Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Massimo Watch 03.21.11

Massimo descends beyond irrationality into despicability.

Ever wonder why you are such a racist? Massimo explains why you are:
” Sure enough, it took only weeks for the same media [which had proclaimed post-racial America upon Obama’s election; ed.] to start reporting on large percentages of Republicans believing that Obama is a Muslim (as if that were somehow an indictment of some kind), that he is not American (despite the public availability of documents clearly showing that he is), that he is a socialist (despite his Presidency clearly settling on a pretty moderate course from the get go), and so on. Why? Because a large number of Republicans simply can’t stand the very idea that a (quasi) black is their President. But they can’t say it in so many words (we have made some social progress since the ‘50s), so they express their outrage by embracing political fantasies and conspiracy theories.”
[emphasis added].
Massimo is way behind the times. The racist card was worn out two years ago when anyone who dared question The One was declared “racist” immediately by every media hack and Leftist Congressman. But now, well, now the Left is even starting to talk about impeaching The One. Racists.

But let’s at least look at Massimo’s logic. According to him there can be only one reason to believe that Obama is Muslim; that he is not American; that he is socialist. There is only racism involved in each thought. Obama’s training in Islam, his head-down bows to Islamic leaders, his administration’s double-jointed back-bend to avoid using the word “Islam” or “Muslim” in regards to Muslim murders on American soil; his de facto hand-over of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood: no reason there to think Obama favors Islam; if you harbor contrary thoughts to that, you are racist.

And Massimo has continuously defended the non-legal Hawaiian birth notice as proof of Obama’s citizenship: any other position such as wanting a birth certificate is racist.

Socialist? No, no way, not The One. There is no socialism involved in the government commandeering of the health industry or of a major automotive corporation and handing it to the union while stiffing its debt-holders; there is no socialism in the hugely expanded debt to cover the hugely expanded government; there is no socialism in the president of the USA interfering in a state’s union and pension problems: to think otherwise is racist.

This descent by a self-described intellectual into the invective of false racial accusation is an indication not only of the commonly held self-righteous indignation of the morally superior elite, but also of the need to fabricate a false reason for that puffery out of no evidence whatsoever. Accordingly, the fabrication is that we who deplore the anti-democratic exploits of this president cannot express our racism, so we invent false accusations in order to vent our racism against him. No evidence is required for this outrageous fabrication of the Leftist mind. Like other Leftist machinations, it attempts to overcome the complete lack of evidence with the double accusation:”you’re evil, and you conceal your evilness with non-evil subterfuges – but we are not fooled because we know that you are evil underneath”. This is unquestionable to those who automatically hold the moral high ground merely because of who they are: “We are moral; to disagree with this is immoral”.
”a large portion of American evangelical and fundamentalist churches support the Right’s agenda because they've bought into the peculiar concept of “morality” that suits the Republican party (where sex is a moral issue, unless it is a pastor or Newt Gingrich who commits the deed, while obscene income disparity, raping of the environment, white collar crimes and so forth somehow don’t show up on the morality radar screen);”
Massimo’s concept of morality is orthogonal to any classical ethic or morality one might harbor. For Massimo, morality is the requirement that wealth and income be equalized and without disparity; justice is the top-down administration of the proper distribution of all wealth. When he throws in “raping the environment” as if the “large majority of Republicans” just go out and mindlessly rape, he creates a lie and he ignores the carbon footprints which the wealthy Left and the huge parasitic government present. Nancy Pelosi alone raped more than those Republicans with her constant globetrotting in military jets. Flotus taking hundreds to Spain; a constant stream of world-wide vacations for Potus; the charges made, in the presence of actual facts, are ludicrous. White collar crimes? These are protected by Obama’s DOJ at the behest of lobbyists galore who are now part and parcel of the Obama administration. White collar types on Wall Street and Corporate management get bailouts, unless they oppose unions in which case the unions get the bailout and the corporation, while the white collars get the ax. In fact, most of the white collar crimes in the past two years were tax evasion crimes by Lefties who are now in the government (including Clare McCaskill). The sex crimes of pastors or Newt? Which of those did not suffer for their ways? None of Massimo’s purported offenses is real. In fact, the opposite is the case, and evidence is available should he care about it.

