News & Politics

Rant

Stop the madness!

Posted 29 months ago|49 comments|505 views
Written by
I'm tired of mincing words, here. The attacks on Barack Obama are insane.

Oh, I don't mean to say that all possible attacks on his policy stances are insane. On the contrary, a vigorous public debate about real policy differences is healthy for this fair republic of ours. I may disagree with what you might have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Even the crazy stuff.

But it is crazy.

Over the last year, Obama has been accused of each of the following - and please note that none of these bears any resemblance to reality or to any of his policy goals. See if you can spot the accusations that are mutually contradictory.

BIRTH
* Obama was born in Kenya.
* He was born in the United States, but gave up his U.S. citizenship.
* He was born in the United States, but for various reasons isn't entitled to citizenship.
* He couldn't be American because he must have used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

RELIGION
* He is an atheist.
* He is a Muslim.
* He is a follower of black liberation Christian theology.

POLITICS (With handy definitions)
* He is a communist. (Communism: Abolition of all private ownership)
* He is a socialist. (Socialism: Nationalization of the means of production)
* He is a fascist. (Fascism: Authoritarian political ideology coupled with corporatist economic ideology)

HEALTHCARE
* He wants to kill old people and establish death panels that determine who lives and who dies.
* He wants to kill disabled babies, just like socialized insurance plans do the world over. (Who knows what horrors might have awaited little baby Stephen Hawking had he been born in, say, the UK.)

JUST PLAIN WACKY
* He wants to hypnotize children.
* He's a terrorist sympathizer.
* He's Satan. (No, really! And it's still making the rounds!)

JUST PLAIN WACKY (Retired due to embarrassing reality)
* He will not deal forcefully with the Somali pirates holding Americans hostage. (Retired after Obama had the pirates shot.)
* He dealt too forcefully with the Somali pirates. (Retired after being just too freakin' nuts.)
* He can't operate without a teleprompter. (Retired after too darn many impromptu interviews, debates, townhalls, and the like without teleprompters.)
* He's funding trains for brothels in Nevada. (Retired after the trains, which were never planned in the first place, failed to magically appear.)
* He had the American flag removed from Air Force One. (Retired after people, y'know, looked at Air Force One.)
* He won't hold his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. (Retired after multiple videos surfaced showing him doing so.)
* He won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Retired after multiple videos surfaced showing him doing so.)
* He won't wear a flag pin. (Retired after multiple photos surfaced showing him doing so... and multiple photos of McCain and Bush minus flag pins surfaced as well.)
* He was endorsed by the KKK. (Retired after the source of this insane idea was traced to a satirical email.)
* He will impose Sharia law on the United States. (Retired after men everywhere spent the summer ogling scantily clad women on beaches.)

All this fruitcakery shares a couple of things in common. First, a lot of it is mutually exclusive; for instance, Obama could not simultaneously be a Muslim and an atheist. Second, none of it has anything to do with his actual policies, his legislative proposals, or reality. In fact, most of these "facts" about Obama aren't on speaking terms with reality at all.

Take a good, hard look at this list. I encourage my fellow RantRavers of the conservative persuasion to examine in particular the list of retired quackery about Obama. Ask yourselves, "Did I believe this before it was thoroughly debunked? Did I continue to believe it afterwards for a while?"

Consider spending some time reading Obama's actual policy proposals. You'll no doubt find things you'll disagree with, and I fully support that. Heck, I strongly disagree with him on several things, such as his decisions regarding remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees. But if you find yourself concerned that he will murder grandma, you're veering back into lunatic territory.

Finally, here's a fun game to play. Add up the number of items above you believe or believed, and find your results below.

SCORING
1-5: You're probably a conservative, and would rather discuss policy differences. You don't believe Obama is in charge of a New World Order, you just think he's wrong. Boring!

6-10: You may want to take a close look at the 9/11 truthers. They have a conspiracy theory or two you might be interested in. However, you probably don't (yet) believe two mutually exclusive things about Obama.

11-15: It's something in his eyes, isn't it. The way he looks too intently at you, then blinks like he's trying to send you a Morse code message. It's disturbing and distressing to think no one else can read his lies the way you do.

16+: He's going to take away your guns and use them to kill disabled babies while praying to one of the Old Gods for the destruction of America, and he'll force the children to help him by subduing them with his hypnotic powers! Quick, tighten the tinfoil hat to keep out his mind-control beams, and forward that totally legitimate Kenyan birth certificate to the appropriate authorities! They have to listen to you eventually.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: HNN, you're presenting a biased and liberal political point of view; to be fair, let's rationally outline the other side of the argument:

"OBAMA, SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE! JUST A 5 MINUTE CALL TO PROVE YOU'RE NOT THE MUSLIM ANTI-CHRIST!! HOW DARE YOU SAY WE'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY - YOU GODLESS FASCIST SOCIALIST COMMUNIST!!!"

