68 thoughts on “Don’t worry…

  1. “If you own one of these [OR a mega-yacht], you have nothing to worry about, because Republicans are fighting to keep your taxes low, because they know how much you’re struggling during these tough times.”

    I don’t imagine that ForgotMyScreenName, Wingnut, Pete or Ray will be stepping up anytime soon to defend this particular tax break, so near and dear to the cold, dark, “let’s protect the rich at any cost” Republican heart.

    (*laughing*)

    How ironic it is that many on the Right are SO very quick to mindlessly “spit” the word “elitist” out at erudite and articulate progressives who do nothing more than embrace the idea, and/or suggest, that spelling and proper grammar matter when expressing one’s opinions, yet don’t see the true elitism at play when it comes to things like this.

    1. I sure wish the “erudite and articulate progressives” would worry more about what Obama and Company are doing to this country than about some tax breaks on jets and yachts. Penny wise, pound foolish they used to say.

      Why would you want the nation’s finances handled any differently than you handle your own family’s finances? You can’t say they are different animals. If that is your argument, then please explain how the nation can keep running up larger debt but your family can not.

      1. I get a great big kick out of this ” that’s how your family has to operate” analogy when talking about government revenues and spending. If we’re going to go that route let’s get things straight.

        The current American family has a rich uncle living in the master bedroom, forcing everyone else to sleep on futons in the living area and on air mattresses in the basement.

        He won’t help pay the mortgage or utility bills, expects everyone else to mow the yard and clean house, but gets dibs on whatever is in the fridge.

        There. Now let’s talk about how government revenues and spending is just like your average family.

        What should the above described
        ” family ” do about their monthly budget shortfall?

    2. Can you spell, “deflection”, Wingnut?

      Can you defend the tax breaks for jets and mega-yachts or not?

  2. I do want the nation run like a family….my wife and I make the money so we pay the bills. In order to run it like the republicans we would hoard all of our money and expect our kids to cover everything.

  3. Actually I thought we wanted the government to be run like a business…which would mean you borrow when you need to pay your bills and current clash flow doesn’t cover it and you increase REVENUE where ever you can and yes you reduce expenses…but you don’t cut the necessary homestead support budget instead of the luxury items.

    1. Ed, this is too easy. If you guys wanted the country run like a business, please tell me why you so eagerly voted for a person without an ounce of business sense or experience?

        1. I do not favor these tax breaks either. There, Zuma, I answered your question. I don’t understand why nobody will answer the questions I pose such as the one in my last comment.

          1. You need to pose your questions in the proper context, Wingnut, such as an article which addresses them, instead of hiding behind them in an effort to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable truths presented, in this case, Republican-supported, AND elitist, tax breaks.

      1. Wingnut, remind me again which of the two candidates running for president had business sense or experience, because the last time I checked, John McCain wasn’t exactly a titan of industry before running for president; he was a career politician.

        Nice try though.

        1. You are correct. McCain is a career pol. I only voted for him because I was confronted with a Hobson’s choice in 2008. Other than Romney, I don’t see a Republican hopeful with business acumen now. I have some reservations about him, but if he ran against the Progressive in Chief, there would be another Hobson’s choice for me.

          1. Does America want Romney’s particular brand of business “acumen”? I sure hope not.

            He used to buy companies, dismantle them, strip them “down to the bone, laying off large numbers of workers, then generally moving the company away, in the process.

            Romney personally profited from that. He derived huge profits from it. The workers got screwed.

            Jobs were lost, not created, through Romney’s efforts in the private sector. He just isn’t the private sector “job creator” that he likes to posture himself as being or having the “acumen” to create.

            He’s a Gordon Gecko for the New Millenium.

            Sounds like your kind of guy, Wingnut, a guy with the kind of business “acumen” only a Republican could love.

            1. Sorry I could not reply to your comment sooner, Zuma. I have been busy going through my closet trying to select something to wear to the get together Monday night at the Transfer Pizza.

              You make Romney sound pretty awful. I will have to learn more about him. He can’t be as bad as you have described him.

              Even if what you say in totally accurate, it remains my belief that Obama constitutes a larger threat to this nation. Where Romney might have “dismantled” companies, Obama is working to dismantle our individualistic society so that a collectivist one can exist in America. It wasn’t collectivism that allowed us to become the world’s leading economy.

              1. “Obama is working to dismantle our individualistic society so that a collectivist one can exist in America.”

                Wingnut, Obama is doing anything but.

                W, if you want to have a dialogue, you truly need to get past your tendency to state such [absurd, extremist,] unproven, undemonstrated and unfactual premises as though they were gospel.

