Wingnuts
Posted February 12th, 2008 by Da King
I've been reading some dangerous and subversive writings lately. I have to share some of it with you, because I think these radical views could upset our liberal democracy if they become mainstream. Get a load of this claptrap:
“[A] wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” —Thomas Jefferson
Obviously, this Thomas Jefferson guy is some kind of greedy right wing extremist who is only looking out for the rich. He must be a conservative talk radio host or something. Whoever he is, we definitely shouldn't listen to his crazy rantings. Nothing good can come from it (other than the United States Of America - premier superpower, economic powerhouse, and beacon of freedom for the entire world, that is).
If you think that's bad, listen to this next wingnut's anti-government rambling:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington
Holy Pelosi ! This guy is very unamerican, right Nancy ? The deranged loon sounds like the next Timothy McVeigh, or, even worse (shiver), Rush Limbaugh (oh, sorry, I meant 'that fat druggie Rush Limbaugh'. I didn't mean to be politically incorrect and omit the required pejorative adjectives) . This George Washington nut must not understand that it takes a village. Sounds like he wasn't educated in public schools either, the heretic. If Hillary wins, she should get his FBI file to the White House asap. We can't have that kind of Revolutionary language being bandied about. It might disturb the collective.
This next guy is one of those NRA gun nut types. I think he owns a brewery. He was probably drunk when he said this:
The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms - Samuel Adams
Now, I did a little digging, and I discovered all these fanatics are members of some cult known as The Founding Fathers (must be some right-wing militia group), very dangerous. Here's another one of them, who is obviously one of those supply sider sob's, a heartless person with no compassion for the poor:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer - Benjamin Franklin
This Founding Fathers group (they're probably associated with the KKK) also talks about freedom an awful lot, man. War too. They must be a bunch of fascist uber-nationalist gung-ho Christionista Marine types that go around talking about God and Country. What a bunch of squares. They should just smoke some weed and chill out, already. Check this out:
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry
The radical right-wing Founding Father nazis also have published some manifestos that you definitely want to avoid reading if you wish to remain a member of our liberal democracy. Among these subversives tomes are The Federalist Papers, The Declaration Of Independence, and The US Constitution. I don't think you really need to read them, because they are all really old, and don't apply to us today. Of course, there is that old saying - Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it….
February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
King, your post is a good example that there's a method to the madness of the public schools.
By de-emphazing America’s founding documents and the heroes from our past in the both the curriculum & the text books, public education insures that millions of people don't have a clue of what you’re talking about here.
And by generally dumbing down the kiddies further in such basics as reading and reasoning ability, the schools insure that not all that many in the population can read, say, the Federalist Papers and understand them.
And this is how the Dims & neolibs want it. Why? Because, a godless Utopia can't be built in the U.S. if the people know their history, especially as it relates to the founding documents.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
King, this is one of your most humorous posts. The problem is that it is too true in what you are trying to do with it. For some reason, I don't think that many of your readers will understand it or really care to read it and have some of those points made.
Vince added about all that is needed to make it completely very sad but so true.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Governor Strickland proposed to take over the Ohio school board. There is an energy bill that will affect your electricity rates. The mortgage crisis is causing Ohioans to lose their homes. Forty four million Americans don't have health insurance. Those are the real news stories. Do you know anything about them?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
So are we rewriting history now? Because most people consider the founding fathers liberals. And King, aren't you the one who always says we need to quit rehashing the past and deal with the current problems and situations that we have? Aren't you the one that always tells me we should ignore how Mr. Bush got us into the war and only look at the success of the surge? Yet you want to talk about how the founding fathers were so conservative. I think you should follow your own advice on this one.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Yeah, you could pick out about a million things the founding fathers wrote that are antithetical to the policies of the Republican party over the last decade or so.
Also, congrats on somehow including Rush Limbaugh into your discussion of the Founding Fathers. Wow, that is rough.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Tom,
You sure love to change the subject, don't you ? Not to mention how you like to tell me what I should write about. What's up with that ? You have some kind of control issues or something ?