But what really torques Massimo’s shorts is the vast Republican plutocracy, one where Republicans get rich while the unions are being devastated. This is not just racist: vastly rich and racist, a compound sin. If there are Republicans that are not part of the plutocracy they are “simpletons”, deluded by the super-rich. Simpletons and the super rich. That is the majority of the country, according to Massimo. It is no wonder that he eschews actual democracy. In a republic, it is the Democrat senators who become billionaires.

What is the cause for this sort of evidence-free rant? Why is his hatred of the Other worn on his sleeve? Perhaps the UberLeft is suddenly twisting in the wind? With blacks moving out of the old Democrat model of Jim Crow, segregation and enabled permanent poverty into the world of responsible capitalism-driven white collar careers, the Left is losing influence on its bastion of votes. And Europe is now crumbling under the Leftist structure which Massimo desperately wants for the USA. Are these the causes for such irrationality? It’s hard to say, because he doesn’t address such failures of progressivism (he even proudly claims that in the comments).

For more evidence-avoiding and fact-free ranting, finish reading his post. Then go have a drink with him; he needs one. While you are there, try to get some material evidence out of him to support his racism and morality theories. There certainly was no evidence contained in his meltdown rant.

26 comments:

J Curtis said...

Why is the Left so Obsessed with Race? Link: http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-is-left-so-obsessed-by-race.html

Martin said...

Since Obama's birth is announced in both major Honolulu's newspapers, and the Hawaii State Department of Health no longer offers long form birth certificates, then there must be some reason Republicans still irrationally continue to believe Obama was not born in the U.S.

I submit that it is not racism.

Instead, it is due to American politics, which consists of exactly two teams. If someone is playing on the opposing team, then they must be Opposed At All Costs, regardless of damage done to the country or to reason.

Nothing else is more important than making sure the opposing team loses. If this involves creating phony documents to make George Bush look bad, so be it. If this involves becoming the Party of No on a Republican-inspired healthcare plan, so be it.

If you can compare Bush to Hitler, this is good. If you can compare Obama to Hitler, this is good.

If the country is left in smoking ruins, but the opposing party loses, then you have won. This is all that matters.

Stan said...

Yes. Interesting link, thanks.

J Curtis said...

They certainly do provide the long form certificate. How can a government agency withold something from you that is yours?

A lady recently ordered one and released various (redacted) photos of it. Link

J Curtis said...

Actually, here is a more thorough link which contains more photos of it than you ever dreamt was possible.

Can we put this little fallacy concerning the ever-changing Obama nativity story to rest now?

Martin said...

I'd love to hear how y'all explain the newspaper announcements. Since you begin with the conclusion, "Obama was not born in the U.S." and look for ANY premise that will support that, I presume the only answer you can come up with is that someone faked them 46 years ago. With amazing foresight, and in cahoots with the HI government, to implement some kind of nefarious plan a half century later.

All in the name of making sure the Other Team, who are BAD BAD BAD, lose, and your team, who is GOOD GOOD GOOD, wins.

If reason must be squashed to do this, then so much the worse for reason.

J Curtis said...

Before addressing the newspaper announcements Martin, do you admit that you were shamelessly duped and accepted the first version of what you deemed to be the truth (insofar as the obtainability of a long-form birth certificate) because it was what you wanted to to hear and to be true?

Martin said...

I don't want Obama's birth story to be true or false. I don't vote, and I refuse to participate in the stupidity of the "blame the other party for ALL the problems in the world" game.

I can see the appeal, though. It makes it easy and you don't have to think. There's a problem? Don't think of solutions, just blame the Other. Make sure We win and everything will be alright.

So no. I don't admit that at all. I have about as much interest in Obama as I did in Bush.

As for the long form vs short form, I have no idea and I'll have to do more research. I know I trust WND, Freepers and the like about as much as I trust MoveOn and HuffPo, as they are particularly passionate players in the Two Party Oligarchy that is currently destroying the American system.

Stan said...

The Good vs Bad concept is interesting. A commenter on another site made this observation: the Left is created out of political correctness dogma in pursuit of socialist totalitarian objectives. Because it is dogma rather than based on rational principles, the Left resorts to invective rather than logic. Because disagreement with politically correct dogma is evil, those who disagree are evil. The most evil thing that a politically correct, dogmatic Leftist can conceivably charge against someone is racism. So to ask for a document proving once and for all the compliance with constitutional requirements to be president is first, evil; second, racist, since that is the most evil thing that is conceivable.

