Troofers: We Started the Tea Party Movement
Pointing to this video:
Of course, invoking the Boston Tea Party is centuries old, while Troofers memories get fuzzy about when it actually was that Brad Pitt dumped Jennifer Anniston for Angelina Jolie. For example, does anybody remember the "tea-bag revolt" of 1988? Quoting from the book The Elephant in the Room (page 59):
In 1988 the House of Representatives voted to increase its pay by 51 percent, to $135,000 from $89,500; a talk show host in Detroit, Roy Fox, launched a "tea-bag revolt" (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party was coming up), where citizens sent tea bags to Congress as a protest, demanding that the pay hike be repealed. The protest worked, and as organizers dumped 160,000 tea bags in front of the White House, Congress withdrew the pay raise."
posted by Pat @ 10:38 AM
92 comments
92 Comments:
But... but... we Troofers are the symbols of everything and everyone that is decent and good in America! Inside Jobby Job!
The video titled, "The Real Story--Boston 9/11 Tea Party", was linked into a post made yesterday by Anonymous.
That said, the video Anonymous linked into his post does not establish a connection between the "Tea Party" movement and the "9/11 truth movement."
Why?
The "9/11 truth movement" named their book burning ceremony "Boston 9/11 Tea Party 2006."
In fact, Robin Hordon, the main subject of the video, admits that the "Boston 9/11 Tea Party 2006" was a progressive event (see the video for details).
On the contrary, today's "Tea Party" movement is not progressive at all.
In fact, the "Tea Party" movement is a right-wing movement, as the following passage from Wikipedia makes clear: "...The Tea Party movement is a populist United States protest movement focused on fiscal conservatism. The movement, originating in anti-tax protests, emerged in early 2009, partially in response to the 2009 stimulus package as well as the 2008 bailouts."
Source: Wikipedia: Tea Party movement.
Notice that Today's version of the "Tea Party" movement does not mention 9/11 as a grievance.
Moreover, both groups certainly used the term "Tea Party"; however, the two groups have entirely different agendas.
Thus, this line of argument is a textbook example of the fallacy of false equivalence.
Having said that, his argument is based on the fallacy of false equivalence precisely because he erroneously equated an act by one group (book burning, or tossing the 9/11 Commission Report into the Harbor) as being equal to that of another group (opposition to the TARP bailouts and health care reform) without considering the underlying differences that make the comparison invalid.
Thus, his argument is threadbare.
haha...The troofers drop in numbers, then they latch on to both Left and Right gatherings, then the Tea Parties, and now...well, heck!...They STARTED the Tea Party movement! Why not? They believe anything!
Looking at the last page of the Newsweek of March 1, which has some headlines that are relevant for today -
"'Tea Party' Meeting Fights New Taxes
'Charges of 'taxation without representation,' 'confiscation' and 'unwarranted waste' rang in the old South Meeting House this afternoon."
July 30, 1935"
"In fact, the "Tea Party" movement is a right-wing movement,"
Ooooopsy, another "fact" that turns out to be, well, a lie:
"Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey."
"The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie
LL wrote, "...In fact, the 'Tea Party' movement is a right-wing movement,"
"Ooooopsy, another 'fact' that turns out to be, well, a lie:"
First of all, LL, I'll thank you not to call me a liar. Got it?
Now, on to the specifics: Since when is "fiscal conservatism" a left-wing plank?
Care to offer examples?
Since when are "anti-tax protests" a left-wing plank?
Again, care to offer examples?
Since when is opposition to the health care bill a left-wing plank?
Care to offer examples?
LL continues, "...The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group."
By your own statistics, the majority of "Tea Party" members are Republicans (57 percent).
"...The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic..."
Now, assuming that we can trust your source--and "the Hill" is anything but a trusted source, given their repeated apologies and retractions--how do you come to the erroneous conclusion that calling the "Tea Party" movement a right-wing or conservative movement is a "lie"?
After all, by your own statistics, 6 out 10 "Tea Party" members are Republican?
My suggestion, LL, is that you sit on your hands and think before you make outrageous and unsubstantiated remarks.