                The President isn’t a socialist or a communist or a “collectivist”. If you actually do believe that, you are farther “out there” than I had originally thought (somewhere out on the Bircheresque rightwing fringe).

                In any event, your beliefs notwithstanding, it appears that you simply don’t understand what socialism, communism and/or “collectivism” are.

                Words matter, Wingnut, and you’re clearly intelligent enough to know how to put them to better use.

                Instead of coming here with such John Birch Society talking points in hand, and nothing else, as you did this time, next time try stating your thesis, up front, identifying it as such, and then provide some evidentiary support for it.

                If all you want to do is exchange slogans, you’re talking to the wrong guy.

              2. Wingnut, I hope to see you on Monday night, because I think you’d find yourself surprised at the great conversation you’d be able to have with folks from the opposite point of view.

        2. Well, McCain married into money, whereby Obama had to write to earn his.

          1. So I suppose Obama’s more of a self-made man, and more of a capitalist, since he made his money through his own hard work, not through marriage.

        3. Wingnut, remind me again which of the two candidates running for president…

          Must have been some election fraud going on because there were more than two candidates for President on my ballot. 🙂 but also a little 😐 too.

    2. Having read quite a bit about the issue and following the General Aviation industry in this country, I need to provide the dissent here.

      First, pardon me for going off memory, but what I say here is supported by solid research. Advocacy groups like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association are a great source for specific information on the impact to the economy of the industry.

      The general aviation industry, invented and still largely based in this country, runs to the order of $15 billion every year, as well as something like 4 million jobs for manufacturers, airport operators and service operations. And, because of the economy, it’s in a very precarious state. As we saw with the yacht industry 20 years ago, the elimination of tax breaks nearly killed that industry and was devastating to the economies of the affected localities. Net tax revenue, as a result, suffered as well.

      The other thing we don’t want to do is take an industry that makes very technologically advanced products with highly skilled labor to simply wither up and blow away, like the consumer electronics industry in this country.

      I’m not saying that we need to do nothing about tax breaks like these. But before we confuse a talking point with potentially devastating real action, we need to do some serious math to make sure we’re not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

      So while it may seem distasteful that the rich get another handout, remember that many middle class, highly skilled labor is also counting on that tax break, too.

  4. Oh and by the way…this evil tax break was just fine with the President way back when he last proposed a budget. I mean, I know it’s been a couple of years, but he included it in his 2009 budget. It’s amazing that there hasn’t been a budget even proposed, let along passed in two years and we hear nothing about it. If Congress and the President had done their damn jobs they’d have passed a budget and we wouldn’t be hitting our heads on the debt ceiling yet again.

    Our tax policy is an utter and complete failure. It is part punitive, part bribery, part social engineering and certainly part free handouts to pick winners & losers and reward special companies, industries or just friends of lawmakers. Eliminate not just this, but all deductions.

  5. That is hardly a balanced assessment of Romney’s business dealings.You have heard of attack ads?

    You implied earlier that I may be directed by the Birch Society. Are they still around? Actually, I am a political loner. I do not belong to any group. I do not knowingly use any talking points.

    I will criticize politicians from both parties. I believe that each party contributed to the present economic situation. That may make me unique on here. I am still looking for a liberal here who will express a negative opinion of the actions of any Democratic office holder.

    1. @Wingnut

      “That is hardly a balanced assessment of Romney’s business dealings.You have heard of attack ads?”

      I stand by my characterization of Mitt Romney past business practices, Present countervailing evidence if you have any.

      For the record, W, there is nothing innately wrong with “an attack ad”, if it is truthful. The ads that you found at the link that I provided presented any number of uncomfortable truths about Romney. Rebut them if you can, but stop attacking the form in which they were presented.

      “Where Romney might have ‘dismantled’ companies, Obama is working to dismantle our individualistic society so that a collectivist one can exist in America.”

      Look, W, you need to stop the sloganeering. I don’t think for a second that you are a Bircher or have a set of Bircher talking points in front of you when you write a comment. I do however see a certain overlap between your perspective and that of the Birchers.

      If you believe that “Obama is working to dismantle our individualistic society so that a collectivist one can exist in America”, just as the John Birch Society and other rightwing extremists believe, then prove it. Otherwise what you have written in this regard is nothing more than something that could just as easily serve as a “headline” for the John Birch Society Newsletter, nothing more than a meaningless, unproven slogan.

      When you present such theses, premises and/or “slogans”, support them with facts, and I’ll be less inclined to think that you are parroting talking points from groups which share remarkably similarly ways of looking at things with you.