And if you want to see what I've written about, say, health care, go down the right column of the blog, click on 'health care', and you will find several of my blog posts about it.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:20 am
da truth,
"most people consider the founding fathers liberals"
Not in the modern meaning of the word "liberal" they weren't. The Founding Fathers were anything but liberals, anything but socialists. You are confusing "liberal" (leftist political attitude) with "liberal democracy" (of the people, by the people, for the people).
"aren't you the one who always says we need to quit rehashing the past and deal with the current problems"
No. I only said that in the context of who we should elect as our next president. That IS about the future, not the past. That doesn't mean we should ignore the intent of our founding documents and the designs of our founding fathers. In that respect, history illuminates the way to the future.
"Aren't you the one that always tells me we should ignore how Mr. Bush got us into the war and only look at the success of the surge?"
I don't care if you ignore how Bush got us into the Iraq war or not. That's up to you. Regardless of your or my opinion of how we got into Iraq, the fact is, we are there now, and what I'm most concerned about is the best way to get out. The best way is by being successful and leaving behind a stable Iraq, not by cutting and running as the Dems have wanted to do for over 2 years, which would only embolden the real enemy, the terrorist element.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Vince,
Haven't the founding fathers been reduced to being 'those rich racist white men who owned slaves' in the new history books ? With a portrayal like that, no wonder the founding principles of this country are being lost and misunderstood. da truth here even thinks the founding fathers were liberals, for god's sake, when they couldn't have been further away from that.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Your a baiter and a bore. You put up a post named "Wingnuts" (a hot word) and then proceed to construct a tedious vision of how the founding fathers would have only supported a Barry-Goldwater-esque Republican Party. That Holy Pelosi paragraph was a puzzling construction.
Here we see the limitations of blogdom. There's no reporting. There's a scant amount of research, but that sounds like a Republican "cut-and-run-it" polemic from a petroleum-funded think tank.
Have you ever actually worked on an issues campaign? That might give you something to "report" on. Have you ever worked for a candidate for that matter? Might be interesting to hear what the last guys hanging on for Huckabee have to say.
Happy Valentine's Day, everybody. Peace and love.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:27 am
King, you lament that "da truth here even thinks the founding fathers were liberals, for god's sake, when they couldn't have been further away from that."
What do you expect? Until the Great Oz gives "da Truth" that brain he needs, the poor boy will continue to display his ignorance in ignorance of how ignorant he actually is.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
King, I must report to you that a very liberal Democrat on my regular forum replied to my posting of this thing of yours with 10 quotes from Jefferson and Madison that sounded much like what today's Dems like to say is founding Father speak. Since the Dems trace their history back to Jefferson it is not surprising that they would quote him and Madison, the real founder of Democratic-Republican thought, in trying to speak about Founding Fathers.
The interesting part of all this is that this guy failed to comment on the quotes from Jefferson that you included. Also, no words about Washington or Franklin from him. It is so typical of us all to use cherry picked quotes from our forefathers to prove that we are right. However, it always seems to me that the Dems do a better job of twisting the words of others when they fail to discuss the words of those listed in any kind of story.
I think I have finally detected what Tom is trying to say. He thinks that blogging is supposed to be reporting since you are using a newspaper to transmit your blog. Poor soul doesn't recognize that blogs are places to further the agendas of one side or another of an argument. He thinks that this is a source of news like the rest of the paper. Maybe you need to explain to him just what a blog is as he doesn't seem to understand.
This is still one of your best attempts at what you are doing and the fact that the libs (progs I call them these days) just can't stand not to take cheap shots at you because you have exposed them so thoroughly.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Tom's funny.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Yes, King, they were liberals of their time. They had the ability to think forward, unlike the Rs of today. That's the point of progressive thinking; it changes with the times. You can label their policies whatever you want, but it was quite liberal to form a democratic government, quite liberal to establish a republic that espoused freedom of religion, and qutie liberal to come up with the bill of rights. It's unfortunate that country has abandoned those principles and instead puts the almighty dollar ahead of all else. But yes, if you consider them for their time, by the standards of the day, they were clearly liberals.