Finally, you'd do well to learn who your friends are, sir. And think real hard before you resort to calling an ally a "liar".
Have I made my position on this subject crystal clear, LL?
If you have questions or legitimate concerns, let me know.
Then there was the actual Boston Tea Party; where agitators dressed as indians raided the docks and threw tea into the water.
They dressed as indians to enrage the American public and justify the invasion of Iraq 230 years later. Coincidentally one of the passports of the 9/11 hijackers was found on the pier.Dck Cheney has a time machine.
The Boston Tea Party was the first inside jobby job!
[once again, this is a joke. I am in no way a true wack-job]
LL wrote, ""...http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie"
LL, wasn't TheHill the source of the erroneous "just a god damned piece of paper" remark falsely attributed to George W. Bush?
Read on...
TheHill writes, "...The article that previously appeared under this URL has been removed from our database because a followup [SIC] investigation revealed the sources quoted in the article did not, as they claimed, attend a White House meeting between President George W. Bush where we reported he called the Constitution a 'god damned pieced of paper.'
"Although we believe President Bush has a history of flagrant disregard for the protections and liberties outlined in the Constitution, we cannot confirm that he made the statement and retract the article.
"Our apologies to our readers. Our policies regarding the use of unnamed sources were changed in 2006 and the article would not have appeared on this web site under those new policies."
Source: TheHill: Capital Hill Blue: Article removed from our database.
So the question remains: Why would you, of all people, source a rag like TheHill in order to substantiate your argument?
The mind boggles (and I'm a centrist Democrat?!?!?!?).
Dissension in the locker room.Team up for sale!!!!
"So the question remains: Why would you, of all people, source a rag like TheHill in order to substantiate your argument?"
Um, try reading it.
The Hill was reporting on polls.
From another source.
They were not the source of the polls, not did they have anything to do with them.
Aaaaaannnnndddd......
It was the first link of many in an article I read.
Shrug.
"In fact, Robin Hordon, the main subject of the video, admits that the "Boston 9/11 Tea Party 2006" was a progressive event (see the video for details)."
But GB! He does no such thing. He talks about the direction of the truth movement and his "progressive friends". The Tea Party was a Constitutionalist movement, whether or not truthers mingled in it in 2006. That's frankly, irrelevant to the subject at hand. Now... the Tea Party Movement is an astroturfing sham.
We could quibble over funding, but the support network is enormous, and Fox and several other GOP linked groups are practically carrying it. That's not grassroots at all. You made some comments about insurers being behind the funding, but you can't substantiate that claim either, and admittedly, you said so. But cm'on, if this movement isn't an astroturfing movement than what is.
"So the question remains: Why would you, of all people, source a rag like TheHill in order to substantiate your argument?"
Ok, I'll never cite the Hill as long as you agree never to cite the liars at the New York Times, 'mkay?
Arsehoolie the insane scribbles, "...Dissension in the locker room.Team up for sale!!!!"
No, it's called debate, disingenuous one.
But, then again, what do you know about debate? After all, the "9/11 truth movement" isn't about debate, is it?
In fact, the "9/11 truth movement" is about monologue: You preach the so-called "9/11 truth" and we listen--no questions asked.
Since when does monologue qualify as debate?
The debunker cult is about horny sex with animals. BYOB!
"the Tea Party Movement is an astroturfing sham."
And your proof of this is.....what?
"We could quibble over funding, but the support network is enormous, and Fox....."
Is reporting the news being ignored by the leftist MSM.
QUELLE SUPRISE!!!!
" But cm'on, if this movement isn't an astroturfing movement than what is."
It's a real grass roots movement by ordinary men and women in the country sick and tired of the reactionary left shoving their shit sandwiches down our collective throat.
I wouldn't be surprised that come November the GOP controls both the House and the Senate.
Not guaranteed, especially the Senate, but a real and growing possibility.
"Anonymous said...
The debunker cult is about horny sex with animals."
That no way to talk about your Mom.
"Is reporting the news being ignored by the leftist MSM."
