Thursday, April 8, 2010

Fun With Liberals / Progressives

One of my posts got picked up in a comment to a post on a leftie blog, Deleware Liberal. The post at Deleware Liberal is about an e-mail making the rounds where a liberal takes the right to task for getting mad now, yet not getting mad about "outrages" during the Bush years. It really is so over the top as to be worthy of a fisking.

This from Deleware Liberal with appended commentary:

This is a repost of an email forward making the rounds. Yeah, we liberals also have email forwards just like the conservatives, but with one major difference. Ours are not filled with lies.

LIES LIES LIES - ALL LIES, I TELL YOU, LIES . . . . lollll. If you can't win an argument, then demonize everyone who doesn't agree with you. I doubt this joker will win any debating contests.

We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, but now you get mad!

- Hmm, not really. I voted for them.

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

- Legal recount? Talk about denial. The NYT stayed in Florida and did the recount themselves - ultimately finding that Bush won even using all of the recount methods put forth by Gore. And besides that, all the Supreme Court did was make the Florida State Supreme Court adhere to FLORIDA STATE LAW and end the recount on Dec. 12. That was the day the recount ceased to be legal under Florida law. So no, didn't get mad at that one.

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

- Oh, spare me. I damn well wish they dictated it. Given that over half of our annual trade deficit is spent importing foreign oil and given that we have completely shut ourselves out of exploiting our own massive oil and gas resources, you will have to tell me just what part of that "energy policy" they dictated.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative had her cover blown simply for contradicting Dick Cheney.

Lolllllllll . . . . this is so ridiculous. Plame's cover was blown because she was in the middle of sending her low life husband to Africa to investigate Iraq's quest for nuclear materials. When debriefed, he told the CIA that indeed Iraq had been seeking to purchase yellowcake uranium, then ostentatiously claimed in an NYT editorial that "Bush lied" about Iraq posing any sort of nuclear threat - leaving out of course that bit about them trying to buy yellow-cake. Now I am mad about that and have been for years. As to the person who "outed" her, that was Richard Armitage - and if you are claiming that he was acting on behalf of Bush and Cheney, you're nuts.

So let me ask you, are you mad about the John Adams project and the fact that our covert operatives are being exposed to Islamic terrorists? That really yanks my chain - as does the fact that they are being hailed as heros by Eric Holder.

You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

Are you talking about under President Bush or by the Democratic controlled Congress under Obama, or both? I have to ask since your question is a bit ambiguous.

You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

Poll any Democrat in Congress - or Bill Clinton or even Al Gore - back in 2002 and see if they felt Iraq posed no threat to us. If you want to rewrite history, at least make sure there's no public record that completely contradicts you're rewrite. And who is it to decide that a war authorized by Congress is illegal? You? The UN? Should we give the UN veto power over our foreign policy. Lolllllllllll . . . . these people really are a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

Every potential action has an opportunity cost. Thus, spending the money on the war once we were in it must be measured against the cost of surrendering and pulling out. And with that in mind, I got really mad when 2006 rolled around and the left did everything they could to surrender in Iraq, wholly ignoring the existential ramifications for America and solely for the purpose of taking political power. I got really mad when I listened to Harry Reid personally issue a surrender and then again when Obama said he didn't care if surrender would result in genocide. And once we were in the war. had we surrendered to al Qaeda in 2006, the cost to our nation in the long run would have made $600 billion seem paltry indeed.

You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

Ummmmm, yeah, I actually did about that.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

True, but I did get mad as hell when Obama, "in a breathtaking display of self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance, . . . told Americans that his personal beliefs are more important than protecting their country, their homes and their families." Actually I and the majority of Americans do not consider waterboarding torture. Certainly it is not "torture" as that word is defined by law. But by all means, thrill me with your acumen. Explain to me how waterboarding or any of the approved methods of enhanced interrogation met the legal definition of torture under U.S. law or the U.N. Convention Against Torture. And let me help you out here. Saying waterboard is "torture" simply because you call it "torture" is not a strong argument.

You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

Again, do you mean under Bush or under Obama?

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

So are you mad that Obama hasn't captured him yet?

You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

Actually, that one did have me spitting blood.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown.

Hah. You have to love the melodramatics here. So, what, it was Bush with flippers putting underwater charges around New Orleans? As to the flooding, build a city next to the ocean and on terrain below sea level . . . . . I think you need to take that one up with, one, God, and two, the city planners responsible for the dykes.

You didn’t get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.

Letting people keep the money they have earned tends not to upset me too much. Taking their money at the point of a gun and then redistributing it for political purposes, however, now that does set me off.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark, and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark.

Actually, we on the right were complaining about republicans spending like drunken Democrats for years. How does the left think they won so big in 2006 and 2008. Of couse, had we understood the alternative . . . . But everyone does now. We can talk about this some more in mid-November.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

I am a heartless bastard, aren't I.

Leaving aside for the moment the arguement as to whether health care is a "right," please tell me any person you know who is sick but goes untreated for lack of access to a doctor. Every emergency room in the US is by law required to treat whoever walks through the door. Every major city in our nation has public hospitals that attend to the poor. Hell, even in my little town, I go to a clinic that gives out health care at little cost to the indigent. I pay my fair share for it simply because I like that particular doctor.