And Roy, Tom has a point. Yes, blogs can be however one-sided they choose to be, but you and King and Vince (but mostly Vince) continuously lose points when you cherry-pick facts and quotes. To stand on solid ground on any argument, you have to realize what your weaknesses are. King usually does a fairly decent job of that, although the last couple of posts have reverted to merely bashing us. But yes, you lose points when you ignore reality. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go learn the words of IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN….by the way Vince, pay no attention to the man behind the screen………..
Oh, and sorry King, but you have constantly chastised myself and others on here for bringing up the past when discussing current situations. If you actually read the posts the left leaves you, you would have seen that. Unfortunately, you pulled a Vince and found it more nourishing to only read those who agree with you.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go learn the words of IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN"
That's the ticket.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Wow, good one Vince……..glad you found time from coming up with new racial slurs and terms to bash gays with to pick on me.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Tom,
You never say anything substantive. You just complain, hate, and name-call, which any fool can do. I have made 108 subject posts on this blog in the last 3-4 months, on all sorts of political subjects, on all sorts of issues. Sorry you can't recognize that obvious fact.
And thanks for the suggestions, but I think I'll decide what I write about, instead of letting you decide for me.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Roy,
I'm glad someone responded to you with some other founding father quotes. At least that proves they are engaged in the topic. I was hoping that my initial post here would have sparked some of that type of debate about the intent and spirit of the Constitution and other founding documents, but instead, all I got from the left was Tom's weird criticisms. You must be right, he must think I am supposed to be one more Akron Beacon Journal news reporter, rather than the independent operator that I am - and the counterpoint to the Reverend's uber-liberal rants.
I have to say one terrific thing about the ABJ and ohio.com. Never once have they told me what I should or shouldn't write about or tried to censor me. Kudos to them for that.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Talking about 21st century issues of "freedom" and "government power". Let's analyze how the contemporary "leaders" handled these issues. (my own cut-and-run-it reporting):
Paul Craig Roberts - A Gestapo Administration
January 2, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01022006.html
…excerpt…
Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12-28-05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.
…snip…
One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.
The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.
What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?
Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?
…snip…
Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
That is some damning evidence, Tom. But why spy on the opposition when you can just throw ballots away, blackmail state Supreme Court judges and use state police forces to keep unsavory minorities from reaching their precinct voting stations?
February 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
"… to bash gays," and by "gays" I assume you mean homosexuals, right?
Ah yes. Just the mention that the State of Ohio voted overwhelmingly to amendmend its constitution to protect against homosexual marriage is considered "bashing." Perhaps it seems that way at least to the paranoid mind.
But I'll tell you what. That vote to defend marriage was a few long years ago. A lot could have changed since then. So let's do it all over again, preferably this November. Whatta say, Chief?
This time you can have B. Hussein Obama or Comrade Hillary come and campaign to repeal the DOM proposition. What could be more fair; you essentially get a do-over and you to have heavy-weight Dims come to help you out — or would they???
.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I have endured Republicans citing the Federalist Papers and the like ever since AOL unleashed hordes of right wingers onto the boards of Usenet. I could never understand why they had to go onto a Usenet group about yachting and post why they hated Clinton. Anyway, I have studied a lot of civics and I have done political work, and have not had the need to consult the Federalist Papers.
The GOP will struggle to keep Ralph Regula's district Republican. Mayor Don Plusquellic wants to privatize the Akron sewer system. There are two stories. What is the mayor's motive? Who will gain? Is this a question of power?
February 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Vince, you made a great point:
"Ah yes. Just the mention that the State of Ohio voted overwhelmingly to amendmend its constitution to protect against homosexual marriage is considered "bashing." Perhaps it seems that way at least to the paranoid mind.
But I'll tell you what. That vote to defend marriage was a few long years ago. A lot could have changed since then. So let's do it all over again, preferably this November. Whatta say, Chief?
This time you can have B. Hussein Obama or Comrade Hillary come and campaign to repeal the DOM proposition. What could be more fair; you essentially get a do-over and you to have heavy-weight Dims come to help you out — or would they???"
Wow. Insightful. Let me ask you this, though, and perhaps you can educate me: How many gay marriages had their been in Ohio prior to 2004?