Hey stop whining you reactionary rightist. Even CNN had a shiny bus there.
No matter how obscure they try to make the funding, they'll be exposed.
Grassroots? HAH! Cue your rant against the "reactionary left" Wikipedia in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..
"That [sic] no way to talk about your Mom."
Or the wondrous story of your conception.
Anonymous wrote, "...But GB! He does no such thing. He talks about the direction of the truth movement and his 'progressive friends'. The Tea Party was a Constitutionalist movement, whether or not truthers mingled in it in 2006."
No, you have it backward, Anonymous.
After all, your video clearly shows the protesters tossing the 9/11 Commission Report into the Boston Harbor, which doesn't sound like a "Constitutionalist [SIC] movement" to me.
"...You made some comments about insurers being behind the funding, but you can't substantiate that claim either, and admittedly, you said so. But cm'on, if this movement isn't an astroturfing movement than what is."
True, I can't substantiate my claim concerning insurance conglomerate funding of the "Tea Party" movement, so anything I've said so far should be taken with a huge grain of salt. If it's any consolation, I agree with you that the "Tea Party" movement is an Astroturf movement, but that's beside the point.
Many protest movements have adopted the "Tea Party" label, of that there's no doubt; however, it's disingenuous to claim that the movements are equivalent without examining the underlying differences--and the differences are myriad--that render the comparison invalid. That's all I'm trying to say--nothing more; nothing less.
Okay?
Again, the [sic] is unwarranted. Google the term.
And tossing the 9/11 report in the Boston harbor isn't anti-constitutional, especially since it was a cover-up, whether it be of incompetence, GOP CYA or something else.
The 9/11 report is based on torture (No I'm not going to use euphemisms) confessions, too. Is that constitutional? The end doesn't justify the means.
LL wrote, "...Um, try reading it."
I hate to break this to you, LL, but I did read the article, and the article is fraught with inconsistencies. For example, the Winston Group, is "a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group."
Hmmmm....
Did it occur to you that the "Tea Party" has a vested interest in trying to present itself as a bipartisan protest movement?
And that's precisely why I question the validity of the poll.
For example, the article reads, "...The group has a favorable view of Republicans generally but that drops from 71 to 57 percent if they’re asked about Congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats are viewed very unfavorably by 75 percent of Tea Party members – a uniquely strong antipathy. An overwhelming 95 percent said 'Democrats are taxing, spending, and borrowing too much.'"
Given the obvious hatred for the Democratic Party demonstrated by the aforementioned passage, it's safe to assume that many of the people who responded to the survey are in fact Republicans and Libertarians, not "Democrats". Hell, any clown can claim to be a "Democrat". It's a well known fact that many Republicans register as Democrats in order to influence the Democratic Party primaries (vote for the weakest candidate), which amounts to nothing more than election gerrymandering.
So, why should I believe a "poll" conducted by a group with a vested interest in painting the "Tea Party" movement as a "bipartisan" movement?
The article continues, "...The group also vehemently dislikes President Barack Obama – even more so than those who called themselves Republicans in the survey. Over 80 percent of Tea Party members disapprove of the job he’s doing as president, whereas 77 percent of Republican respondents said they disapprove of Obama. The Tea Party members are also strongly opposed to the Democrats’ healthcare plan, with 82 percent saying they oppose it -- only 48 percent of respondents overall were opposed."
"...Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" -- William Shakespeare
Obviously, someone is lying to you, LL, and it's not me.
LL wrote, "...Ok, I'll never cite the Hill as long as you agree never to cite the liars at the New York Times, 'mkay?"
Okay, but don't you think that comparing The New York Times to a rag like TheHill is a bit of a stretch?
Just askin'...
Take notes, troofers. Lazarus and GuitarBill are showing you how to have a real debate. And neither one have resorted to childish attacks or ignoring the other's points. Though, the liar thing is a bit troofer-like.
Robin Hordon, the main subject of the video
Which was all I needed to hear about this claim. The man has a long history of making ridiculous statements about everything. If he said the sky was blue, I'd look up to be sure.
