Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Such are all their wicked works, and there is no truth in them.

Although most Democrats already know that most Republicans are, as a group, pathological lying sacks of shit, perhaps it will be the government shutdown that brings this fact into focus for most of America.

I doubt it - much of the country is blinded by partisan hatred of our president, and the many of the rest will stick with the "both sides do it" cop-out. But a guy can hope, right?

This tiny-minded Koch-sucking group of overwhelmingly Caucasian males has, for the most part, stopped even trying to tell the truth, because they know that any lie they tell will be twisted by a compliant press to extract what few grains of reality might have accidentally been included.

Alternatively, when there isn't a passing relationship with the truth in whatever ignorant statement they vomited up, Fox "News" and the right-wing blogs will simply repeat it over and over, louder. And through sheer repetition, the hope is that the inbred paste-eaters making up their "base" will come to believe it anyway.

And sadly, this tactic all too often works.

The GOP has turned the act of making ridiculous untruths a standard move in their playbook. They've been lying about the Affordable Care Act for so long, and in such idiotic ways, that they can't even make lucid arguments any more. They just devolve into random spewings of illegitimate talking points and mindless babble.

These "fiscal conservatives" who are so worried about passing along the costs to our children? They're costing the country $300 million per day that the government is shut down.

John Boehner's latest mantra is that he won't even allow reopening the government to come to a vote, because it couldn't pass. Which is an open and blatant lie, as just a little math will tell you. But it doesn't matter. Why would Boehner want to allow the government to reopen? There is ample evidence that the GOP has been trying to shut down the government since at least 2010.

The GOP has lied about the Affordable Care Act so hard, and for so long, that the drooling illiterati don't even know what they want any more. In poll after poll, they show that they support every aspect of Obamacare; they just hate anything named "Obamacare." This is so universal that late night comedians can create viral videos around the concept.



One of the GOP's current talking points is that Obamacare must be defeated because it was "rammed through in the middle of the night without a single Republican vote." Which, of course, ignores an entire year of committee meetings, and dozens of compromises and changes to make it palatable to the Republicans who joined in voting for it.

But the brightest zit on the GOP nose, the puddle of puke that they keep returning to, is "he won't meet with us." Which is eyeball-meltingly stupid. He's met with them multiple times - he just hasn't caved in to their demands. Because you don't negotiate with terrorists.

In fact, that's probably the one fact that's driving them into the most stroke-inducing paroxysms of rage. Obama has been compromising and negotiating with them for so long that, now that he's standing firm on a position, they don't know what to do.

So they've shut down the government, after planning on it for so long. And now that they've done it, they don't even know what they actually want. The few who realize that defunding "Obamacare" is a losing proposition don't care. Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind) accidentally let slip the fact that they really don't care about the American people any more - they govern with the calm logic of a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

The lunatics have taken over the asylum. They've taken their hostages and are screaming about what they're going to do to them. It may be time to reactivate Seal Team Six.

20 comments:

  1. I laugh everytime I hear a partisan call the other side partisan while claiming to be non partisan themselves.

    Time for more popcorn and beer. Let the comedy show continue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My problem with assorted assumptions assibilated by comment assailants should be obvious. In short, anon is an ignorant and pompous ass. Which brings me to the purpose of my visit and a warning:

      These waters are visited by predatory cephalopods. Since my natural habitat precludes my kind from enjoying an open flame or home cooked meal, we eat our food - not just raw - but alive as a matter of necessity. Table etiquette is a simple matter of “catch-n-crunch.” Nevertheless, we measure fine cuisine by a higher standard: What dies in our mouths melts in our mouths, and our taste buds are finely attuned to the five stages - and flavors - of death and dying: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

      Bon appetite!

      Delete
  2. Sorry Anon, what this post is about is not one side calling the other side "partisan." If that's what you're thinking, then you're woefully wrong. It isn't "partisan" to be angry at a minority of a minority who are costing this country hundreds of millions of dollars a day because they will not accept a law that was duly passed and litigated by all three branches of government. That's one. Second, it isn't "partisan" to call out a political party that is lying about their reasons for taking this country AGAIN to financial brinkmanship. In the event you haven't noticed, it is NOT the Democrats who have done this.