      Additionally, if you stick to the specifics of the blog post topic, you will tend to avoid the pitfall of jumping into the unrelated and broader philosophical questions you used this blog post to get into, a pit into which you fell here and on which I called you.

      Tax breaks for corporate jets/tax breaks for mega-yachts/tax breaks for toys with which the wealthy love to play was the blog post topic, W. Not wild-eyed accusations that the President is a “collectivist”.

      See, here’s a case in point illustrating why I intuitively saw a connection between you and Birchers. “Collectivist”? Seriously? I think that I first saw that word used back in the 60s in a tract that Phyllis Schlafley wrote, for God’s sake.

      Anyway, W, stay on point, refrain from going off on “collectivist/socialist” tangents like that under a blog post like this one, and I think that we can have an interesting discussion. Otherwise, you just look like an extremist interested only in making sure “the party line” gets out there.

  6. I did not realize I had entered a liberal Tombstone here where Zack is the Mayor and law enforcement is handled by Marshall Zuma. The Marshall is responsible for confronting any rowdy cowboy who rides into town with aberrant political views. A troublemaker can be easily spotted as he rides wearily into town. His six-shooter will always be strapped to his right leg. He may just be thinking of strolling into the Longhorn Saloon to wash the trail dust out of his throat, but he has been spotted and the Marshall alerted to his presence.

    Marshall Zuma soon enters the saloon and slaps a pair of handcuffs down on the bartop in front of the surprised cowboy. Marshall Zuma tells the cowboy he has a choice. He can unstrap and removed that right handed gun and give it to the Marshall for safekeeping at the jail. And put on the handcuffs and wear them while he is in town. Otherwise, he will be forcibly disarmed, removed to the jail and kept there until Hanging Judge Barca comes to town again.

    1. Zuma’s not the “marshall,” nor does he speak for anyone but Zuma. Just as you’re entitled to your opinion, so is he.

      By the way, we’re more like the Dodge City of the Cheddarsphere…

        1. “Who is Miss Kitty?”

          Well, JCG, it must be Wingnut because he seems to get “the vapors” anytime someone asks him to stay on topic or at least provide evidence for the positions that he takes and treats as gospel.

          The latest, as it appears above, is that the President is a social/communist/”collectivist”.

          In addition to suggesting that Wingnut should try to stay on topic, I asked him to provide evidence for that proposition. Instead of providing “evidence”, Wingnut, digging deep into his wingnut mindset and deflecting on the grandest and most ridiculous of scales, opted to substitute misplaced tongue-in-cheek condescension for substance in a little cow-pie of Western MELODRAMA called “Wingnutsmoke”.

          Perhaps we should call it “Wingnut Smoke” because he was blowing smoke for all he was worth in what he clearly thought was a “cute” way to avoid actually addressing the issues with which I had presented him earlier.

          Unfortunately, Wingnut’s latest post, which must have taken him hours to come up with, was his clearest admission yet that he sees the privilege of posting comments here as something which allows him to spout wingnut philosophy without being “tethered” in any way to a given blog topic or to the need to provide evidence in support of what he says or to need to substantively respond to the comments made by other commenters who take issue with what he has to say.

          Wingnut, the next time that you call the President a “collectivist”, and I call you on your failure to provide any evidence supporting that proposition, instead of providing Creative Writing instructors everywhere with another examplar of how not to write satire and/or short Western fiction, try just proving your case.

          Then the Marshall, the Mayor, Festus, Miss Kitty and the rest, as well as Creative Writing instructors across America, will be able to rest a little easier.

      1. This is just “his thing”, Zach.

        Wingnut doesn’t engage on a substantive level. He always finds something to express “faux outrage/indignation/{fill-in-the-blank]” over so that he never really has to get around to responding to the substance of what you’ve said.

        Read our exchanges up above, you’ll see what I’m talking about.

        Next time, Zach, instead of just “buying into” his shtick without looking into it more, maybe see if what I had to say above, to which he responded with that ridiculous “Mayor/Marshall” post of his, had any merit, and then call him out on his bullshit.

        Should’ve had my back, Zach.

      1. Don’t “feed” the wingnuts, Steve.

        Just save up the money that you spend on “wingnut feed” so that you can pay me and Zach the $5 that you owe us on that Jeb Bush bet, huh?

        1. ZB,

          It might be you who are feeding the Wingnuts?

          I just want to be Festus.

          And Wingnut, every member of Congress is a collectivist. That’s how they get cheap health insurance.

          1. Steve, your wish is granted. If they ask you where you got your limp, tell them you went pivoted off topic one day.

            Anybody want to be Doc?