Look at those costumes, that massive replica copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, those olden day flags and T-shirts with "Tranny Response Team". It's not cheap to organize a thing like that with all those props.
Who's funding them?
By the way, I watched a couple of the "Secret Rulers of the World" episodes which was made from Jon Ronson's meeting up with conspiracy theorists and Alex Jones did have a car sticker reading "Time for another Tea Party!". But this was back in 2000 which is before 9/11, so the idea was clearly used before Truthers existed.
I think it's overly simplistic to characterize the Troofer as "progressive" or the Tea Party crowd as "conservative". I think you'll find some real overlap between the groups particularly among libertarians. Troofers do skew left, but Alex Jones is certainly no progressive. I'm sure the Tea Partiers skew right, but that poll does indicate that they draw substantial support from independents as well.
angrysoba wrote, "..."Tranny Response Team"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
ROTFLMAO!
" Anonymous said...
"That [sic] no way to talk about your Mom."
Or the wondrous story of your conception."
I was conceived.
You're the product of fission.
As is true of many of the lower animals.
I think it's overly simplistic to characterize the Troofer as "progressive" or the Tea Party crowd as "conservative".
I think it's fairer to say that the majority of Truthers sit on the "terminally malcontent" end of the spectrum rather than left or right. They just complain about how nobody wants to listen to them and organize not so much "protests" as "group sulking sessions".
Eh?
What happened to all those other comments?
"Did it occur to you that the "Tea Party" has a vested interest in trying to present itself as a bipartisan protest movement?
And that's precisely why I question the validity of the poll."
Wow, that's really....conspiratorial.
So the Tea Party knew in advance who an independent pollster was going to call, reached out and coached all the respondents as to what they were to say. And they all stayed on script.
MORE POWERFUL THAN AN ILLUMINATI!!!
"Given the obvious hatred for the Democratic Party demonstrated by the aforementioned passage, it's safe to assume that many of the people who responded to the survey are in fact Republicans and Libertarians, not "Democrats"."
Why?
"Hell, any clown can claim to be a "Democrat"."
And many many of them are sitting in Congress. And the White House.
" It's a well known fact that many Republicans register as Democrats in order to influence the Democratic Party primaries (vote for the weakest candidate), which amounts to nothing more than election gerrymandering."
Sorry, that's a reactionary leftist Alinsky tactic used against Republicans.
But that doesn't stop you from flipping reality around.
"So, why should I believe a "poll" conducted by a group with a vested interest in painting the "Tea Party" movement as a "bipartisan" movement?"
And you know this....how?
"Obviously, someone is lying to you, LL, and it's not me."
Ok, so you are misinformed.
Sorry.
"Okay, but don't you think that comparing The New York Times to a rag like TheHill is a bit of a stretch?"
Ummmm.....no.
That was my point.
Who believes the NYT anymore?
Apparently the fact they had a protest attended by 6 people means they invented the entire metaphor.
I would have to agree that the Tea Party is primarily right-wing, but that does not mean its members are exclusively Republican. Like any movement there is diversity.
I've had the honor of observing one Tea Party event in person. I couldn't classify it as left or right, because it was completely incoherent. The signs, the interview answers, the chants made no sense. People had signs that contradicted each other. People railed against "socialism" but couldn't spell it correctly. It was like being on the set of Idiocracy.
LL wrote, "...So the Tea Party knew in advance who an independent pollster was going to call, reached out and coached all the respondents as to what they were to say. And they all stayed on script."
"independent"?
So, how do you define "independent"?
The remainder of your argument is a straw man, because I never said anything of the sort, LL.
Typical Republican: Machiavellian to the core.
I guess I may as well talk to an insane Ann "the man" Coulter influenced right-wing nut-bag.
"...And many many of them are sitting in Congress. And the White House."
Yeah, they're called "blue dog Democrats." And in my opinion, if you vote like a Republican, think like a Republican and legislate like a Republican, you're a Republican.
So what was your point, LL?
"...Ok, so you are misinformed."
No, you need to learn to read and understand "Republican statistics" (read "bullshit").
Frank "the wank" Luntz, anyone?