    To keep pinning the label "partisanship" to both political parties as a way of avoiding the facts, which Anonymous so blithely does, shows a cynically shocking ignorance of reality. That, or Anonymous is just a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the things I like about this blog is the intellectual challenge. I'm not talking about you.

    Arguments of false detachment:

    Reducing a debate to a contest without content is a low level ploy. What you're trying to do is to create a straw argument -- an argument where neither side is right and can pass unbiased judgement. you're doing it so that the side you favor is elevated above the falsehood it is and questions of true or false disappear - or so you hope. Simply put, falsehood, whether of intent or of fact does not make partisans of those who object. The arithmetic teacher and his students are not partisans.

    And of course you favor a side, because otherwise you wouldn't have read this, much less commented on it. So we have a partisan posing as a non-partisan, criticizing someone for partisanship. The sort of thing we might find in one of those masturbatory Tea Party festivals.

    This is however a real argument between people who are insisting that Affordable Health Care is a bill so explosively evil that it will destroy the economy and produce, as many of them have said, effects comparable to the Nazi takeover of the Weimar Republic: a battle between people with an interest in economic collapse and people interested in reforming this Dickensian holdover from the Industrial Revolution.

    And so to prevent this "disaster", they wish to cause an economic collapse while chittering all along about how many jobs it will cost and how providing access to PRIVATE health care at a lower cost will deprive the population of health care. I need no go on. One side is basing their argument on gross lies, fanciful fabrications, gross distortions and gross negligence and all for the purpose of destroying what economic recovery we've had so far. That recovery being an obstacle to promoting the idea they've been selling -- that "Obamas policies" will destroy the economy and destroy democracy and destroy freedom.

    But why do I go on? You're just here to be a saboteur, a provocateur. You've failed and if there is indeed entertainment value here it's the little farce of a worm putting on condescending airs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Assumptions are, often wrong.

    That and the other thingy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did somebody knocked down your bridge and leave you homeless?

    With regards to your first point - I have never claimed to not be partisan. I started out as a conservative, and gradually worked my way back to humanity. I'm on the side of the American people.

    My point here, however, is simple. The forces lined up on the right side of the aisle are building their entire case on a foundation of lies. The fact that they then take those lies and embed them in a fabric of right-wing partisan nonsense is entirely secondary.

    As to your second point... sorry, it isn't really a point, by the standard definition, is it?... Except that it is... So, as to your second comment...

    I can't believe that you placed that comma there by accident. You're a zen master, aren't you?

    "Assumptions are."

    That is so deep. And then to contrast that with your second statement.

    "Often wrong."

    That is just so... so very... yeah. Very...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The comma in that sentence is as useless and misapplied as the rest of your comments. We are not talking about assumptions or relative points of view,

    We are talking about facts. You're trying to distract from that discussion. Here's an example, the TeaMites insist -- have launched a huge media campaign insisting that the 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment applies to sporting goods as well. It doesn't. Not opinion, not distortion, not assumption -- it doesn't. It's a lie, not a relative lie but an absolute lie They claim it will make medical care more expensive which it won't if we add 2.3% to the
    $10,000 msrp of a laryngoscope as written up in Medical Device Business last month. And how do these pirates get away with this piracy? Need you ask? Need we ask why some of them oppose reform?

    So if there's any assumption going on here, it's you assuming that I'm stupid. That's another danger for liars, isn't it?

    You Patriots want to remove that tax because it would fund the ACA that these patriots would like to defund to the detriment of the American public.
    I'm not making assumptions, you are. And lies are always wrong.

    And why do you keep up the distractions ? Because you know damned well it's going to work and because you want us to forget it is a Republican written plan created by the Heritage
    Foundation in the 1990s -- the same patriots that are howling with rage and calling it an abject disaster before it's gone into effect. Crazy Cruz praised it before he made an ass of you filibustering about it.

    Assumptions? Keep it up buddy, Hell ain't half full.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) You assume I think you're stupid. I don't.

      2) It cannot be a danger as per #1 above.

      3) Where did I say defunding or repealing was desireable?

      4) Anybody have luck signing up for ACA yet?