            1. Give it a rest, W.

              And get back to proving your thesis that President Obama is a “collectivist”, you know, the little ditty that you parachuted into a topic about tax breaks for corporate jets.

              Or are you to busy being a primadona right now to exalt substance over bullshit?

            2. Wingnut,

              Call your collectivist member of congress immediately and tell him/her to publicly renounce their Bolshevik health insurance. The future of rugged individualism is at stake

              Tell’em Festus sent you.

          2. Okay, Steve, you can be “Festus”.

            Anyway, the “feed” that I put out falls into the category of “pest control”.

            You’re just getting distracted by Wingnut’s attempt to avoid directly addressing my advice to him that he stay on point, present evidence to support his theses and argue in an organized, cohesive way.

            Dealing with him, getting him to argue rationally, has been like, in the words of Sarah Palin’s former adviser, trying to nail jello to a tree.

            You should be talking about that instead of wanting to be play Festus in “WingnutSmoke”.

            I can only hope that you haven’t encouraged him to write another doofus ditty.

            Anyway, let’s all just encourage him at this point to “prove” that President Obama is a “collectivist”, and refrain from any more unfortunate forays into the realm of “creative” writing.

  7. Whoa, Wingnut. (*laughing*) All that drama just because I told you that you needed to stay on topic or provide evidence for some of your hyperbole? Bit of an over-reaction, “pod-ner”.

    If you want to to “ride into town” and say that the President is a socialist or a “collectivist” or a communist, you should expect to be asked to prove it.

    If a blog topic is about tax breaks for corporate jets, you should expect to be expected to talk about such things, instead of pivoting away, as you always seem to, to a topic more to your liking and more supportive of your ideological perpective.

    I’m sorry that you find that to be such a heavy burden, Wingnut.

    Your most recent post exemplifies your approach to debate. Rather than address the substantive matters which I took you to task for up above, and rather than simply admit that logic, good sense and common courtesy dictate that, in addressing any particular blog post, you stay on topic, you deflect yet again, a truly strange, misguided and off-the-mark attempt at satire your chosen method of deflection this time around.

    I’m sure that you’re a legend in your own mind, Wingnut, when it comes to writing and political analysis. In mine, you’re just an oddball who thinks he knows it all, but doesn’t ever really seem to “get it”, even when it comes to the simplest things of concepts.

    With that in mind, all I can say is have fun, partner. You’re just too strange for my taste.

    In any event, I’m happy to let my comments as they appear here and elsewhere speak for themselves, and to let yours speak for you.

    1. Wow. Zuma, I had the impression you had a sense of humor. I was led to believe that when early on here you described me as a wingnut and an old codger in a bathrobe. You followed that up by saying you were just messing with me and having some fun. I guess turnabout is not fair play where you are concerned.

      As to you accusing me of deflecting and pivoting away from the subject of a post, for me these issues are all intertwined. It is hard to look at them in isolation. The original post was regarding tax breaks for corporate jets and yachts. I tried to make the point that I am not as concerned about those breaks as I am about the overall tax policy. Obama’s plans in that regard are not going to create more jobs.

      And then there is Obama being a socialist. We have only to read his own books to see that he is not in favor of capitalism. How would you characterize his political philosophy?

      I think some here may have smiled a little at my “ridiculous” stab at humor. Not all are as rigid as you seem to be.

      Although I have not been told yet to get out of town before sunset, it may be time for this “strange-er” to give Miss Kitty a quick kiss, saddle up, and ride out of Tombstone.

      1. Every wingnut thinks that “it” is all “intertwined”. That’s why trying to maintain a dialogue with one is kind of like nailing jello to a tree, just as it has been with you.

        Wingnut, with all due respect, staying on point is important. You need to learn to deal with the topic of a given blog post before you start to meander off into areas more near and dear to your cold, dark wingnut heart.

        You parachuted the idea that the President was a socialist/communist/”collectivist” into the middle of a conversation about a very specific topic, “tax breaks for corporate jets/mega-yachts”.

        Look, I understand that those kinds of tax breaks make Republican intransigence regarding same in the context of Democratic efforts to get rid of them difficult for someone like you to defend.

        Your approach, as exemplified above, was to start talking about something else, and then to parachute the “Obama as collectivist” non sequitor into the discussion, and to do so without providing a scintilla of supporting evidence for the proposition.

        “WingnutSmoke” was as entertaining as any other piece of poorly written satire I have had the sad experience of encountering, maybe not as entertaining as the picture of you up on your porch in that bathrobe yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off your lawn, but entertaining in the way that watching a really bad science fiction movie like, “Plan 9 From Outer Space” is entertaining.