Source: Penn & Teller: Penn and Teller Defend Ron Paul vs. Luntz and Fox News.
As Penn said, "...Frank, Frank, Frank, jerkin' you around for a lot of money...Fuck you, Frank!"
One more time: Fuck you, Frank!
Polls, damned lies and polls.
"...Sorry, that's a reactionary leftist Alinsky tactic used against Republicans."
Examples, please.
Would you care to substantiate your arguments, LL? Making a statement without substantiation is, well...to paraphrase Penn....bullshit.
:)
""...Sorry, that's a reactionary leftist Alinsky tactic used against Republicans."
Examples, please."
The Congressional Democrat Black Caucus walk through the Tea Party demonstrators on the Capitol grounds on the day of the so-called "Health Care" bill.
A deliberate attempt to invoke a reaction from the crowd.
When it didn't work, they just lied about being called the "N" word and being spat upon.
Classic.
Just to put one more point on the "Truthers invented the Tea Party movement" argument... how would that be a positive thing?
Having your rally co-opted by somebody else would just show that you can't competently manage an organization. And the people who outmaneuvered you were Tea Party people. Ouch.
9-11 Truthers: even if they were right, they'd still be wrong.
From Google News
Tax Protest Made With Tea Bags
Los Angeles Times Mar 20, 1959
Page: 6 Word Count: 117
…Californians Against Tax Increases, which describes itself as a citizens organization to protest taxes, said the tea bags are being mailed bv housewives ...
"...A deliberate attempt to invoke a reaction from the crowd."
LOL!
To borrow your phrase, "...Wow, that's really....conspiratorial."
" GuitarBill said...
"...A deliberate attempt to invoke a reaction from the crowd."
LOL!
To borrow your phrase, "...Wow, that's really....conspiratorial.""
Not when every reactionary leftist MSM outlet took up the outcry full throat repoting the alleged "racist" insult.
(Another Alinsky tactic, btw)
None of which can prove that racist insults were used by Tea Partiers.
And none of which have retracted their lies.
Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000 donation to charity for the first person who can produce any proof that the "n" word was used against that provocative march. It is uncollected as we speak.
LL writes, "...Not when every reactionary leftist MSM outlet took up the outcry full throat repoting the alleged "racist" insult."
Tell me, LL, what is the definition of the word reactionary?
And be very careful, LL, because I know the definition of reactionary.
reactionary: a leftist power hungry thug.
OR a deluded follower of socialism, communism or nazism who is a true believer.
Reactionary leftism is like a germ, a very resiliant, antibiotic resistant mutant, infecting the body politic, a failed relic of the past.
Oh, and leftism is a philosophy that reduces people to tribes.
Very primitive thinking.
LL wrote, "...reactionary: a leftist power hungry thug."
Wrong! That's paleo-conservative spin, ala, Bill O'Reilly.
Here's the the definition of reactionary from two sources:
"...relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics."
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Definition: reactionary
Source #2:
"...Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative...An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative."
Source: Answers.com: reactionary.
Now LL, when you use a term like "reactionary leftist", what have you done to the English language?
"Here's the the definition of reactionary from two sources:
"...relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics."
WRONG!
That's reactionary Marxist spin, ala Marx, Lenin and Stalin.
"Now LL, when you use a term like "reactionary leftist", what have you done to the English language?"
I've taken it back from, well, the reactionary leftists.
You do know that Pravda was the propaganda arm of the Communist party, do you not?
"I hate Communism most for its cold-blooded murder of the truth! Pravda doesn't mean truth. Pravda means whatever serves the world Communist revolution."
-Robert A. Heinlein
BTW, no reaction to the Democrat Black Causus perp walk?
LL wrote, "...BTW, no reaction to the Democrat Black Causus perp walk?"
Yeah sure: More paleo-conservative bullsh*t.
How's that, LL?
You didn't answer my question, LL, so let's try again, shall we?
"...Now LL, when you use a term like "reactionary leftist", what have you done to the English language?"
Answer the damned question.
"GuitarBill said...
