2007

Not much comment needed on this racist rant posted today at “Hoosier Army Mom’s Blog”…

Let me tell you something “MeatBrain” — you run your Twinkle-toed Communist loving Mouth one more time against Hoosier Army Mom, and I’ll permanently ban your slant-eyed, gook-ass forever!

Scratch a rightie, find a racist.

Jim Hoft has a hissy fit because Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine depicted Rudy Giuliani in an outfit not unlike that of a Nazi stormtrooper:

Buchanan could have put Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Fred Thompson in the Nazi garb and it still would be shameful and in very poor taste.

Brown shirts?

…

Go away Pat Buchanan.

So, you’d think that Jim Hoft would recoil from calling anyone a Nazi, wouldn’t you? I mean, Godwin’s Law still applies, right?

Aopparently not. Jim Hoft is only to happy to applaud the use of the Nazi card when it’s played against someone he disagrees with:

Monday, July 16, 2007:

O’Reilly Says- “Daily Kos Is Like Nazi Party & Ku Klux Klan”

Well… Too bad for Daily Kos…
It looks like the cat’s out of the bag, now.

Daily Kos was outed tonight on the O’Reilly Factor

Monday, September 17, 2007:

O’Reilly Slams “Fascist and Nazi” Firedoglake Blogger

O’Reilly Takes Out Another Far Left Blog

Bill O’Reilly continued his attacks on the “fascist and nazi” bloggers on the Far Left last night on the O’Reilly Factor. O’Reilly singled out Firedoglake blogger Jane Hamsher for her recent attack on Elizabeth Edwards.

You see, it’s perfectly all right with Widdle Jimmy Hoft for the “Nazi” accusation to be hurled when the target is someone he doesn’t like. It’s only when it gets used against someone he likes that Widdle Jimmy starts wailing.

Stay stupid, Widdle Jimmy. God knows you don’t have much choice in the matter…

Yes, even a mother can be an ignorant cretin. “Hoosier Army Mom” stands as living proof. She babbles:

“Do nothing” Democrapper Congress does something… They allow the GOP in the Senate to set a record for most filibusters ever.”

Notice that she goes on to say that:

The 49-member Senate Republican minority has done something no Senate minority in American history has ever done … they’ve filibustered more bills than any Congress ever has — and they broke the record with a full year to spare.

But Mom ignores the facts, and pretends that it isn’t the Republican’s fault for mounting a record number of filibusters, thus becoming the most obstructionist minority in Senate history… oh, noooo. It’s supposed to be the Democrat’s fault for letting them do it… despite the fact that current Senate rules require a minimum of sixty votes to invoke cloture of a filibuster. The 51 Democrats in the Senate cannot force cloture by themselves. The idea that they “allowed” the Republicans to filibuster a record number of times in this session is ludicrous.

The facts demonstrate just how idiotic Mom’s claim is:

So far in just the first session of the 110th Congress, Republicans have required cloture votes against filibusters 62 times. The Republicans are on pace to force 134 cloture votes, more than double the recent historical average and more than double the previous Congress, when the Democrats were in the minority. As the figure below shows, Democrats in the last Congress imposed only 54 filibuster threats and cloture votes. The previous record was 61 cloture votes during the entire 107th Congress of 2001-02. The conservatives of 2007 matched that mark in only the first session.

What is it with wingnut dipshits like Mom, and their utter disconnect from reality?

It seems that John J. Ray has a hard time writing about anything without lying.

Read what the Philadelphia Jewish Voice wrote, beginning with a quote from sex-obsessed former congressweenie Rick Santorum (who is quoting Barack Obama):

It’s vital that we put aside politics to find new and effective ways to confront Ahmadinejad and Iran’s mullahs. As one presidential candidate recently stated: “The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

Rudolph Giuliani? Mitt Romney? Fred Thompson? No, it was the can’t-we-all-get-along candidate, Barack Obama.

…

Rick Santorum recorded these words in his third outing as The Philadelphia Inquirer’s highly touted new columnist in a piece headlined “Put aside politics to confront Iran.” It was word play on the very comment that Rodney King made 15 years ago, and Santorum applied it to another African-American (one who happens to have a reasonable chance of becoming the Democratic candidate for president).

Now read the lie that John J. Ray, M.A., Ph.D. posted in response:

Did you get that? It took me a while. He is claiming that “Put aside politics to confront Iran” is a quotation of “Why can’t we all get along?”

Such a comparison is more reminiscent of schizophrenic thought disorder than anything else. It’s amazing enough that anyone wrote such an incredible comparison but what about the editor who decided that it was good enough to publish?

Wrong, lying shitwad. Quite clearly, the phrase that is being compared to Rodney King’s famous utterance is “the can’t-we-all-get-along candidate”. You’ve got an M.A. and a Ph.D., so clearly you’re not so stupid that you missed that. Therefore, you must be deliberately lying. This is made obvious by the fact that you omitted the Santorum quote from your post, the better to deceive your readers.

Perhaps, Mr. John J. Ray, M.A., Ph.D., you’d care to explain why you chose to lie?

Poor Big Dog… he tried, he really did. Alas, he managed only one out of three. And — of course — he had to lie along the way.

Yesterday I challenged Big Dog to answer a few simple questions about his recent screed about Iran and the recent National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that Iran halted its work on nuclear weapons some years ago. Let’s see how the doggie did:

1. Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?

I cannot answer the question as it is posed because it asks for the name of one person.