I think that sums it up. By the way, here's a left wing attack on Obama courtesy of the the Young Turks; it's entitled, "Obama Is Just A Politician, NOT A Leader"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8xHD2yAWWc
29 months ago: @scotmanster

I don't see how you could possibly blame misunderstandings of section 1233 of the proposed bill on Obama. All 1233 does is amend a section of the Social Security Act to provide coverage for end-of-life consultations. It's the kind of conversation everyone has with their doctor eventually. Turning that into "death panels" is gross misunderstanding due to the preconceived notion that everything Obama does must be evil. That people flog this idea after having this pointed out is in no way Obama's fault. I'm sorry, but if you still believe Obama wants death panels, you're crazy.
Chris D
Chris D
Seattle, WA
29 months ago: "...while praying to one of the Old Gods for the destruction of America..."

I knew Obama was involved in the Cthulhu conspiracy!!!


(Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.)
29 months ago: Well of course, isn't it obvious? Satan and Cthulhu would obviously be working together!
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot,

...what is stopping Anti-Gunner Obama from banning Guns altogether through a executive order...

I'm not sure you understand the limitations of executive orders and you might want to check the federal register as opposed to secret government conspiracy websites. For example, just checking a sampling of your cited orders (10990-10999) shows they've been revoked.

Indeed Executive Orders are readily revoked or reversed by the next Executive (President), declared illegal by the Supreme Court (as they did to Truman when he took over the Steel Mills), or the Congress passes laws that override or supersede Executive Orders.

As to your hypothetical question about Obama banning guns, what if fundy-gel Bush had issued an executive order banning all abortion and making it a capital offense? Of course he didn't because it would be political suicide and it would of been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Certainly Presidents have used Executive Orders to make policy to avoid consulting a hostile Congress but EOs that have a partisan taint are generally reversed by the next President. For example, good ol' Ronald catered to his Christian fundy-gel supporters by using an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. Of course, good 'ol Billy came in office and promptly reversed it.

Federal Register Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
29 months ago: "The whole point is not whether you think I am crazy but the point is how lawyers and high ranking political figures interpreted it."

The lawyers all say it isn't death panels. And don't you think judges would throw it out if it was? And incidentally, isn't the same true for all law? Isn't it all open to interpretation? Why the big stink about this particular one?

It is an amendment to an existing list of covered services. That is all. It makes the list bigger. Failure to comprehend that isn't the fault of the bill's authors.
29 months ago: "Then tell me why was it dropped out of the Bill?"

Because crazy won out over rationality. Seriously, read it and read what it amends, then tell me if you still think it establishes death panels.

As for that snippet of text, way to take things out context. The conversation was about how to allocate resources during scarcity. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but I'd be more uncomfortable if they *weren't* having that conversation. You know who else has similar conversations? The real death panels in insurance companies, but in those conversations, profit is also a factor.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot,
...It is apparent their are no limitations from Bush's Executive orders that they where allowed to have warrant-less wiretaps. markbyrn there are no limitations period...

If you read my previous post, I already proved there are limitations and saying "there are no limitations periods" when there is obvious evidence to the contrary is indicative of irrationalism and a delusional adherence to conspiracy websites.

As for the executive ordered warrant-less wiretaps, that's been incorporated into law by the Congress; it's called the The FISA Amendments Act and it was passed thanks to nearly all GOP types who supposedly believe in small, non-invasive government and a sufficient number of Democrats who supposedly believe in protecting the Civil Liberties of American Citizens.
29 months ago: A couple of things:

1) Wrong link. That CNN link is about Bush trying to suppress a New York Times article in 2005.

2) It was taken out of context, which you would know if you'd read anything but that snippet going around right-wing blogs. Quick, without using Google, tell me where that interview is from.
29 months ago: "Do you really think so."

Yes.

"Or was it dropped for ethical reasons?"

No.

"or was it dropped because it could be abused?"

How exactly do you abuse optional end-of-life consultations? You do know they would have been optional, right? Again, look at what 1233 would have amended: A list of covered services and procedures, none of which is mandatory. Otherwise you'd have a silly situation where ALL covered services would be mandatory. "Sorry, Jimmy, I know you just need a cast for your arm, but we've got to use this iron lung, give you open heart surgery, and perform a bunch of other unnecessary procedures. It's the law."

"or was it dropped because they knew it would not pass with it in it?"

No.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot,
"your wrong about the FISA act it was meant for foreign warrant-less surveillance."

Wrong answer - it's exactly what I said it was. Intelligence acquisition under the now revised code encompasses the international communications of U.S. Citizens and residents and the Attorney general and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) may authorize a mass acquisition even if all of the communications to be acquired originates or terminates inside the United States.