Once you answer that one, tell me again why it was such an important piece of legislation. I can't wait to hear.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Tom,
Finally, you are at least discussing content as opposed to name-calling. That's a big step forward. In case you didn't realize it, my 'Wingnuts' post was ABOUT liberal name-callers. It was intended to be both humorous and sarcastic.
Regarding Bush centralizing executive power, known as the 'unitary executive' theory, I have a few questions for you.
If Bush is doing as you say, regarding FISA, why did CONGRESS just approve the new wiretap laws, and for that matter, why did they HAVE to approve them, if Bush is such a dictator ? A dictator doesn't ask for permission. Also, why did Bush go to Congress for approval for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars ? Bill Clinton didn't go to Congress for Bosnia, or Operation Echelon, for example. Was Clinton a dictator also ?
I would suggest to you that Bush went around FISA on only a few occasions, with those being for reasons of national security and time being critical. The Bush admin was granted more FISA warrants than any previous administration, so they WERE using the court.
As for those wild and unsupported allegations that Bush was fixing presidential elections by spying, which was actually the NSA spying…Do you really think everybody in the NSA would stand by and say nothing if Bush was doing that ? I don't think so. Sounds like your author took trip to crazytown.
It is just hilarious to me that with all these crazy theories about why Bush did this or did that, the most obvious reason always eludes the left, which is - Bush wanted to stop terrorist attacks on the USA following 9/11. That should be pretty easy to understand, I'd think.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:42 am
truth, are you saying that you would like to move the capitol of Ohio to San Francisco or would you just prefer that Ohio become like San Francisco? Of course, there may be more gay acceptant cities than the aforementioned city but I am not sure where they are in the US.
I see that you believe in as soon as possible do overs if your side doesn't win. You don't really believe that way, you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Am I wrong?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:48 am
King, that liberal posting short quotes from Madison and Jefferson one to a post was very successful in doing what he was doing. I don't think one other member of the forum read your post because he used that liberal tactic of burying the original to change the subject. I have castigated him for his tactic and supplied him with some new quotes from Alexander Hamilton who I consider the real Father of the US since it was his advice that Washington always took over that of Jefferson. Hamilton wanted a strong national government and Jeferson was more in favor of keeping the states sovereign over the national government. I have always been glad that Washington wasn't afraid to oppose Jefferson and went the direction he did. I have also been happy that he seemed to ask at least two men their advice on important questions since to go the way he alone wanted to go would have been acting like a king and he despised that kind of action.
Thanks, again, for this topic and I do wish we could have discussed what you wrote about instead of just modern liberal-conservative tripe.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Good grief, Roy, did you read what I said? This has nothing to do with accepting gays or not. There has never been a gay marriage in Ohio. There was no threat of one. The legislation was worthless and simply a ploy by the right to get values voters out to vote against Kerry.
And can you explain to me about your do-over comment? I never said anything of the sort. Again, you put words in my mouth. I said the legislation did nothing. It was worthless. Please respond to what I say, not what you think it is I must mean since I admit to being a lefty.
And interesting points about Hamilton, but you failed to mention how flexible he thought the Constitution was and how he favored using the federal government to strengthen the economy. Important points.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
" … tell me again why it [DOM]was such an important piece of legislation. I can't wait to hear."
The DOM proposition was important not only to stop homosexuals from perverting marriage but also to send a message that such a perversion as same-sex marriage will not be tolerated in Ohio.
An ounce of pervention is worth a pound of cure.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Oh right, I get it now Vince, it's ok for your side to meddle in things that need no meddling but when we do it we're godless idiots that act like Hitler.
Still didn't answer my questions, though. How many gay marriages had there been in Ohio prior to 2004? The answer: none…..much like your ability to reason.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Still smarting from the overwhelming DOM passage, huh?
Good.
And realize that many Dims voted for it, too.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
da truth,
I've been trying to stay out of this gay marriage issue, but I have to take exception to something you said to Roy about gay marriage. You said, "There has never been a gay marriage in Ohio. There was no threat of one. The legislation was worthless and simply a ploy by the right to get values voters out to vote against Kerry".