      5) Sorry, the idea is a good one. But...

      6) It isn't quite yet ready as many are experiencing.

      7) Who's the died in the wool?

      8) True statement... Progressive, either our way or the highway.

      Delete
    2. If you don't assume I'm stupid, why use such arguments as only a stupid person would accept as argument?

      The "progressives" as you call the American people passed ACA by voting for it. What part of democracy do you not understand? What part of "It's the law" do you not understand? It's been voted on and passed. The discussion is over, the court challenge failed. You lost. Get over it.

      What part of elected representatives refusing to acknowledge or obey the law do you not understand? Do you think you've distracted me from noticing the smell of sedition?

      One more time, you insisted that this was just a case of two equally valid positions held by intransigent partisans and nothing more. That's not true. ITS A CASE OF THE LAW BEING IGNORED, SCOFFED AT AND OBSTRUCTED BY PARTISANS IGNORING THE DUTIES OF THEIR OFFICE AND BEING PAYED TO DO SO BY PARTIES FOR WHOM THE LAW IS INCONVENIENT. Because this is not true, you are wrong and you lose the argument, if we can call it one.

      1. ITS THE GODDAMN LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS, SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

      2. YOU DON'T GET TO BARGAIN THE LAW INTO GOING AWAY OR CHANGING. TO SUIT THE PARTY THAT FAILED TO BLOCK IT IN CONGRESS.

      3. THE LAW IS NOT OPTIONAL AND APPLIES TO EVERYONE, LIKE IT OR NOT.

      4. LEGAL MEANS EXISTS FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO HAVE REPEALED THE LAW BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE VOTES OR THE POPULAR SUPPORT. YOU LOSE MEANS YOU LOST.



      THEREFORE, FINALLY AND QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM, IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MAKING DEMANDS THAT THE LAW BE IGNORED OR ILLEGALLY NULLIFIED BY A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY HAS NO POWER TO DO SO. A demand that the law be implemented is not a partisan position. A demand that the law be ignored is not only a partisan position, it's pissing on Democracy. Even a dust mite can understand this and if you don't it's because you're a partisan parrot and incapable of admitting you've lost this argument because you never had one to argue.


      How can I shout it so even the pinhead TeaTwits can understand? The law is, ipso facto a demand. The law is the law, you obey it or else: you pay your taxes whether you like what the government is doing with the money or not.

      Of course the answer is that you're not honest and you're not making an honest case or a case consistent with the American system of American values. You're making the same detestable arguments behind the Nullification movement, the Civil war. Is it because you're too damned ignorant or too damned dishonest -- or that you, as I suggested think we're all stupid?

      You are free to vote, free to campaign. You are even free to lie, but you are not free to demand that the law be set aside because you or your Confederate friends don't like it.




      Delete
    3. Aw, lookit! Our troll is still in there plugging away!

      You know, even when you number your sentence fragments, they don't magically start making sense. But just for you, I will handle your one answerable question there.

      Yes, People have been able to sign up. And, sure, while there have been a few glitches, it doesn't matter. Trying to say something was a failure because it was so popular that the sites were overwhelmed is a stupid argument, isn't it?

      Delete
    4. Thanks for your mature and considered response.

      Please, continue to preach to your choir.

      Delete
    5. And what part of it was false? Tell me, where am I wrong? You can't because I'm not and so you have to maintain the arch condescending tone because your sad little ego can't admit to being a sad little ego, sorry for itself, sulking off, seeking some way to maintain the illusion that your lies aren't lies and your facts aren't fraud and your motivations aren't base and seditious and you're not an arrogant buffoon who can't survive without pretending to be above it all. I'm not preaching. I'm telling the truth to a liar and if I weren't you'd be able to refute me -- but you can't.

      Slink away you snake, and cursed is the ground for your sake.

      Delete
  7. I guess Speaker Böhner has explained it himself better than any one else with his laughable malaprop.


    So the president's position that, 'Listen, we're not going to sit down and talk to you until you surrender,' is just not sustainable.... What the president said today was, if there is unconditional surrender by Republicans, he'll sit down and talk to us.