There are two problems here that need to be addressed. One, how to make healthcare affordable for all, and two, how to make it fit within our economy. Obamacare fails miserably on both counts, but it does increase the size and power of the federal government exponentially. That is hitting the trifecta of disasters.

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans… oh hell no.


Lolllll . . . . you have to hand it to these jokers. They may be more than a little thin on rationality and the ability to articulate an argument based on citation to fact, but when it comes to melodramatics and demonization, they are the best.


OBloodyHell said...

>>>>> You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

"No threat"? That's so patently ludicrous it's not even funny.

a) Saddam operated *3* out of the SIX known terrorist training camps in the world as of 2002. I qualify that as "a threat".

b) One of those camps was the only one of the six with a completely intact airframe solely for the purpose of training in the takeover of an airline in flight. Are we REALLY so stupid as to believe that the 9/11 hijackers did NOT arrange to make use of this? That's not proven, it's just one of those things that seems so improbable for it to NOT have been the case that it's an automatic working assumption for anyone not totally brain dead. I qualify that as "a threat".

c) Saddam rewarded the families of the 911 terrorists hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does the phrase "encouraging others to follow suit" qualify as a threat? Is egging on your friend to shout "Fire!!" in a crowded theater a threat to the safety of all therein? Does a cowboy fart around the campfire? I qualify that as "a threat".

d) Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix -- most certainly NOT a Bush shill -- after examining the state of Saddam's facilities post-invasion, openly stated that within 180 days of the collapse of sanctions, Saddam would be fully set up to manufacture both Botulin and Anthrax in industrial quantities. Now, do you really, truly believe that, given "a" and "c", along with the fact that he used nerve gas on his OWN subjects, the Kurds, that Saddam would NOT have made them available for use to terrorist groups against the USA and/or Israel? Even if you claim you can't prove that he would have done so (which of course you can't), that fact still, without any doubt of any kind, absolutely CERTAINLY takes the term "No Threat" off the table in any rational discussion. Oh, wait, that was a libtard making the comment. *Never Mind*.

e) Saddam was only in power because he made agreements as to how he was going to behave in the aftermath of the Gulf War. HE VIOLATED THOSE AGREEMENTS OVER AND OVER. There was nothing even "vaguely" illegal about applying the foreclosure notice on his "renege".

f) What actual weapons he had were irrelevant. He was ACTING as though he had them. He CLAIMED he had them. He had them IN THE PAST. He USED them in the past. He REFUSED to allow inspectors in to see that he didn't have them. Every major intelligence agency BELIEVED he had them. Congress BELIEVED he had them.
LOOK: If I start yelling at my neighbors like a madman... If I shoot a gun into their house a few times without hurting anyone... If I start bellowing on a bullhorn that I'm coming over there in four hours and am going to kill every last one of them AND their little dog, too... If the cops then come by after these neighbors call them, and, in the dark, I WAVE MY HAND ABOUT WITH SOMETHING GUN-SHAPED IN IT, all the while ignoring the instructions from the cops to put up my hands and get on the ground, and THEY SHOOT ME DEAD, and it turns out I had a kielbasa in my hand, it's not the friggin' COPS' fault I'm dead.

"When you're walking on eggs, DON'T HOP."

Saddam was doin' a friggin' Flamenco.

QED. The invasion was justified.

> these people really are a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

They're missing all the McNuggets from a McBushel McBasket filled with McHappy McMeals.

When they constantly re-trot out every one of these hoary BS "talking points" which have been disproven over and over and over again yet they Still Can't Acknowledge Them As Fact. You can't beat facts into these morons with anything but a sledgehammer. And I don't mean a metaphorical one.

OBloodyHell said...

>>>>> You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

> Again, do you mean under Bush or under Obama?

You BOTH mean under Clinton

And actually, I DID. I'm actually on record about it.

After 911, my objections decreased substantially, as they were based until that point on the lack of international terrorism of any significance inside America.

>>>>>> You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

> So are you mad that Obama hasn't captured him yet?

No one is going to "catch" him. He's wormfood under a million tons of rock, fermenting away since 2003 or 2004. It's pretty obvious that the "current" Bin Laden is a fake (which I shan't go into here).

The Western governments go along with that fake because it makes more sense to have him fade away rather than risk him becoming a martyr for the cause.

>>>> You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Not at all.

First off, there's no such "right". Given that doctors didn't even exist such as it is only 200 year ago, it's kind of hard to have something that isn't a part of the innate human condition be a "right".

Second off, if providing such service destroys the country's economy, pretty soon we might wind up being back to that situation 200 years ago where NO ONE has a doctor. Collapsed economies often do that. One of the more "successful" ones happened in a place called the Weimar Republic. No doubt you've heard of its successor.

> tell me any person you know who is sick but goes untreated for lack of access to a doctor.

Hey, this man is all about free acupuncture!!! And free homeopathy! And free [insert quackery here] !!

It worked for Andy Kaufman, it'll work just as well for them, too! Let's hope they all don't have to wait as long as the rest of us will for real medical care.