American neighbor. Talk about a proverbial drop in the bucket…
More Mind Boggling Ignorance: The diarist then goes on to have the supposed Tea Partier claim one hundred billion dollars can be cut from the budget by eliminating public broadcasting, Amtrak, the National Endowment for the Arts and research on alternative energy. This guy actually thinks one hundred billion dollars is too much to cut from the budget. Heaven help us! He also thinks these are “critical job programs”. What alternate universe is this guy posting from?!?
Straw Man #11: Next is the ridiculous claim that Wall Street was solely to blame for the 2008 financial crisis which we unmasked in #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis.
Straw Man #12: The diarist then has the supposed Tea Partier claim, “If we give money to rich people we will become rich ourselves some day.” Again there is this misguided idea that the government first has the money and then just gives it to rich people. No Tea Partier would ever make this claim.
Demagogic Conclusion: The video ends with childish caricatures of the noble liberal standing his ground against the evil conservative (of course).
So, in just a 3 1/2 minute video, this Daily Kos liberal has managed to valiantly fight off twelve straw men! (Genghis Khan would be proud.) The following poll in his Diary (“How crazy are the tea baggers?”) is superbly indicative of liberal paranoid detachment from reality where 50% of respondents voted for:
~They are so crazy they actaully [sic] believe the line that “tax cuts do not cost the government money because they just let people keep more of their own money.” Therefore, we could all pay zero taxes and it would not cost the government anything to operate.~
This conclusion is so nonsensical as to be funny. They have a caricatured straw man view of tax cuts that is way beyond playing stupid (and they think Tea Partiers are crazy?!?). Let’s go with their line of thinking and conclusion for a moment. By extension, if we were to just pay all of our money in taxes for equitable redistribution we could have – Bingo! – utopia! Welcome to the detached unreality of paranoid and insular liberal thought, American neighbor. (I see the diarist was so self-satisfied with his first effort that he made a second video that is even more nonsensical than the first. But I’ll spare you that one, American neighbor – you’re welcome…)az
• Deprogramming lessons
This essay has presented classic examples of the principles: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. They are also examples of an alpha liberal illustrating his own programming and his contribution to programming other liberals: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. The liberal weapons principle and the double standards principle, American neighbor: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking. And Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. There are also some excellent and funny examples of the principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. But what really stands out is the liberal idea that all liberal failures and indiscretions can be excused while any sort of sophistry and demagoguery on comparable issues is acceptable toward conservatives – now known as being “Fluked”: A contemporary liberal’s honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions. A contemporary conservative’s evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. And as usual, the worst enemies of liberal thinking completely obliterate Russell Kings finely crafted sophistry: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink.
I can’t help but laugh at Russell King’s paranoid projection of his own hypocrisies – his 800 pound gorillas are so obnoxious, if he could actually see them past his scoff reflex he would need to beat them off with a baseball bat! This surely is the best set of examples of the projection principle I have ever seen: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. Lesson learned: A liberal’s hypocrisy can be measured in a direct parallel with their demagoguery. He has absolutely no clue that he is doing it. A textbook could be written about this depth of programming and compulsive paranoia – amazing!
One last thing. Remember that I stated in the MCTE that liberals are all accusation and no substance. Russell King obviously illustrates this very well (again I deny that I paid him as a put up job – honest, American neighbor). More of this can be witnessed any day in the liberal blogosphere. Try almost any attack piece in the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. They are basically exercises in finding as many ways as possible to remake the same accusations over and over without actually having to put any substance to them. Of course, there will also be side jabs, again without substance, but all more than satisfactory for liberal members who chip in with their own unsubstantiated comments and accusations to reinforce the original accusations. Groupthink in action.
Now we can see that our MCTE question relates to the sophistic conundrum: “Would it be hypocritical to criticize something, but still utilize it anyway, regardless of context?” The sophistic conundrum can be witnessed throughout the liberal media as well. I read a column on Rolling Stone where the author insisted that Tea Partiers that used Medicare were hypocrites for also calling for smaller government. It is the same illogic as Russell King where according to liberals, if one objects to something, one must not use it, even if one has been forced to pay for it all of one’s taxed life and affordable alternatives are forced out of the marketplace. I bet I could find many things that this Rolling Stone author has objected to over the years that he still utilizes. For instance, I doubt he has paid back those stolen tax cuts.