        The irony here was that you took all that time and effort that you could have used to elucidate your theory/premise/proposition that the President is a “collectivist” to write a trite piece of whiny melodrama. Sad, really, but instructive.

        Moreover, I find no small amount of irony here in the idea that you thought to revisit our little tete-a-tete over my saying that some of your L-A-L comments suggested something of the “old codger in a bathrobe yelling at kids to get off of his lawn” about you as justification for your injection of “humor” here.

        You cried your eyes out over that “sleight”, so much so that you said that you were going to take all your marbles and go over to the Huffington Post, where they wouldn’t be SO mean to you, and then you left.

        I posted a comment saying that I would refrain from such references in the future because I thought, at that time, that you had something of note to contribute here. I’ve since been disabused of that notion. I hope that you prove me wrong in this regard, but if your performance here has been any indication, I’m not optimistic.

        I definitely have a sense of humor, Wingnut. Having formed the impression that you were too thin-skinned to deal with it, I backed off of it. I find it kind of funny , but certainly instructive, that you see humor as a one-sided sword to be wielded only by you.

        I guess that it is just one of the cardinal rules which govern the cult of rightwing victimhood, huh?

        For the record, you still haven’t provided one scintilla of evidence for your proposition that the President is a collectivist.

        Don’t tell me to read President’s books, Wingnut. Quote them for me, if THAT is your evidence for such a proposition. Give me, give the rest of us, something to suggest that you aren’t just another rightwing blowhard who has command of rightwing/wingnut talking points, but little else.

        That said, Wingnut, try to remember something. When you hear laughter, it may very well be laughter directed at you. In this case, whatever “smiles” you think that you perceive here amongst the assembled masses are coupled with the kind of “shaking of heads” in which people engage when they are embarrassed for someone. Whatever “laughter” you think you hear is, in fact, directed at you .

        Bear something in mind, Wingnut. The only person patting you on the back right now, and saying, “Atta-boy, now THAT was funny”, is you.

        1. If it makes you feel good to believe that nobody here thinks you lost it over my Tombstone bit, that is fine. As far as your taste in humor, you are probably one of those people who still rolls on the floor emiting gales of laughter when “Saturday Night Live” is on. No I am not a professional writer. But I feel that if a liberal had written what I did, you would find it entertaining.

          You can go on and on nonstop in your comments to me. And yet you tell me to “give it a rest.” I can not even comment to someone else without you jumping in. Look, if I tell you everybody on here still thinks you are the most erudite poster ever and they all still have your back, can you at least get some rest? You must have some work to do.

          Lets see. Should I say anymore about Obama being a socialist and get your fingers flying again? I will just say that if you have read his books and still believe he is not a socialist, then what is he? You have failed to answer that.

          I await your response, as I am sure there will be one. Not that you will answer my question above, but a long response anyway. If this keeps up, Zack will have to throw Adsense on here to keep the lights on. Then everybody will be mad at us.

          1. You’re hopeless, Wingnut.

            Ask you to prove one of the many laughable propositions that you parachute into any given discussion, and you never get around to providing any evidence.

            You started this tete-a-tete out with the bald-faced assertion that President Obama is a socialist/communist/”collectivist”.

            I’ve read the President’s books. Nothing in them suggest that he is a socialist, a communist or a “collectivist”.

            It’s a pretty simple concept, Wingnut. You’ve made an assertion. Either back it up, or step back, and just let the adults in the room talk. For once, stop dancing around things, and give a straight answer. Can you prove that the President is a socialist or a communist or whatever you mean by “collectivist”?

            For that matter, do you even know what socialism is?

            In court, I’m expected to focus on the matter at hand, to stay on point,to make my arguments as succinctly and as articulately as possible, and to back them up with evidence, with proof.

            Doing that, Wingnut, in a court of law, or in an “arena” like this one, is nothing more than an expression of common sense and common courtesy. Doing otherwise is counterproductive and disrespectful.

            Look, W, go off on tangents all you want, allege whatever you want to without ever feeling the need to prove it, write all the stupid, meaningless, fact- and point-free little “WingnutSmoke” ditties you want to. Nothing is going to change the fact that you are wasting not only your time, but the time of anyone who comes here with a sincere desire to engage in literate discourse, by posting the kinds of comments you have posted, to date.

            Your affinity for spelling, for proper grammar, syntax and sentence construction are head and shoulders above that of the average denizen of The Wingnut Nation. I will say that. However, ultimately, when it comes right down to it, armed as you are with all of that “ability to express yourself”, with all of that “potential” to say something of note and to make Socrates proud, all you ever end up doing is posture and blow hot air.

