Oh no, a real post
A guy who can seriously put his thoughts down is found here. He explains the difference of hatred for Bush and for Clinton. Hatcher is really good, and should be a more popular blogger but apparently he sinned too much as a child. I digress- this really hits the nail on the head-
"Bush = Hitler", I'm sure Anonymous would admit, is a little unhinged when you consider that Bush's main crime (in their eyes) is ridding the world of a fascist murderer. You may have preferred he be left in place, arguing he posed no threat to us, but it was impossible to say on humanitarian grounds that what we did was a bad thing.
posted by Clupbert @ 7:50 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Oh here's a suggestion, explain how he missed the nail.
Darn, I thought I hit the nail! Thanks for the props Clupbert.
After visiting your site John, I have decided to harass your site as much as you harass mine. I also noticed you linked to us and since our policy is quid pro quo, I've added you to the blogroll. Cheers.
On one hand, the US is confiscating land from people "for the common good". That's effin Commie shiat.
On the other, there's some tight connections between the rich corporate boys and the gubbmint.
If I were to use hyperbole, would I call the US fascist or socialist?
It depends on where you already are on the political spectrum.
As for his question as to "Why wasn't Clinton-Hitler?"
In many Evangelical circles, Clinton was the Antichrist.
And Milosevic and Clinton were buddies. Clinton wasn't hated so much for Bosnia as he was for Waco.
I think he nails it when he essentially finds hatred on both sides. Moonbats exist on both sides of the political spectrum, but the idiotarians tend to be commies, to put it in terms of heated rhetoric.
I also think this is gold:
"Now think of the number one thing liberals like to flatter themselves about with respect to Bush - how comparatively stupid he is, on their reckoning. His "Bushisms" give it away - really intelligent people are apparently, to a man, great extemporaneous speakers. I always think of Ed Prescott here, my Macroeconomics teacher and Nobel Prize winner, who makes Bush sound like Churchill. Because they've anointed themselves as smarter than Bush, their intelligence permits them to insult, because after all lack of intelligence is equivalent to lack of virtue; and having it excuses them for calling a guy they don't know a moron. They did it with Dan Quayle, and to some extent with Reagan."
True. So true. Most (or some) lefties want to find some intelligent debate and challenge their own assumptions, but many just anoint themselves Einstein and call anyone who disagrees with them an intellectual dwarf.
Well the people who take people's land are elected officials and anyone can run unlike in communist totalitarian states. but I posted about that supreme court decision and I do hate it.
There is tight connections between labor lobby and other lobbies with some people so it is just that voters don't hold politicians accountable enough. All those connections are out in the open and politicians are able to be voted out unlike in Hitler's Germany.
And the part about Bush and language is an excellent point. His IQ is estimated at 128 or something and beat Kerry on their military entrance exams and in college grades. John here is an example of someone who anoints theirself as an almighty intelligent being when in actuality he is brainwashed by bullshit. Look back on our past arguments, they are filled with him telling me I "can't possibly understand" whenever he loses the argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home