Liberal Repercussion

The man who wrote this is brilliant and doesn't have a blog yet.

I do, and I'm too tired to write, at the moment. So, I'm taking it. Read more of this good stuff at http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php

boom. this is excellent



Here's the screwed up GOP attack mode...LONG but worth it"

This is from The Weekly Standard....I'll put the link to the original article at the bottom. It's the lamest defense of Clinton hating and attack on Bush hating ever printed. Of course, it will be the "intellectual" basis for the pure morons like Handingmylittlemanhoodity and O'Really to quote like it's respectable.

In essence, this clown admits that he and his shithead friends were way over the line in hating Clinton. He calls him a liar, but never shows what, apart from getting blowjobs. But we must be Bush-Haters because we call him a liar.

"SOMETIMES without straining I can remember the long-ago 1990s, when a number of people, including many of my friends--well, including me, to tell the truth--succumbed to what some of us came to call "Billy Bob Gasket Disease."

This creepling's point is that Clinton was such a good liar, he drove his opponents insane, so reporters wrote them off as loonies. He never mentions, of course, what lies those might be. He IS a right-wing scumbag, so that should not surprise me.



Haha, ambition means lying, to this right-wing sewage bag. Gasket, who is probably one of Clinton's many opponents for governor, who all lost, is probably the "disappointed office seeker" we all know from assassinations past.

Now we reach the crux. Of the intro, anyway. They didn't hate Clinton because of any reasonable dislike. They hated him because of his LOOKS.

"those who caught the disease didn't just dislike Clinton, as, say, they might have disliked Jimmy Carter. The crux of Gasket Disease was not contempt but unendurable frustration. They could not fathom why everyone else didn't grasp his essential, transparent fraudulence: the phoniness of the lower-lip-bite, the moist insincerity of the smile, the vanity in every tilt of the carefully coifed head. As with syphilis, so with Gasket Disease: Some Republicans recovered, others were driven mad."

So evidently, we are as crazy as the right wing for hating Bush. We MUST hate him for his looks, not his policies, this punk says. Why, "the nuthouse lately vacated by the Clinton-haters has suddenly filled with Bush-haters," he says, admitting he's a nuthouse resident.

Here's where he gets clever. He sort of cops to being a lunatic hatemonger, then admits that Ann Coulter and that crazed auntie-in-the-attic Amrose Evans-Pritchard and, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Terry Reed and so on are completely nuts, he calls the latest batch of anti-Bush books, by Ivins, Franken, Krugman and so on are the equivalent of those hate-filled screeds.

He particularly hates Krugman and Ivins. See, Princeton economists and journalists with 40 years of experience are comparable to uneducated street punks (Hannity), stupid cumdumptsters (Coulter), and legitimately insane hatemongers (Savage). This is a common Republican trick, which I spent hours emailing and calling NPR about. They USED to have a discussion with a college Polisci prof on one side, and Max Boot, the aptly named nazi, on the other. The right wing is only interested in polluting the argument, never in making one.

Skipping his "literary" criticism of Krugman's book, which basically comes down to running a few years of columns tends to become repetitive (duh, read a Dave Barry book, moron), and that 750-word columns tend to be skimpy on back-up, this guy goes after him for hating Bush. Then he goes after Ivins. And Franken. And Hightower. And others. See, HE was insane for hating Clinton, so EVERYONE ELSE is insane for hating Bush. This is, of course, a false analogy. It is equivalent to comparing the Dime-Refusing Roosevelt haters of the 50s with the Hitler-haters of every age since 1933. He already admitted that they hated Clinton for no real reason other than thinking he was a phony. (and just to point out, Clinton came from poverty, raised himself up by his own effort, and for some reason didn't pull up the gangplank after him...BAD BAD BILL CLINTON.)

Let's see what he says about Krugman. " What happens is mayhem. Krugman sees a country in which free speech is disappearing, the poor are paying more taxes than the rich, and religious superstition is supplanting evolution in grade-school curriculums. That none of these things is actually taking place does not dampen his eagerness to spread the word."

Notice the denier? None of these things are taking place. Andrew, you make good money. So you might be excused for being a moron. Start adding up sales tax, which is a regressive tax for necessities, and the payroll tax, and the cap on SS contributions, look at the Free Speech zones the unelected Punk set up the second he got unelected, look at the people slammed into jail for protesting his illegal war, look at the soldiers who were arrested for criticizing the war, look at the ban on photographs of coffins returning home, just keep looking Andrew, you punk.

Notice he offers no proof for anything he says? The people he attacks do offer proof.

Now, the moron goes after the word "lies." He claims Bush never lies and then goes into a long history, courtesy of Joe Conason, about how other presidents have lied. To this punk, the SOLE lies are his denial of drunk-driving charges, his draft-dodging/AWOL episode and stealing the Arlington Stadium to make $16 million on a (borrowed) $600K investment. How about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Andrew? Remember he said there were drone aircrafts with bio weapons ready to cruise over the U.S. killing us all? Remember the rockets ready to launch in 45 minutes? Remember the huge stashes of ricin and other chemical weapons, and WE KNEW WHERE THEY WERE? Remember the nukes they were ready to produce? Remember the fack that they were working with Al Qaida? Yeah, numbo, you remember. You don't want to , but you do.