Um… no, it does not. Nothing in the question requires that the answer be limited to one person. Big Dog dodges the question by the simple expedient of lying about what it asked.

The National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by a number of people and the press release on it was written by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Donald M. Kerr.

I don’t recall asking who wrote the press release. Big Dog throws in an irrelevant fact as a smoke screen for his non-answer.

The NIE is comprised of information provided by many intelligence analysts so naming one specific person is something I cannot do.

Again: I did not ask for the name of only one specific person.

The question also takes the original post out of context. I was writing about nuclear weapons and said «Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat.» The logical conclusion of the statement is …to make nuclear weapons (and I indicated they might later but not now).

This is known as “moving the goalposts”. Big Dog’s statement was “Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat”. If he meant “Iran does not pose a threat to make nuclear weapons”, then he should have said so.

The report states that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 (emphasis should focus on the fact that they were prior to that despite their denials) and that they have not since then and there is no indication they will but if they do it will be well into the next decade (well into the next president’s watch).

Yes, that is what the report states. And Big Dog has presented no evidence whatsoever that these conclusions are incorrect. Yet he still excoriates “the intelligence community” (without, conveniently, naming any relevant names) for making a claim that no one, to my knowledge, has made: that “Iran does not pose a threat”.

In fact, if the report is correct (and Big Dog thus far has failed to show otherwise), then it demonstrates just how foolish the Bush administration’s Iraq misadventure has been:

What it really means is that faced with two neighbors in the spring of 2003 who both harbored nuclear ambitions, we invaded the country without an active WMD program while ignoring the one that did. I’m not suggesting we should have invaded Iran instead, but by the Administration’s own reckoning, we should have.

It puts an exclamation point on the colossal folly of our Iraq adventure.

Jim Hoft:

Harry Reid Does It Again!

“Al Qaeda is winning in Iraq… America is losing.”

Reid never uttered that phrase.

Jim Hoft again fabricates a quote.

THERE IS NO LIE THAT JIM HOFT WILL NOT TELL.

THERE IS NO LIE THAT JIM HOFT WILL NOT TELL.

THERE IS NO LIE THAT JIM HOFT WILL NOT TELL.

I am a firm believer that the best way to get a wingnut to expose him/her/itself as an unthinking buffoon is to ask a few simple questions, then sit back and watch the poor schlemiel thrash around in utter confusion. Let’s see if it works with a recent example of Big Dog’s rubbish:

The report is out and the intelligence community has weighed in on Iran and it has determined that Iran has no nukes and that while they might acquire the capability to build them, they are not yet at that state. Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat. Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes and never mind the fact that Israel has a vastly different opinion. We should also ignore the fact that Iran stopped working on its nuclear program and then started back up without anyone knowing and that they deliberately took actions to keep from being detected. We should also forget that the people telling us Iran is not a threat is the same community that missed 9/11 completely.

Here are three simple questions for Big Dog to answer — if he can:

1. Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?
2. In what previous NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report did “the intelligence community” state unequivocally that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

1. How do you reconcile your claim that the intelligence community “missed 9/11 completely” with the fact that the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, specifically noted that Osama bin Laden intended to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda operatives had traveled to or lived in the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously expressed a desire to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York”?

   Let’s see if Big Dog can actually supply the facts to back up his spew.

Over at the hysterically misnamed In My Right Mind, genocide advocate Clay has chosen to advertise not only his own ignorance and incompetence, but that of his father as well:

This is a comment my father submitted to his local paper in response to the local school board’s decision to embrace the scientific theory of evolution whole heartedly:

Well let’s see now about this evolution thing. If man evolved from monkeys – why do we still have monkeys? Why is there no known link between monkeys and people? What am I missing?

This is a good point. It would be interesting to see what sort of response the pro-evolutionists would have to offer in explaining this obstruction to their water tight theory. And I should stress the work theory.

And I should stress that if Clay or his imbecile father had bothered to get off their collective fat asses and actually look for the facts, they would have found that this “argument” is so laughably weak that even creationists are cautioning their fellow ignoramuses against using it:

…[T]he main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

The always-useful talk.origins archive puts it a bit more colloquially, but still makes the point:

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

Huh?? Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to humanity (and many other now-extinct hominids). Why on earth should that cause the rest of the apes to go extinct? It’s as silly as saying “If I am descended from Irish ancestors [which I am], why are there still Irish people around?” (Yes, I’m aware that I haven’t evolved from my Irish forebears; the point is that whatever happened to my ancestors, it didn’t affect the rest of the Irish population.)

The answers are out there, Clay. You just have to stop protecting your ignorance at all costs.

Tell your dad the same.

Received today… no comment needed…

From: “Justin Higgins” <right@rightontheright.com>
To: <meatbrain@thinkingmeat.net>
Subject: I’ve Been Kind
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:49:40 -0500

…By the way, stop masturbating when I e-mail me, it’s getting gross.

Justin Higgins, everybody’s favorite boy chickenhawk, has let fly another screech of panic:

I don’t give a damn if you think it’s cruel, waterboarding doesn’t physically injure the person, and it’s effective. I don’t give a damn if you think we are “above that,” because we’re dealing with terrorists known for beheadings, rapes, and even cutting off extremities and shoving them down our soldiers’ throats. I say waterboarding is too humane.

First off, Justin is lying outright. Waterboarding can indeed cause physical injury or death. In testimony before the Senate earlier this year, Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, stated:

As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water.