Most telling to me was that the Republican governor of Hawaii declared that the document existed, that it was personal and covered by privacy concerns, and that it was secured and would not be released. The following governor, a Democrat, declared that he would find the document and release it immediately. After three weeks, he said that after a thorough search the document could not be found.

To say that this is not a mystery at best, and at worst, saying that it is hate mongering, is to miss the entire point. Is the demand unreasonable? Is the response to the demand unreasonable?

If a Republican became a candidate or even president without proper certification, how would the Left respond? Would the Leftist paleomedia let it slide? Or would they make specious character charges as they do now, only against the president rather than in his defense? It seems to me that any objective person who has lived through the past two years with eyes and ears open would know the answer to this.

The commenter I referred to above made this point: Conservatives have access to principles that are based on rational axioms. This allows them to argue them in civilized tones, making points and analyzing positions with respect to known logical axiomatic principles. Leftists have two problems. First they are dogmatically attached to politically correct positions which are ubermoral and from which they cannot wander without being rejected by their own. Second, their actual axioms cannot be spoken because they are highly elitist and totalitarian. When a Leftist argues his position, it is from morality, not from logic.

To classify both as erroneously declaring the other evil is too superficial. The Left always declares racism/fascism/greed as the personal defect motivating every rational attack on its dogma and its socialist moves. These personal attacks are not legitimate. The Right (generally) attacks not the persons of the Left (except the criminals and Gore-type hypocrites), but attacks the socialist (elitist and proto-totalitarian) movements and the PC dogma behind them. This type of attack is legitimate. But the Leftist response is always Ad Hominem Abusive, because they have no legitimate response based on legitimate rational principles.

There is obviously a moral component underlying the positions of the Right: the dignity of every human. When the Left claims this, their sincerity is belied by their movement to level all outcomes to the lowest common denominator, by top-down, elitist decree. So for the Left, the moral component is not the dignity of every human, it is the superiority of themselves.

Any attack on Leftist activities is a moral attack on the superiority of themselves. Hence the moral fury of their self-righteous responses.

I think that two generations of empty self-esteem building rather than rational education or character building has produced the population which has gravitated to the party of Jim Crow, abortion, and perpetual dependence on government largess and redistribution. And I believe that this miseducation has produced a population that is narcissist, irrational, parasitic and elitist, and I am willing to discuss evidence in that regard. That is different from charging racism merely because the president is half-black.

Anonymous said...

The above comment deserves a post - nay, a *series* of posts - in itself.

I applaud you, Stan.

Martin said...

See what I mean?

"The Other doesn't use logic and reason. WE do. The Other always uses ad hominem. WE never do. The Other does not use civility. WE always do. The Other is immoral. WE are not. The Other is responsible for racist laws. WE are not."

You can easily label the Other with as many undesirable traits as possible. Make sure it's Black and White. No Gray is allowed. Then, if an opponent comes along and you can attach an Other label to them, that means they are Black and they can be summarily dismissed.

Clearly, having an Other to hate and to attach all your problems to is a fundamental component of human happiness.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. The "easy way out" is what sells.

Lose 10 pounds in three days while eating hamburgers! Make $millions$ while doing nothing!

All your problems are because of the Other!

Stan said...

You are making an accusation but not making a case. Take a point being made and refute it with either evidence, logic or both.

As I said, I am happy to discuss the principles of the Right vs. the principles of the Left, and their consequences as well as their motivations.

J Curtis said...

OK Martin,

How about the much lower standard of..

"Your assertion that Hawaii does not issue copies of long form birth certificates appears to be false."

There. Is that a fair statement?

sonic said...

Martin-
I agree with you that there is too much 'us against them' in politics. In fact, I would agree that there is little else going on much of the time.
However, the birth certificate deal is a valid question and the fact that there have been apparent lies about the situation is not helpful.
This can be acknowledged without being certain that there is really anything wrong.
The constitution isn't a partisan document.

Martin said...

JD,

Since it's criticism of the Left coming from fans and friends of WND, I trust it as much as you would trust criticism of the Right coming from MoveOn.

How much is that?

Stan said...

Martin,
Is this the old Martin or some interloper stealing the name?