LL wrote, "...BTW, no reaction to the Democrat Black Causus perp walk?"
Yeah sure: More paleo-conservative bullsh*t.
How's that, LL?"
Where's the "N" word, GB?
You could earn the UNCF $100,000, GB.
All you gotta do is provide Andrew Breitbart with proof that it was yelled at the Democrat Black Caucus members.
Where's the bullshit, GB? On the reactionary left.
Sure I did.
"Now LL, when you use a term like "reactionary leftist", what have you done to the English language?"
I've taken it back from, well, the reactionary leftists.
LL wrote, "...I've taken it back from, well, the reactionary leftists."
That's paleo-conservative spin--a perversion of the English language..
Who am I talking to, the brer rabbit?
Words have specific definitions, LL, and you're changing the definition of well understood words to suit you paleo-conservative propaganda.
Here the correct the answer to my question:
You've employed an oxymoron--a combination of contradictory or incongruous words.
So where do you find the definitions for the words you abuse, the Freeper's doublethink dictionary?
"That's paleo-conservative spin--a perversion of the English language.."
Like the propaganda word "paleo-conservative"
Ooooo, scary!
Actually the only person that description applies to thta I know is Pat Buchanan, and I hate his black little anti-semitic heart.
Personally, I'm a classical liberal.
"Who am I talking to, the brer rabbit?"
RACIST!!!!
[that's a joke, son]
"Words have specific definitions, LL, and you're changing the definition of well understood words to suit you paleo-conservative propaganda."
No, I'm merely taking it back from the marxist perversion of language that you swallow whole.
"You've employed an oxymoron--a combination of contradictory or incongruous words.
"You've employed an oxymoron--a combination of contradictory or incongruous words."
No, I use words exactly as they are suppsoed to be used. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
"So where do you find the definitions for the words you abuse, the Freeper's doublethink dictionary?"
Wouldn't know that particular document. I've never been a "freeper".
Here, go read about how the Democrat Black Caucus and the MSM lied:
"Its time for the black caucus race hustlers to apologize for slandering tea party patriots"
http://tinyurl.com/y93a9gn
"...No, I'm merely taking it back from the marxist perversion of language that you swallow whole."
Merriam-Webster Dictionary is a part of the "international communist conspiracy"?
Really?
No kidding?
Would you care to substantiate that assertion, LL?
"...I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids." --General Jack D. Ripper, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
"...Let’s get his video, before the DNC alters it!"
Do you think your "source" may be just a little paranoid, LL?
Good God.
BOSTON WOMEN OPEN WAR ON ROOSEVELT'S SHARE WEALTH TAXES
Threatening a' second Boston tea party, 11 prominent Massachusetts .women tonight telegraphed President Roosevelt in protest against "arrogant taxation of a people without their con- sidered consent," which, they wired, "had and has no place In our system of government."
Jun 28, 1935
Chicago Tribune
The vaults are full of these articles.
Thanks Len!
"Do you think your "source" may be just a little paranoid, LL?"
Look at who he's talking about: Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
So, no, it's not paranoid, it's part and parcel of the reactionary left's playbook.
You think I'm joking.
Here's proof:
http://tinyurl.com/magqre
Go to the link and play the MSNBC clip. Scary report about White people "showing up with guns", "racial overtones", "hate groups", all the usual reactionary leftist talking points.
Then read on and look at the UNCROPPED picture of the guy carrying the weapon.
Well, supirze suprize suprize!
It ain't paranoia if you're telling the truth.
"...reactionary leftist"?
There you go again, LL.
Again, there's no such thing as a "reactionary leftist".
"Again, there's no such thing as a "reactionary leftist"."
Except for every socialist,nazi, communist and fascist throughout history.
"...Except for every socialist,nazi, communist and fascist throughout history."
Bullshit!
I want EVIDENCE. Substantiate your assertion. Making an outrageous statement without evidence is...well...bullshit.
Put up, or shut up.
"I want EVIDENCE. Substantiate your assertion. Making an outrageous statement without evidence is...well...bullshit.
Put up, or shut up."