            I expected more from you, but clearly I shouldn’t have. You’ve wasted my time here. You’ve wasted everyone’s time.

            As I said up above, I’m just going to let my comments speak for themselves, just as I will let yours speak for you. Good luck with that.

            Now, off you go, Miss Kitty. Waste someone else’s time.

            1. At least if we could agree that Obama is a socialist, I would say he is doing a good job. If you insist he is not a socialist, I then have to say he is inept as a President.

              1. @ Wingnut

                Near the top of this comment thread, you parachuted the non-sequitor proposition, without providing any evidence whatsoever for it, that President Obama was a socialist/communist/”collectivist”.

                In the lengthy thread that followed it, among other things, I asked that you try to stay on point and discuss the actual blog post topic, instead of parachuting in such generalized rightwing sloganeering. While I was at it, I asked you, since you had mentioned it, irrelevant as it was to the subject at hand, to provide evidence that President Obama was a socialist/communist/”collectivist”.

                Comically, you posted a number of comments thereafter wherein you took umbrage at the VERY notion that you should have to stay on point or to have to actually prove your assertions. Inasmuch as Socrates and Plato were always quite clear about the need for same in civil and rational discourse, I am quite sure that would find great humor in the position that you have taken in this regard. As it is, you’ve probably got them rolling over in their graves at how you’ve trivialized something which they valued so greatly.

                Beyond a certain point, Wingnut, all I was asking you to do was prove one of your evidence-free assertions. The funny thing is, despite all of the comments that you have posted since, you have yet to prove anything.

                So, it comes down to this, Wingnut.

                Either you can do six simple things, or it’s time for you to finally admit that you are nothing more than a partisan hack uttering factually bereft rightwing slogans like, “Obama is a socialist/communist/”collectivist”.

                Here are those six things:

                (1) Define socialism; and

                (2) Objectively demonstrate/prove that President Obama is a socialist, something that you have insisted throughout this comment thread that he is without having provided one scintilla in support of that proposition;

                (3) Define “collectivism”; and

                (4) Objectively demonstrate/prove that President Obama is a “collectivist”, something that you have insisted throughout this comment thread that he is without having provided one scintilla in support of that proposition;

                (5) Define communism; and

                (6) Objectively demonstrate/prove that President Obama is a communist, something that you have insisted throughout this comment thread that he is without having provided one scintilla in support of that proposition.

                IF only Fixed News or fat-boy, Rush Limbaugh, provided a bibliography to which people like you could refer when put on the spot, huh, a resource guide which provided the kind of “evidence” that you need to “prove” your point in situations like this one?

                There is no such thing, because it is ALL bullshit. The President isn’t a socialist or a communist or a “collectivist” or a Kenyan witch doctor, but saying that he is fires up a rabidly racist/redneck/conservative/rightwing/wingnut base that wants to have a reason to hate this country’s first African-American President and to call for his ouster.

                And the slogans insidiously seep into conservative culture and lore to such an extent that seemingly intelligent wingnuts like you, Wingnut, mindlessly parrot them. Asking for proof only leads to circular arguments like the one that I’ve had with you herein.

                Sad, but instructive.

                Instead of asking me to prove that the President isn’t a socialist, a communist and/or a “collectivist”, Wingnut, prove that is he, once and for all, or STFU.

                You dig?

                1. Zuma, I was wondering when I ever said Obama was a communist. So I did a search for that word on this page. The first mention of that word was made by you. Check it out. So this is where the opposing counsel would jump up and yell that you are putting words into his client’s mouth. Do you do that in court too?

                  Marx was the founder of Socialism, most would agree. Just to single out one thing that may have led me to believe that O is a socialist is his writing that he “sought out Marxist professors.” And then there are the words of his closest associates as an adult. Also the backgrounds and writings of some of his czars. Can you find just one person who has stepped forward to say that he or she grew up with O and what an outstanding chap he was? Can you find just one individual who can tell stories about his early days? Lefties just can’t believe that racism is not the reason O is not liked. Sure there are racists out there. I am not one of them. So you need to look further to discover why I don’t see Obama as being good for this country. I judge a President by his conduct not his race.

                  Incidently, have you noticed that you and many others on the Left are prone to throw out the racism card in an attempt to stigmatize those on the Right? It doesn’t work.

                  #1, Google that for yourself.

                  #2, Obama’s educational choices, the friends and associates he has selected throughout his life, his own written words, his expressed belief that our society has to be more “fair” than it has been, and his actions and inactions as President thus far.

                  #3, Sorry I ever used that term. To me it means about the same as socialism.

                  #4, See #3.

                  #5, Google that too.

                  #6, Never said he was a Commie.