Congratulations are in order just for suffering through this much irrationality in this essay, American neighbor. If this hasn’t awakened you to the depths of utter stupidity and compulsive paranoia that liberals can sink, I’d hate to see what would be necessary. (Actually, now that I think about it, the next N.C. essay, #16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll does top this one in the utter stupidity department.) Surely, if anything, you must see that compared to this, you are not a liberal, American neighbor.ba
• Deprogramming exercise
This essay is basically one giant deprogramming exercise, American neighbor. So have a coffee, relax, and ponder about long lists of liberal idiocy and compulsive paranoia compiled with mind-boggling illogic.bb
• Humor, sort-of
To end this essay of utter stupidity it is simply paramount that our humor comes again from the “And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid…” file. This is another superb illustration of a liberal sophistic conundrum and the corresponding liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.
For a chuckle at more illogical liberal nonsense check out this link: [*3rpmuo7]  Apparently, by this screwy liberal reasoning right out of the Russell King handbook, if you object to having much of your money forcibly taken from you by the government to spend on things you disagree with, you should not use anything the government finances with the money they forcibly take from you. So what is the principle here? It is the same as Russell King’s ‘brilliant’ logic – if you object to something, you must not use it. And here’s another example where Republican farmers elected to office are criticized as “hypocrites” for accepting farm subsidies in their past while later campaigning against government spending. [*35rufys] (Note the websites and the comments below the articles.) So I guess they were supposed to refuse the subsidies which would have then made them unable to compete in the marketplace and have to fold their operations. This is such utter nonsense. These farmers did not unbalance the farm marketplace by creating these subsidies. They simply had to play in the same sandbox as other farmers. There was no other marketplace that they could operate in, where their direct competitors did not accept subsidies. If they wanted to be competitive they had to play by the same rules. Calling them “hypocrites” for playing by the enforced rules of the game while not liking those rules is completely idiotic. For another example of this sort of idiocy, Senator Chuck Schumer has kindly obliged: [*2d8prem] And here is another example where the roles are reversed and Democrats condemned the Republican use of nondisclosure political groups as, “It’s a threat to our democracy”, but apparently not so much of a threat for Democrats to use them as well. According to Russell King and these Daily Kosers the Democrats are hypocrites for playing by the same rules as the Republicans because they object to those rules. [5wnok9p]
Let’s turn this around and I’ll illustrate the total, blithering irrationality of this line of liberal thinking. Liberals hate hypocrisy as the nastiest of all sins, and they also hate banks, so I guess they’ll have to stop using banks. They hate big pharma, so no more drugs. They hate coal, so no more electricity. They also hate big oil, so I guess liberals are going to have to stop using cars or public transportation, and no more airplanes or bus trips. As well, they hate big corporations, so they’ll have to give up their pensions. (This is fun – I could play this game all day long. For many, many more just peruse the List of Evils in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion.) Since liberals also object to free market capitalism I guess they will now have to voluntarily stop using anything produced by the free market so they will no longer be hypocrites. If you liberals have a job that is in the private sector you’ll have to quit, and no purchasing of products manufactured by private sector free market companies. No soap, shampoo or toilet paper – at least we’ll always know when liberals are coming – eee-ewww! No houses except housing projects. Oops – even housing project houses are built by private sector free market companies from free market construction materials. I guess liberals will have to live in public parks or along the side of highways. I would suggest tents, but I don’t think there are any socialist tents either. I guess you’ll all just have join Russell King and the rest of his anti-free-market-healthcare friends in Cuba, but you’ll have to build rafts I guess, since I don’t know of any socialist airlines or shipping lines. Who’d have thunk there would ever be American boat people trying to get out of America and into Cuba? Some liberals are just nuts! Or just fleeing their own hypocrisy I guess… (Or both.) [But, dammit! This isn’t going to be good for my conversion rate! Grrrr!]
One last thing. What is it with President Obama teaching his two young daughters that he and Michelle would be proud parents if when they get to college either of them announces to the world that they are enjoying a lot of coed sex? What kind of f**ked-up parents are they anyway?!? [75uvlhj] (Sorry for the language, American neighbor, but it’s just in keeping with earlier in the essay – certainly, since President Obama doesn’t think he needs to apologize for derogatorily calling Tea Partiers “tea-baggers” and “terrorists”, he would have no objection.)