That's the liberal spin, but it's not accurate. It's true there was no gay marriage in Ohio, but that was beside the point. The point was that Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in november of 2003, and gay marriage advocates were pushing for it all over the country. Those events are what put the gay marriage issue on the national stage, and triggered citizen groups to launch petitions against it in many states, which resulted in gay marriage being on the ballot in 19 states (I think it was 19) in 2004, including Ohio. Gay marriage was voted down in all 19 states.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hold the phone, King.
When you write, "It's true there was no gay marriage in Ohio, but …" you are in error, Amigo.
The fact is there were hundreds of thousand — no, millions — of gay marriages in Ohio prior to 2004.
These were marriages, both civil & religious, between men and women whose marriage ceremonies, in most cases, were happy, gay, and joyful affaires.
What there might not have been were any homosexual marriages. Now that's a different story.
Hijaking the word "gay" and using it in place of "homosexual" was part of a deliberate plan by homosexual activists to try and make their perverted lifestyle appear normal to the public at large. And, unfortuantely, to a great extent, it has succeeded.
But this turns reality upside down. Clinical studies show that, when compared to the normal population, homosexuals have 1) shorter life spans, 2) more diseases, 3) more emotional/mental problems. If anything, the homosexual community is anything but "gay" even though statistics indicate that the average homosexual has greater wealth than the aveage for the normal population. (I guess not having kids helps.)
In any event, using the word "gay" in place of homosexual is Orwellian. The use of such a tactic is so typical of the Left; don't fall for it.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
[Ghost of Vince Foster Says]
Hijaking the word "gay" and using it in place of "homosexual" was part of a deliberate plan by homosexual activists to try and make their perverted lifestyle appear normal to the public at large. [/Ghost]
Homosexuality is not perverted. Perverted is shoving a glo-stick up the rectum of a Moslem captive.
"Any kind of love is alright"
February 16th, 2008 at 6:54 am
"any kind of love is alright"
NAMBLA agrees.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Naw, NAMBLA much prefers man boy love as their name indicates. They really believe that men must teach boys about love the way they do it. Being nice about NAMBLA is like agreeing with one of their main supporters, Nancy Pelosi, and I don't like the group or the "lady".
February 17th, 2008 at 9:07 am
People are blithely stupid if they cannot tell the difference between consenting love between adults and child abuse. Maybe now that I told you, you know better.
RoySold is a lying slanderer when he says that Nancy Pelosi supports NAMBLA. Of course, most of what he writes on this "blog" is hardly worth a look.
The Republican party has driven a double digit percentage of the electorate out of the party by adopting a bigoted, hateful position against gays. We are seeing a schism in the GOP play out in the Hucklebee/McCain matchup. McCain always hated Falwell, and those "religious" rightwingers stuck it to McCain in South Carolina in 2000. McCain has tried to suck up to them, but they still hate him. Republicans may claim they don't like McCain because he stopped one of the $10 Trillion in tax cuts by Bush. The real reason is the "religious schism".
Jesus is love.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
"Jesus is love" ….. but homosexuality is an abomination.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Tom,
YOU were the one who said "ANY kind of love is alright", so don't blame me for making a distinction. I'm glad you now realize that ANY kind of love is NOT alright.
And I think what you call the Republicans "bigoted, hateful position against gays" is really just a disapproval of gay marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't "marriage" been defined as being between a man and a woman for pretty much the entire history of the civilization of mankind ???
And it isn't just Republicans who don't want gay marriage. It was voted down in about 19 states in 2004. That indicates the majority of people are against it. It's an idea whose time hasn't yet arrived.
Personally, I don't care if gays get married. It's fine with me, though I wouldn't force a church to marry them if it went against that church's beliefs.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Marriage is a little like the phrase "In God We Trust" being on our currency.
Marriage is currently a legal AND religious institution. Or at least, it's understood that way. Marriage should be ONLY a legal institution. A civil contract between people. That's all it is to the state anyway. If folks who are legally married want to have a religious ceremony…fine….but the religious ceremony should not be regarded as proof or evidence of "marriage".
"In God We Trust" is similar in that it violates the separation clause by placing religious expression on our money, where it doesn't belong.
Whenever religion and state merge…as has been done in marriage, faith based initiatives, prayers at government functions, etc…..there is always a mess as a result.
That would be the reason why those Founders NEVER made that mistake in the Constitution.