                  Zuma, you told me all things that Obama is not in your comment. I have asked a few times how you would then describe him. Do you have an answer?

                  I don’t think it is a good idea for you to call Limbaugh a “fat boy.” Not that he isn’t fat. Aren’t you insulting also many, many of those on the left? I have seen your rallies on television.

                  You say you are an attorney. I have often wondered why some of the “rich” choose to be on the left. I believe in the case of Obama and Sorus that they want to control the masses because it gives them considerable pleasure and it can be a path to additonal riches. If you were to disclose that you are a tort attorney, then I would know why you have positioned yourself on the left.

                  1. Since you’ve thrown words like “socialist”, “socialism” and “collectivist” around with such reckless abandon, I wanted YOU to tell me what they meant to YOU.

                    So, do YOU define them for me? Or explain why President Obama is a socialist or a “collectivist”? No. Of course not. You tell me to “Google” them. Amazing.

                    Well, Wingnut, enough is enough. You’ve finally demonstrated to me beyond all reasonable doubt that trying to have an intelligent, structured and logical “conversation” with you is a pointless exercise.

                    It has truly been like trying to nail jello to a tree.

                    We’re done here, Wingnut.

                    1. Zuma, I read through all of the comments that you and Wingnut exchanged, and I just wanted you to know that I completely understand your frustration with Wingnut.

                      Your “nailing jello to a tree” metaphor was an apt way of reducing what Wingnut had to say, and how he went about saying it, to its simplest common denominator.

                      Wingnut, simply put, you didn’t debate in an intellectually honest way. Zuma was absolutely right about that.

                      As a former Rhetoric professor, I am going to give Zuma Bound an “”A+” for his comments, which I found to be articulate and intelligent, as well as for his valiant, but ultimately unsuccessful, efforts to get Wingnut to debate honestly. I have to give an “F” to Wingnut for his for his comments and for the intellectual dishonesty which they reflected.

                      I knew James Arness, by the way. I’m pretty sure he would have wanted to take Wingnut out to the wood shed over that regrettable reference that he made to “Gunsmoke”.

  8. Wingnut, and his ilk, are the reason are country is in the shitter. I don’t debate people like him because they’re so incredibly entrenched in an evil belief system that dynamite and the second coming of whatever god they worship wouldn’t change their minds one iota.

    All I hear from people like him is bullshit and more bullshit. Let him have his freaking delusions. I’ll stick to truth.

  9. what is truth jan? the bs that zuma aka barney fife likes to spew, or maybe its the libtard crap you here from madcow.

    the blue fisted haters club has been oozing their evil since they lost the elections of 2010

    1. Ray, you’re always entertaining when you froth at the mouth like that.

      By the way, it’s high time that you invested in a dictionary and/or a remedial English course. While entertaining, your near incomprehensible, infantile rants are becoming increasingly unreadable.

  10. Ex-Professor Lawson, after your analysis of my exchange with Zuma, you have reached an unsurprising conclusion. Apparently, you are another Obama apologist.

    If you knew James Arness, then you must be aware that he was a lifelong Republican. I would like to think he would have been delighted with my handling of a liberal puffball.

    1. (*laughing*)

      Awww, come on now, Wingnut. . .

      Is your ego really THAT fragile?

      You don’t know Professor Lawson from Adam. And yet you self-servingly assume that he or she MUST have had a partisan motivation for coming to the conclusions that he or she came to about the “conversation” that you and I had.

      Maybe he or she actually JUST thinks that you’re full of it.

      And maybe you’re a legend only in your own mind.

      “Better to remain silent, and only be thought the [douchebag], than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

      Just let it go, huh?

    2. As a lifelong Republican myself, my dear and so very insolent Wingnut, I can assure you that what I had to say above about what you had written, and how you had written it, was strictly an academic exercise.

      In a Rhetoric class, for example, students are trained to understand and to be able to represent either side of an argument or issue. As such, my politics aside for the moment, my focus has always been to review, analyze and critique the manner in which an argument has been presented, rather than the actual merits of the argument itself.

      Jim Arness would have been “proud” neither of your witless and self-serving homage to “Gunsmoke”, nor of the vigorous and absolutely unjustified way that you congratulated yourself in “handling” a “liberal puffball” (a truly immature and certainly inapt turn of phrase), as you so regrettably referred to Zuma Bound.

      Jim was, indeed, a Republican, but an intelligent and a fair-minded one, traits that you certainly wouldn’t have shared with him, and your performance on this blog would have made him cringe.

      Your delusions of grandeur, notwithstanding, sir, your performance here would have been an embarrassment to Jim Arness, and to any number of other thoughtful, intelligent and articulate conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr. who prided themselves on clarity of expression and honest debate.