120,000,000 murdered under communism.
Eat it, baby.
LL wrote, "...120,000,000 murdered under communism...Eat it, baby."
That's not proof.
I've already demonstrated that you don't know the meaning of the word reactionary; thus, you need to provide EVIDENCE that the definition I provided for you from credible sources is in error.
And must I remind you that your opinion is not evidence.
Now get to work.
"I've already demonstrated that you don't know the meaning of the word reactionary"
No you haven't, you've proved you don't know English, and that you hate conservatives.
Try again.
"Now get to work."
Blow me, boy.
And it's wonderful you're defending the most backward, murderous political philososphy ever inflicted on a suffering humanity.
If 120,000,000 dead people isn't enough to prove what a backward, primitive and, yes, reactionary fraud leftism truly is, I pity you, son.
Maybe someday, when you grow up, you'll understand what I mean.
Until then, you just keep sucking on you binky.
"...Blow me, boy."
That's the best you can do, wing-nut?
Pathetic.
"...Until then, you just keep sucking on you binky."
Would you care to diagram that sentence, LL?
So, when will you substantiate your alleged argument, LL?
I won't hold my breath.
Try a dictionary.
"...If 120,000,000 dead people isn't enough to prove what a backward, primitive and, yes, reactionary fraud leftism truly is, I pity you, son."
You call that extremist right-wing bilge "history"?
Revisionist history, perhaps, but it's certainly not history.
Perhaps you can explain why the alleged "socialist", Hitler, eliminated, with extreme prejudice, the German labor unions?
And perhaps you can explain why the Freikorps (Hilter's mentors) assassinated the extremely popular German socialist, Walter Rathenau?
"...In June 1922 Walter Rathenau, a big Jewish industrialist and progressive economist, was assassinated by gangsters of the extreme Right (Nazis) who were the heart and soul of the Freikorps."
So if Hitler was a "socialist", why did he persecute, and ultimately eliminate (that is kill), socialists and communists?
Any more doublethink for us, wing-nut?
Oh, and while you're at it, LL, perhaps you can explain why Karl Marx said, shortly before his death--and I quote--"...I'm not a Marxist"?
Just another inconvenient bit of truth, eh LL?
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
fascism
"...Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while LIBERAL and democratic values are disparaged."
So what was that about fascism = liberalism (ie, socialism)?
Would you care to impress me with another example of the breadth and depth of your ignorance, LL?
"...And it's wonderful you're defending the most backward, murderous political philososphy ever inflicted on a suffering humanity."
Oh bite me.
If you honestly think that I would defend the murder of millions of innocent Russian and Chinese peasants, you're out of your mind.
Any more straw man arguments for us, LL?
"...No you haven't, you've proved you don't know English, and that you hate conservatives."
I don't know English?
Really? No kidding?
Well, I'm still waiting for you to prove that Merriam-Webster's definition of reactionary is bogus.
I hate conservatives?
Really? No kidding?
Then perhaps you'll explain why I'm a conservative Democrat, who believes that capitalism is the best economic system?
But, by all means, don't let reality get in the way of your paleo-conservative propaganda.
"You call that extremist right-wing bilge "history"?
Revisionist history, perhaps, but it's certainly not history."
No, it's a fact.
Estimates of the number of people murdered under communism range between 80,000,000 and 120,000,000.
Try this:
"The Black Book of Communism"
http://tinyurl.com/y96zz3w
"From Publishers Weekly
In France, this damning reckoning of communism's worldwide legacy was a bestseller that sparked passionate arguments among intellectuals of the Left. Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the century. In France, both sales and controversy were fueled, as Martin Malia notes in the foreword, by editor Courtois's specific comparison of communism's "class genocide" with Nazism's "race genocide." Courtois, the director of research at the prestigious Centre Research National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris and editor of the journal Communisme, along with the other distinguished French and European contributors, delivers a fact-based, mostly Russia-centered wallop that will be hard to refute: town burnings, mass deportations, property seizures, family separations, mass murders, planned faminesAall chillingly documented from conception to implementation"
Right wing propaganda, right?
Wrong.