Now, of course, he has to lie blatantly. "As James Carville's ghostwriter cleverly puts it in "Had Enough?", "Democrats lied about something we really like: sex. Republicans lie about something they really like: war and money." Calling Bush a liar is a twofer. It at once underscores the gravity of the present president's misconduct, and it condemns the frivolousness of the previous president's accusers."

Want to prove his book was written by a ghostwriter, punk? C'mon, BRING IT ON, PUNK. You have an affadavit, of course. Oh, you don't? Oh, damn. You are SO SCREWED. Oh, who ghost-wrote YOUR stupid article?

Now, let's look at your latest piece of sophistry.

"The problem for polemicists in attacking a relatively popular president is that the People are implicated as well: Maybe they like him because they're as depraved as he is. Which is unthinkable. (For if the People are evil, what of their Tribune?) Conservatives struggled with this difficulty in the 1990s, when Clinton, despite their well-orchestrated abuse, maintained his popularity through both his terms. "

HAHAHA, Relatively popular. Like 50%. Clinton was in the 60s. In fact, the Unelected Punk's father was way over this at the same time in his sole term. So, Andrew, stop lying.

OK, time to stop going point-by-point. He attacks Molly Ivins and moans and bitches about us mean democrats. Read the whole piece and see why I didn't bother. It's like punching kittens.

Now, his next point, and this idiot gets paid by the word, no doubt, is that the Smirking Moron is a LIBERAL. This adds totally new meaning to the word disingenuous. What he means is that Bush has spent more money than any president in history, so us liberals should be delighted. He never mentions of course, that most of the spending goes to the rich, corporate donors and various other constituencies like ranchers and anti-environment activists. His Clear Skies motion, for instance, will cost tons of money, by allowing coal burners to pollute everything in sight, which will have to be cleaned up. He signed an education bill, then didn't fund it. He signed an Aids In Africa bill, promising $15 billion, then wrote the funding for it out of his budget. But according to dear Andrew, Smirk is a caring liberal who is spending HIS precious taxes. He even dares to bring up the Medicare prescription bill, which is unfunded (22% TOPS) and is basically a tax giveaway to HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, and rural states. Of course, Andrew doesn't want to bring up any evidence; he likes to sling mud without ANY proof.

This goes on and on. He quotes Corn's book with some inconsequential lies, leaving out the BIGGIES. Like, "we will have a humble foreign policy," "this will be the education presidency" and of course all those lies in front of the U.N. and in his state of the union speech.

Heh, then he does a neat trick. He says the critics, "always excepting foreign policy" attack the IdiotBoy. In fact, most of these books were written before the Iraqi war. And in fact, all of them attack Smirk over his foreign policy, apart from Ivins, who was concerned with his Texas career. What Andrew means is this: They didn't attack him for his war plans a year before the war, so they must agree with heroic, sexy, smart, intelligent, handsome, sexy, smart, lovely, wonderful, brave, sexy, smart, wonderful, smart-as-all-getout, hot as hell, really, really handsome, jeez-I-gotta-get-into-his-pants, man-did-you-see-that-HUGE-bulge-when-he-flew-that-plane-onto-the-aircraft-carrier, preznit.

At the end, he does THIS.

"At the end of "Bushwhacked," Molly Ivins speaks for all Bush-haters when, with typical artlessness, she sums up our present state of affairs: "There is something creepy about what is happening here." But they can't quite put their finger on what it is." He also mentions that we can't make up our minds if he's a moron or a genius.

Andrew, you moron, let's break it down. Stop talking for liberals. Smirk IS a moron. He ADMITS he doesn't read the newspapers or watch news on TV. He is an incurious, spoiled, stupid, dull little boy. A punk. He has some semi-bright, and I accentuate the SEMI here, because anyone who thinks Wolfowitz, Rice, Negroponte, Reich, Perle, Cheney, Rove and Card are deep thinkers is probably working for the...Weekly Standard. Remember, Andrew, these were some of the people who came up with the Nuns With Guns argument for Reagan. Remember the lay sisters in El Salvador who were kidnapped, forced to dig their own graves, anally rapped, the executed? Nah, YOU FORGOT. Remember Negroponte writing the speech for Reagan about "they might have been smuggling guns?" HAHAHA, of course you don't.

You know what? Intellectual dishonesty like this SHOULD have the death penalty attached. You are a whore much worse than the average Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. You are obviously educated. You KNOW better. Rush was out picking up gay hookers and Sean was out shooting bathtub speed when you were in college.

You, sir, have no such excuse for your lies.

Pete Hisey
Chicago






http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/437txvzt.asp

posted by Rei Toei @ 5:53 p.m.