Tuesday, September 08, 2009

So what's this birther stuff REALLY about?

It's simple: This is how the right wing excuses itself for its hypocrisy. It was okay for President Bush to address little kiddies, because President Bush was really President. But President Obama isn't really President because he's a secret Islamofascist Nigerian born in some furriner country, so it's okay to blast him for, well, doing the same things President Bush did.

In short, this is how the right solves the dissonance between how they demanded that President Bush be treated ("opposition to the President is TREASON!") and how they're treating President Obama. Since President Obama isn't *really* President in their demented little "minds", they're not *really* breaking their rules by treating him in ways that violate their "rules" for how to treat a President.

It is sheer lunacy of course. But the sad part is that a nation where 54% of the population is so stupid they don't even know that Medicare is a government program is long past the point where it can tell lunacy from common sense fact...

-- Badtux the Born Penguin


  1. And common sense is not even a candidate in their elections, so how can they make any rational judgments?

    (Why we are suffering so.)


    long past the point where it can tell lunacy from common sense fact...

  2. It isn't the fact that President Obama addressed the kiddies that bothered us. It was the teacher's lesson guide that reeked of 3rd world bow-to-your-leader mentality. The guide encouraged teachers to post clippings from Obama's political speeches around the room and then to have the kids discuss how they could help Obama succeed as president. That is the kind of stuff leaders like Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein have their children do. And since teacher's unions went for Obama in the election, we know that they would jump at the chance to use the occasion to influence our children.

    But as it turned out, I'm totally okay with the speech. It caused me to have a talk with my kids. The conservative uproar caused Obama to tone it down. It ensured that school districts *did not* use the occasion to brainwash our kids.

    So it all turned out OK precisely because there was a lively debate in America about it. If you can't say a word of thanks for dissent in a America, then I'm truly saddened.

    I knew that we were in trouble when I started seeing people carry signs and use bumper stickers that incorporate Obama's image. That is so third world. It is a cult of personality. Bush 41 did not have a cult of personality and there was absolutely no risk of his talk to the children turning into a lovefest.

  3. "The conservative uproar caused Obama to tone it down."

    Seriously? Cuz you saw the earlier speech? Wow. Now the right wing not only has the corner on the flag, and god, they are able to psychically address what our leaders are thinking. Amazing.

    Asking children how they can help the president is like asking how they can help the country. He was hardly asking for their lunch money.

    "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

    Friggin' socialist mantra, that.

  4. Jess,
    You can't know what the speech would have been any more then I can, but the lesson plans *were* in fact toned down. See this. And yes, asking kids how they can help the president is not the same as asking how they can help their country. Tell me with a straight face that if the president were Republican you'd still want the kids to "help him".

    Do you value dissent or not? Do you value it only when conservatives are in power?

  5. Quoting CNSnews is like using your own echo chamber, nate. Doesn't really score you any points in the use of actual facts.

    George Bush told children and adults alike to spy on their neighbors, actively enlisting people who's jobs involve entering others homes to inform the government of any suspicious activities. (Postal workers, home maintenence professionals, etc) In response to our dissent to that, liberals were told frequently that if we were not with our president we were with the terrorists. So, no. I wouldn't want my kids to "help" George Bush with his well-publicized agenda.

    Otherwise, any republican wishing to make America a better place is more than welcome to solicit my children's help. A speech such as Ronald Reagan's in 1988 to schoolchildren advocating gun ownership would not pass my smell test.

    People who wore anti-Bush t-shirts in public places were arrested. If you can bring me any examples of the Obama administration doing anything similar, you can cry me your crocodile tears about allowing or not allowing dissent. You are allowed to dissent as much as I am free to tell you you are an idiot.

    Badtux, I'm sorry I fed your troll.

  6. Don't worry about educatin' the youngster, Jess. If you hadn't done it, I would have needed to do it, and I'm just too darned busy at the moment with too many different things...

    - Badtux the Busy Penguin

  7. Yes Mr. Tux , I believe you have hit the Nail on the head . It's his skin color that makes him illigetimate in the right wing view . And because of that percieved illegetimacy , any thing they do is now 'excused' . No one was allowed to open carry an Assult Rifle at any Republican gathering . No one except the bloggers publiclly humilliated shrub or his policies . It doesn't seem to matter what Obama proposes from Stimilus Money to Health Care to School Kids . It came from "That Man" ! They seem to have been unleashed by his election and I truly fear where their rabid insanity will eventually lead . Not in any peacefull or Democratic way I fear but more of an Country wide Anarchy if allowed to continue .
    a worried w3ski
    PS Mr Tux ; check out catshower 2 at Utube or c/overload

  8. I hav been observing the case before the SC re restrictions on corporate sponsorship of political messages. Obviously it;s a violation of thier free-speech rights. But the case before the SC needs to be broadened substantially.

    Since a coproration is a legal 'person' it's a violation of tat 'person's' rights to free speech to restrict them from spending megabucks on lies to be broadcast on the airwaves. But that's the tip of the iceberg.

    We have been denying these persons the right to vote. Corporations hould be able to vote. Accept that and you get to the next reasonable assumption. Corporations should be able to hold public office. The Senator from Big oil can address the Senator from Health Insurance without restrictions.

    In fact the whole concept of elections is antiquated. If we are going to give corporations the right of free speech and the vote and elective office why wast all that money swaying the opinions of stupid people. Post all elected offices for auction on E-BAY!!!

    Everying of value comes from corporations - foos. clothing shelter - corporations are the source of all good. It's time for obselete concepts to make way for the new order. Down with people - all hail the SUPREME CEO!

  9. Jess,
    The reason I occasionally read this blog is because I've seen some well reasoned arguments by the author. I normally find that the differences of opinion boil down to different value systems. I have allowed Badtux to mold some of my opinions and when not converted, I at least have greater appreciation for a different way of thinking.

    It is exactly because I want to avoid echo chambers that I reach out this way and why I try to encourage people with opposing views to visit my blog. I would think that you would appreciate input from "the other side". Otherwise this becomes the echo chamber that you disdainfully accuse CNS news of being. So why would you worry about feeding the "troll"? If my input isn't wanted, I'll go somewhere else.

    And for the record, I appreciated the criticism of Bush's surveillance programs. In fact, you could say I'm a convert to your side on that. But, I'll tell you who influenced me most on that front. It was a somebody who argued dispassionately without any animosity toward Bush that finally got through to me. The incendiary partisanship against Bush just caused me to put up my guard. I like him as a person, so the personal attacks got nowhere. Civil discourse is the answer. It is truly hard to put a human face on people you disagree with. It is tough to believe that they aren't idiots. I've been there..."they must be either ignorant, stupid, or evil!" (or in w3ski's case: "it must be racism!") You should see one of my earlier posts on that subject.

  10. Talk about yur cult of personality try this on for size nathan -


  11. Uh right , civil discourse ? Inturrupting the President , during a speech , to call him a "liar" . Whatever reason people choose to use , they are treating the president as a usurper and unworhty of civil discourse .
    Anarchy , like I offered .
    a vindicated w3ski
    sorry MrP

  12. Did you say something?

    I wasn't really listening.


Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.

WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.