    So Böhner has revealed the true meaning of his earlier outburst about, "This isn't a game!": No. Apparently he feels that he is engaged in a battle with the president. He does not feel that he himself is a member of a participatory democracy or that the president is a duly elected public servant. He rejects both of these roles preferring to cast the debate in terms of warfare.

    I cannot abide him using the welfare, faith and credit of my country as his weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I forgot to mention that Laryngoscope cost $113.22 to make. That's a 4361% percent markup. The markup on illegal cocaine is more like 200% so who is the crook, the pirate here? They need more tax breaks? Tell me all about how I'm biased. Tea Party Patriot my ass.

    That's the kind of thing these gangsters are trying to preserve and every time a person they won't let buy health insurance goes into the emergency room and they use one of these devices -- we all pay for it in our insurance premiums. And of course children die because of insurance company death panels and families are destroyed over minor illnesses and you rub your hands together and ask me "what is truth?"

    Keep calling yourselves "patriots."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gangsters, really? To question the all powerful, all knowing, all too collectivist big brother government.is gangsterism.

    Oh the hyperbole.

    Beyond that, your points warrant consideration.

    By the way seafaring one, did you ever run a business?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Skeptic (at 2:52 PM): "By the way seafaring one, did you ever run a business?"

    I strongly suggest you apologize or revise your above comment. This was very rude of you. Besides, the good Captain has a yacht. It means he can dump you overboard in international waters and drown you impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Revision... Captain, have you ever owned a business? If you have I am confident you understand the value of diverse and dissenting opinions. It is largely how the effective executive or business owner arrives at the best decision(s).

    If my question offended, which it obviously did, I hope the re-phrasing meets approval. Having very thick skin developed over the years of making millions of neccessary yet for some very unpopular decisions I developed very thick skin. I occasionally forget not all have such thick hides.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have run a number of businesses and am long since retired. Who wants dishonest employees? But the USA is not a business, it's a Constitutional Republic in which the representatives of the voters are supposed to respect the law and the will of the electorate, not the will of God or their contributors.

    What I want from our congressional employees is the truth, valid information and not silliness about death panels, government intrusions on your doctor patiant relationships -- disgusting lies about how providing free market insurance from private insurers is Communism, Fascism, a return to slavery and Satan worship.

    What I don't want are attempts to dismiss a valid, objective position based on verifiable facts as mere opinion or partisanship. Essentially nothing being said by the Tea Party about the ACA is true and most of it is deliberate falsehood designed to deceive the public. What's partisan about hating elected officials who not only don't represent us, they don't represent the truth?

    I am hardly in lock step with the Democrats or any other party. I just demand honesty.

    Apropos of that, we're not talking about "questioning" the government, now are we? Interfering with the law and its implementation is not questioning, it's sabotage. Using lies, dirty tricks and blackmail to undo what the legitimate government branches have implemented and the courts affirmed is not "questioning" and yet, that's exactly what you are calling "questioning"

    If congress votes to do something or undo something, that's legal. They were not elected to wreck the economy so that they can unseat the man who was elected by the popular vote - twice.

    That sir, is offensive to Democracy, the rule of law, rational discourse and justice. It's not a question of hide, it's a question of tactics that one would, in private life, call gangsterism; illegal restraint of trade, collusion and a host of other things that have been used to jail gangsters. There is a difference between resistance to insult and tolerance of sedition.

    There is a difference between admitting that no party wears a halo and admitting that one quite visibly sports a set of horns. False equivalence has become such a worn out tactic, yet is so flimsy and so easily dissolved by facts that I admit to a lack of tolerance for it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think you will find that the Government is obligated to pay it's bills. Anyone interfering with a constitutional requirement, whether or not he's doing it in expectation of personal gain and again, that's not partisan, that's the law. There is no intermediate position between the law and the scofflaw that we should look at as "fair and balanced" or non-partisan.

    Damaging the lives and futures and health of nearly a million families to block several things the government is legally obliged to do goes so far beyond the limits of legality, decency and perhaps sanity, that I'm calling it criminal and certainly if we can jail a person for expressing doubt about a war, we can jail the Republican legislators who put partisanship and personal gain ahead of national security.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.