Is it not obvious that you are condemning based not on facts but based rather on association? And even further, which of WND's non-opinion pieces (i.e. actual news) have been shown false, misrepresentative, or omitting pertinent context, as is constantly the case with WaPo, NYT etc? The mission of WND as I understand it is to provide not a full news service, but to provide news or context which is missing from the paleomedia. Since the paleomedia is irredeemably Leftist, that means that the missing news/context will be toward the Right. WND is obviously fulfilling a Rightist function, which it would not have to do if the paleomedia were balanced. I rarely go to WND anymore, since I have my own sources to fill that function. But I respect their accuracy in what they do. Do you have actual data to the contrary? Or is their religious undercurrent that bothers you?

It was WND that did the vetting on Obama that the gushing racist paleomedia refused to do. None of his (or his wife's) shady background was touched by the paleomedia then or now. The One was to be their Savior.

Let's talk facts here.

Martin said...

I don't know yet. But there is clearly a conflict between what the HI website says, and the photo evidence of a long form. It remains to be seen the explanation of this discrepancy. I don't trust WND or HuffPo. They are flip sides of the same coin. Both play The Game.

I want to hear a rebuttal from a leftist news source before I even consider accepting anything.

Stan said...

Then you do not deny that there is a legitimate cause for concern over the eligibility of a president who has not released a legitimate birth document? Or is this all just hate speech based on denial of valid evidence?

J Curtis said...

Martin,

Whatever your position is on the political spectrum, you must admit that this contraversy is the most easily avoidable by the Obama administration.

I've posted this numerous times. I think writer Jack Cashill probably comes the closest as to why Obama won't release a simple document. And it has nothing to do with him being born in Africa either. Let me know what you think.

http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/another_look.htm

Martin said...

All I have to say is: Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

And that goes trip... no, quadr... no, sextuple for the guv'ment.

So, no. I don't see much cause for concern at all.

Stan said...

I don't see it as a dichotomy between malice and stupidity (motivations). I see it as Cause and Effect, where the cause - regardless of motivation - will result in very adverse effects.

Martin said...

No it won't. Obama will probably win in 2012. Conservatives will groan for another four years and continue to find and/or make up stuff that's wrong with him and continue to proclaim the End of America.

Then...

In 2016 a repub will be elected. The dems will groan and whine and find/make up stuff about him and proclaim the End of America.

Then...

In 2020 or 2024, a dem....

And so on, ad infinitum. And around and around we go.

Stan said...

If both sides are wrong, as you obviously think, then is anything at all correct? Or are you just angry at the moment?

Martin said...

Absolute power corrupts, but let's not forget that (regular) power corrupts also. I think both sides are corrupted, and the only thing in the mind of both is to get the other out of power at all costs and get into power.

Perhaps I tentatively agree with some version of this theory: Iron law of oligarchy.

I honestly think one the biggest contributing factors is the winner-take-all voting system. Switching to proportional voting would allow multiple viable parties, and each could get stuff done because each would get a small piece of the power.

And yes, I am very angry. I think the system is a failure and I see my not voting as a vote of no confidence in the system.

Stan said...

Two things here that don't make sense to me.

First, let's say we have two parties, X and Y.
X is based around concept Q.
Y is based around concept !Q.
X gets 52% of the vote.
Y gets 48% of the vote.
What sort of Q stuff gets done? Individual congressional votes will be bought and sold, business as usual.

Expand that to 6 parties, and repeat. Coalitions of parties votes will be bought and sold.... What's the diff?

Also, I fail to see the influence that not voting has. It would seem to give more power to those who actually do vote. Especially adding power to the politically purchased votes. 'Splain your reasoning there, please.

Martin said...

You know, I only have a limited understanding of it. But it seems superior to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

As for not voting, although it's a long shot, the reasoning is that if enough people don't vote then it might change the whole system.

Of course, it's just like voting for a third party in that I am "throwing my vote away", but that's the way I feel about it. I just think we need more choices; enough of this "lesser of two evils" horseshit. I would also like to see some good bickering like British Parliament. And I would like to see some method of making laws easier to pass but also easier to remove, so more risk-taking can be attempted. Not sure how viable this is.

It could also be that I really hate politics. I'm really only passionate about one thing: drug laws. Most other things I can see both sides on.