      Zuma Bound may have been right or he may have been wrong in what he was saying with respect to the subject matter here (and I’m not making a judgment here either way with respect to that), but he argued his points well, and he quite accurately characterized his efforts to have an intelligent debate with you as having been “like trying to nail jello to a tree”.

      Blowing more smoke, and trying to childishly insult him, as you did in the last comment that you posted, changed nothing. All it did, as Zuma Bound pointed out, was further undermine your credibility.

      And Zuma Bound’s use of the “Black Knight” reference in his final comment? Sublime.

      As they say, “Game, set, match”, to Zuma Bound.

      You were completely outmatched. Take it from me. Jim would agree.

      And if he was still alive, he’d be taking to you down to the woodshed right about now.

      1. S.M., you seem to want to think you know all about me from this one page. That is a real gift to have. I wish I had that ability.

        I am sorry I tagged you as being a Liberal Democrat. That was a terrible insult to you. You can see that I do not have much ability to characterize anyone from a few comments they make. But you entered conversation with Zuma that did not start on this page. It is not worth your effort to check out our exchanges on other pages, so please don’t bother.

        In my first comment ever on Blogging Blue, he called me an “old codger in a raincoat who yells at the kids to get off his grass.” And he called me a “wingnut” which I promptly adopted as my user name. That was after a short little comment that I made.

        Later, he commented that he was only “funning with me.” So I thought that, since there was no chance of either of us moving the other from his entrenched political position, I might as well have some fun also. Then came “Gunsmoke.”

        So, perhaps, I am not as unintelligent and unfair-minded as you assume. For my part, I am done with this comment page and hope that all other participants will be as well.n

        1. From “Monty Python and The Holy Grail”. . .

          [King Arthur encounters the Black Knight, who is defending a footbridge over which Arthur wants to pass.]

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

          The Black Knight – there is no more perfect metaphor for Wingnut in all of the realm than the Black Kn

          1. CORRECTION:

            The Black Knight – there is no more perfect metaphor for Wingnut in all of the realm than the Black Knight.

        2. I’ve followed your various exchanges with Zuma Bound over time.

          The conclusions that I set forth above, about Zuma Bound, about you, about your intellectual slipperiness and intellectual dishonesty, were based on the totality of those exchanges.

          I regret that you chose to assume otherwise, but I am not particularly surprised that you did.

          Having actually already read the totality of the exchanges that Zuma Bound and you had throughout Blogging Blue before I ever wrote one word here, particularly the exchanges/passages that you “characterized” in your last comment, I literally laughed, and shook my head slowly, back and forth, astonished at your whiny, defensive, self-serving characterizations of them and at your attempt to use those characterizations to rationalize what you wrote above and how you wrote it.

          You clearly see yourself as an intelligent, witty, well-spoken political visionary. The bottom line is that you are anything but.

          In truth, and it pains me to have to say this about anyone, you are nothing more than a mindlessly arrogant, narcissistic partisan hack who lacks the requisite intellectual depth to keep pace with the rigors of true discourse.

          Zuma Bound was absolutely right about you.

          You are “the Black Knight”, ever arrogant, ever delusional, ever wrong, ever unable to admit to it.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

          In my academic career, I had occasion to teach people just like you. Some had the good sense, not to mention the good grace, to recognize their failings, admit to them, and then work on overcoming them.

          I am truly sorry that you never took that step.

  11. The above post exchanges remind me again why it is that I don’t bother talking to right-wingers anymore. My only response to them is the same I gave drunken passengers and drunken bar patrons: “Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.” It’s all they understand.

    1. I hear ya, Jan.

      Anyway, did you ever see, “Monty Python and The Holy Grail”?

      Wingnut reminds me of the Black Knight guarding the footbridge whom King Arthur encounters on his quest.

      1. From “Monty Python and The Holy Grail”. . .

        (King Arthur encounters the Black Knight, who is apparently defending a footbridge over which Arthur wants to pass.)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

        The Black Knight – there is no more perfect metaphor for Wingnut in all of the realm than the Black Knight.

  12. “So, perhaps, I am not as unintelligent and unfair-minded as you assume.”

    Nope, everybody else is STILL operating on that assumption.

    Professor Lawson, erudite, Republican academic that she is, just didn’t give you much wiggle room in that regard, did she?

    “For my part, I am done with this comment page. . .”

    One can only hope.

    “. . .and [I] hope that all other participants will be as well.”

    I guess that they aren’t, huh?

    Bon soir et bon chance, Black Knight.

Comments are closed.