Friday, November 20, 2009

The GOP Sinks further into Insanity: 52% think ACORN Stole the Election

According to a new poll 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the election for Obama. Apparently the GOPers are slipping on their math, as this would require each ACORN registered voter to vote about 10 times, and in the right states, to make up the nearly 10 million vote margin that was Obama's victory. The GOP has once again demonstrated that it has become everything it used to criticize the left for being: whining losers chanting "woulda shoulda coulda" instead of dealing with reality.

One commenter over at Ed Brayton's blog illustrated the new GOP attitude perfectly:

Perhaps they Shanghaied people and compelled them to vote for Obama. I don't know and neither do you. I am just a guy asking questions. And there is no such thing as a dumb question. Is there?

There they are, the articles of faith among the new Republicans:

1) Treating speculation as evidence
2) Assuming everyone shares their ignorance
3) Claiming dishonest partisan political gamesmanship is merely "asking questions"
4) Reliance on grade-school platitudes as insulation against criticism and identification of their stupidity

And they wonder why they've driven those of us with educations from the party in droves. Can they sink any lower?


Miranda said...

Stealing the election might be a charge that is over the top. However, it behooves you to investigate the connection between Obama and ACORN, and between ACORN and the SEIU. You'll need to see some right-wing sites, but they're the only ones who actually show the connection, on video.

ScienceAvenger said...

Sorry, I had my fill of all these so-called "connections" of Obama's during the election, where none had the slightest substance, were presented in half-arguments, and were little more than paranoid interpretations of otherwise ordinary events.

Just once I'd like to see someone make a logical, fact-based argument on one of these issues. You know, this is true, that is true, therefore this conclusion logically follows. When someone does that, I'll take a look. Until then, I just dump all this stuff into the Conspiracy section of my file 13, with the birthers, the deathers, the truthers, and the moon-landing deniers.

Miranda said...

Of course, you could let all your readers decide, by including the links I gave, which you deleted for no good reason.

ScienceAvenger said...

I deleted them for a very good reason. I am interested in intelligent discussion on this site, not partisan slogan-chanting and certainly distribution of propoganda. I delete such without apology so my readers don't have to waste their time with nonsense.

See, I know your tactics, and I know most of you guys can't make an argument, because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You simply pass on whatever links or videos you've been told are the correct ones. So if you've got an argument to make, make it, otherwise, begone.

Troublesome Frog said...


I'd be very interested in hearing a meaningful conspiracy theory. The catch is that it actually has to hang together logically and have some sort of evidence to support it. Vague insinuations about "connections" don't really cut it. What I'm looking for is:

1) What "bad" thing was done? Equally acceptable would be what "bad" thing is being done, or will be done (provided there's some evidence of intent).
2) Who did this bad thing?
3) How are the players you're trying to smear connected not just to the people in (2), but the act in (1)?
4) What's the evidence that makes it into a consistent, logical, plausible story?

We can go through "connections" all day long. Depending on how close the connection needs to be, you're probably only a couple of connections away from the Enron meltdown or the World Trade Center attacks. What's special about these particular connections?

Miranda said...

I wish I had the time to detail it, instead of posting a few links that would detail it for you. But SA won't let me paste a link. You're on your own. I'm sure you'll both investigate the matter fully.

ScienceAvenger said...

Just as I suspected. Amazing how consistently you guys run out of time when you're forced to justify your claims, or in this case, just to make one coherantly. Do you really think that fools anyone?

Troublesome Frog said...

"I wish I had the time to detail it, instead of posting a few links that would detail it for you."

There's no short version? Like, "Obama involved himself in X nasty business by doing Y. There's evidence for it out there if you look." I'd be moderately impressed by any story that can fill in X and Y with something sensible. I've never seen anybody get even that far. It's normally just vague insinuations and "connections."

Miranda said...

"I've never seen anybody get even that far.

Name some sites.

Troublesome Frog said...


I'll ignore for the moment that you still don't seem to want to actually take a position of any kind and answer your question.

Let's start with some of the less crazy (and by "crazy" I mean "Buddha has a ghost penis that lives in my cereal" crazy) sources.

NRO's "Inside Obama's Acorn" lists "bad" things ACORN has done like protest in ways that are scary to people. It lists people who were involved in some of the more agressive and unruly protests and makes the point that (gasp!) Obama knew those people, because he too was involved with ACORN. We have page after page listing the organizations crimes with caveats saying that there's no evidence that Obama was involved with them, but he knew lots of the bad people who might have been. No beef.

There's always good stuff to read in the WSJ Editorial page (if you like a combination of hackery and fantasy), but even they only manage to note the fact that ACORN often gets public money, and Obama often supports it. Crimes? Malfeasance? Not so much. Certainly no evidence that Obama himself was involved in any. Moving down the food chain...

Let's get to Michelle Malkin, who is a little more willing to move into the realm of libel, but still smart enough to know that her ruminations actually have to at least be tied to something factual. The net result: A list of things that make ACORN bad and repeating the fact that Obama used to work for them. Badness!

Now, we could move on to private web sites by people who have the $15 to set up a domain and enough time on their hands to type whatever nonsense they feel like pulling out of their ass, but there are lots of those. Do you have one particular crazy person you see as more authoritative than the others, or should I just pour a pot of coffee and try to consume the whole bilge of unfiltered truthy goodness?

You could also just tell us what *your* position is. What bad thing did Obama do? How was he involved? What's your evidence?

Alternately, you could just tell us what your past employment history is, and I could get to work on tying you to Al Qaeda one way or another.