Here's Ted Nugent tossing an impressively stupid word salad of Teabagger talking points:
"This president's overtly destructive, clear-and-present-danger agenda is surpassed in transparency only by his ultra-leftist public voting record and overall lifetime conduct of consorting with the enemy as a child and student of Marxism, socialist and racist community organizer, congregant of the blatant America-hating black-theology- and social-justice-spewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright and close personal friend of convicted communist terrorists like Bill Ayers, and by his unflinching appointment of an array of communist czars, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunne, et al."
OK, first of all Ted, and any Teabaggers that might be reading, the moment you say "Bill Ayers", "Saul Alinsky", or "ACORN", thinking people stop listening. It was irrelevant bullshit in 2008, and it's still irrelevant bullshit now. Secondly, all you igtards yammering about communist czars, please go take a history lesson. The Czars were absolute rulers, the Caesers of Russia. The notion of multiple Czars being appointed is, well, like having multiple all powerful gods being chosen by mere mortals. "Czar" in the US is a hokey term for certain appointed positions, has been going on since Reagan and his idiot Drug Czar William Bennett, and is another phantom issue like the three A's above. Furthermore, the communists were the friggin people that overthrew the damned line of Czars, murdered the last one and his children in cold blood. So talking about communist Czars is like talking about Nazi Jews.
And you wonder why the stereotype of the Teabaggers is an ignorant blowhard...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"So talking about communist Czars is like talking about Nazi Jews."
Unfortunately, there had been a small handful of Jewish Nazis:
Erhard Milch
Emile Maurice to name two. There's a book (whose accuracy I'm not vouching for) called "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers."
There's even a neo-nazi group inside Israel, called Israeli White unity.
Small groups indeed, but they exist. Similarly, there ought to be no necessary contradiction calling some folks "Communist Czars."
"the moment you say "Bill Ayers", "Saul Alinsky", or "ACORN", thinking people stop listening. It was irrelevant bullshit in 2008, and it's still irrelevant bullshit now."
I might agree that it's irrelevant BS now, but why was it in 2008? You usually back up your claims.
Words mean what we agree that they mean in the context they are used. This context is one that President Obama set up himself by calling these assistants - Czars. So, you comments about how ignorant Ted Nugent is for using the term Czar actually points right back to President Obama - if it is relevant at all. Which in fact it is not. You ignore the character, and direction of the appointments which are made outside of congressional oversight. Ted's comment was about the character and direction of these appointments - and their lack of oversight. Care to comment on the quality of people that President Obama is surrounding himself with? Can you show that they are mainstream Americans with values and policies that mesh with the majority of us?
I'm ignoring nothing, because there is nothing special here. Obama is doing what multiple presidents before him did, and using the same stupid term "Czar". Nugent's comment was just a mishmash of wingtard talking points he was clearly using without knowledge of what they actually mean. It had nothing to do with the quality of those people, because Nugent clearly doesn't know what that is.
George, they are irrelevant bullshit arguments because the wingnuts have never produced a single, straight-foward, coherent argument for why any are relevant. It's all Beckian guilt-by-association conjecture until THEY show otherwise. The burdon of proof is on them.
As for the Nazi Jews, I knew when I posted that some pedant would find some Nazi Jews somewhere and claim it disputes my point, but it doesn't. Nugent was using the terms generally, as if they generally went together, when they clearly do not. One does not require a universe completely devoid of Nazi Jews, or Communist Czars, to see Nugent's comments for the ignorant nonsense they are. He's just stringing negative words together in an attempt to rhetorically tar the opposition, and whether they make sense or not doesn't really matter to him or his ignorant audience.
David writes:
"This context is one that President Obama set up himself by calling these assistants - Czars."
Reagan had czars, too - was he lambasted by the left for being a commie pinko?
"So, you comments about how ignorant Ted Nugent is for using the term Czar actually points right back to President Obama - if it is relevant at all."
It is the connotation. Do you think Nugent - draft dodger that he is - would have the things he did during the Reagan or Bush years?
"Ted's comment was about the character and direction of these appointments - and their lack of oversight. Care to comment on the quality of people that President Obama is surrounding himself with?"
Yeah, I prefer the good old days when Reagan surrounded himself only with elitists like Bill 'the Gambler; Bennet... Much better character thanb some lib commie that actually wants to help people...
"Can you show that they are mainstream Americans with values and policies that mesh with the majority of us?"
Is Nugent in the mainstream? I guess if by mainstream you mean most folks are pro-war draft dodging, pot smoking, carousing, hacks, then sure. Is Beck mainstream? Bush?
Be realistic.
Some unexpected findings at CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=USH00p2
65% either support or are neutral about the Tea Party "movement", only 31% oppose.
The Democrat party's unfavorables (53%) exceeded the Republican party's unfavorables (52%).
Obama was "not a factor" for only 37%.
Gays/Lesbians went 31% for Republicans.
Union households went 38% for Republicans.
You may wish to know more about what you speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
This has been going on for a long time. The constitution allows the president to have advisors, but they have no power or authority. It appears we have ran astray for a long time.
Obama has only done it a little bigger and bolder then some who have gone before him.
Wrong is still wrong.
When you guys criticize people like Reagan (who started this mess), your "wrong is still wrong" arguments would appear more legitimate, instead of being the blatant partisan sniping it is.
Post a Comment