The authors are all leftists or left leaners.
"Take notes, troofers. Lazarus and GuitarBill are showing you how to have a real debate. And neither one have resorted to childish attacks or ignoring the other's points."
ORLY?
"Perhaps you can explain why the alleged "socialist", Hitler, eliminated, with extreme prejudice, the German labor unions?"
Der Parti. Der Furher.
You cannot have divided loyalties under leftist dictatorships. The Party and the Leader are the be all and end all of reactionary leftist politics.
Primitive, like tribal leadership.
"Everything in the state, nothing outside the state." is how Mussilini put it.
"And perhaps you can explain why the Freikorps (Hilter's mentors) assassinated the extremely popular German socialist, Walter Rathenau?"
The reactionary leftist nazis and the reactionary leftist socialists were fighting over the same social space, trying to recruit the same people.
"So if Hitler was a "socialist", why did he persecute, and ultimately eliminate (that is kill), socialists and communists?"
See above.
"You call that extremist right-wing bilge "history"?
Revisionist history, perhaps, but it's certainly not history."
Sorry, dude, it's a fact.
Try this:
"The Black Book of Communism"
http://tinyurl.com/y96zz3w
Try learning some history.
Arrrgghhhh
Sorry about the double post........
" GuitarBill said...
Oh, and while you're at it, LL, perhaps you can explain why Karl Marx said, shortly before his death--and I quote--"...I'm not a Marxist"?"
blinks in non-comprehension.....
Marx not a Marxist.
Sounds like something Groucho would say.
Ok, I'm done slapping you aroundd, GB.
Talk to you later.
"You cannot have divided loyalties under leftist dictatorships."
You cannot have "divided loyalties" under ANY dictatorship.
Tell me, Laz, if Hitler was just getting rid of "divided loyalties", then where are the large scale prosecutions of the right-wing in Germany?
And why would you refer to Mussolini as a socialist, when every history textbook describes fascism as "extreme right-wing"? Do you know the current adepts of Fascism in Italy support Berlusconi? Is Berlusconi a socialist?
In Germany, there are regular clashes between neo-nazis and the left. The media, and the neo-nazi's themselves, refer to themselves as "right-wing" and their opposition as "left-wing".
Shit man, is this what people in America are taught these days?
"Shit man, is this what people in America are taught these days?"
No, they're taught that fascism is "right wing".
By reactionary leftists.
And some morons believe it, unfortunately.
I would refer to Mussolini as a socialist because that's what he was.
Why else?
""Fascism" was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of "capitalism.""
-Tom Wolfe
"Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state. "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state," is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word "totalitarian" to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally."
-Jonah Goldberg
And that makes fascism "right wing"....how?
PornBoy FINALLY gets a witty line off.Sadly though,it's in the midst of arguing that Hitler was a Commie! You can't get more out on a limb than that! At least he goes down in flames with a chuckle AND a whimper!
Laz, I don't see any answers to my questions and objections in that incoherent response at all. How about a point-by-point rebuttal of the specific remarks I made?
Can you point to any history book in the world, currently taught in school or college curriculum, any such history book at all, supporting your argument? Or do you merely have quotes by selected wingnuts who share the same revisionist delusions as you do?
And if you're this deluded about world history, why should I take anything you say about 9/11 seriously?
There's a thousand page book that's been released which proves that PornBoy's insane.It's called "Hitler,That Mean Ol' Commie".It's actually culled from the archives of this site and could be downloaded at anyone's leisure.
"... any such history book at all, supporting your argument?"
http://tinyurl.com/y94lcua
"And if you're this deluded about world history, why should I take anything you say about 9/11 seriously?"
I know infinitely more about history than you do.
Laz, you just linked me to a crackpot book of a political pundit and a partisan hack, not a historian. The book features a smiley on the cover with a Hitler mustache.
I guess this means you know infinitely more about smileys with Hitler mustaches than I do.
"I guess this means you know infinitely more about smileys with Hitler mustaches than I do."
No that means I know infinitely more history than you.
Still.
In that case you should have known better than to repeat yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home