Further, the Attorney General and DNI may acquire purely domestic communication as long as there is uncertainty about the location of one party to the communications. They don't even need to get court permission beforehand if they deem it an 'emergency' nor do they have to identify to the court the surveillance targets or provide any information about the facilitates, telephone lines, email addresses, places, premises or property at which surveillance will be directed - a trust me card if you will.

It's essentially the legal codification of the Bush directive with plenty of loopholes to ensure that the government has the unfettered capability to spy on Ameicans without warrants.

29 months ago: "The reasons are not all that far fetched unlike the way you like to paint it."

You've managed thus far to name 1 reason to bash Obama from my list that you claim isn't nonsensical. Does that mean you accept the rest of the insanity as insanity?

Now, a couple of things:

1) Obama didn't write the legislation. Not his job. So if you're gonna bash anyone for this section, bash Congress. But please read it before bashing anyone.

2) It wasn't actually "dropped out of the Bill period." It was dropped from the Senate version. It's still in the House version. The House will vote on it first. The Senate second. Then comes a process called "reconciliation." If the provision survives that process, it stays in the final law.

"No matter what anyone says you counter it with 'crazy'."

With the notable exception of Out of the Box -- who has remained a refreshingly sane conservative throughout all these arguments, however much I may disagree with him -- I've been saying "crazy" lately because it's crazy. Deriding the pledge and flag pin and child hypnotism freakouts as crazy makes sense because they *are*.

Now, if you're not a birther and you're not convinced he's a secret Muslim "Manchurian Candidate," then you're also one step ahead of the crowd. But I really do wish you would debate policy on the health insurance topic too, rather than the "death panel" fantasies. I say this in all seriousness: Read section 1233. Really read it. And read what it would amend. If anything stands out to you as implementing a "death panel," then tell me which passage concerns you. Then you'll be arguing policy instead of lunacy.
29 months ago: "Oh cry us a river HeyNoniNoni..really two rants about how Obama is getting a raw deal?"

Actually, one's a rant about the politics of hypocrisy and how it has generated a situation where party loyalty trumps consistency and logic, and the other rant is about crazy people. But I say po-TAY-to, you say po-TAH-to...

"How much more self gratification do you need to try and drum up."

None. I'd just like to see the debate move to actual policy differences and away from "he's gonna kill grandma!"

"The fact is Obama had made alot of promises that he has not kept."

Oh, no argument there. Here's a pretty good list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Of course, he's got another 7 years in office, so he's got some time on the inactive ones.

"I am not going to reiterate every point but you already know what he promised and what he has done."

Yup. By the way, are you saying you're not going to read Section 1233? We seem to have gotten off track.

"Have you looked at his public opinion rating lately."

Yup. He's at 52.4%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html. Most of the losses in support come from Democrats who want him to get health insurance reform done and are getting frustrated with him for being so insistent on bipartisanship with people who love our broken system and whose support he will never garner. Maybe that will change tonight.

"Why is his public opinion rating so low?"

Uhhm... 52.4% is low? Well, I suppose in comparison to how high his popularity was before.

"Would it be the fact that even people in his own party are siding against him now?"

Yeah, that's pretty much where the change has been. We want him to get health insurance done.

"Wait don't answer that I already no what your going to say."

Betcha a dollar you didn't think I'd agree with you.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot,

Are you telling me that you weren't okay with Bush issuing the illegal order for warrant less surveillance but now that Congress has made it official, you're okay with it even though it allows for warrant less spying on Americans?

At any rate, it still supports the fact that Executive Orders have limitations as Bush had to ram the FISA Amendment Act through to codify his own dirty EO deeds.
29 months ago: heynnnn.
You wish.
You have debunked nothing.
Good post however.
29 months ago: redstateguy, there's another one of your faith-based arguments. You have faith that all those fictoids about Obama are actually true, and that I've debunked none of them. It must be faith, because your comment is otherwise completely devoid of content.

I ask you, folks, left and right, is it any wonder I thought redstateguy was just trolling for a while? I mean seriously, look at his comment.
29 months ago: heynnnn.

Let's rumble!

Pick any topic in the world.

He is a fascist. He hates America. He is intent on destroying our society. He did not tell the truth tonight.......

Pick a topic.

(You will never see the light though.)
29 months ago: Let's go.

Or do you want me to start it off with a topic?

(I also have to go make a living at times, so I am out of pocket at times. If you are a typical liberal/socialist voter, you are either a government employee or are on the government dole with extra time on your hands... so you will have much more idle, unproductive time on your hands to rant and rave.)
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: RSG,
...so you will have much more idle, unproductive time on your hands to rant and rave...

Considering you're the 12th ranked poster out of 2,195 members on RantRave, can I ask if you're a crypto-socialist cashing welfare checks? O.o
29 months ago: Mark:
I have too much self respect to do that.
29 months ago: Mark:

I also vent alot.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.