Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Hilarious

By

Just caught this hilarious video on ThinkProgress:

Blogger-activist Mike Stark has been staking out Capitol Hill recently, trying to get Republican congressmen on the record about whether or not they believe President Obama was born in the United States. Only a couple of GOP congressmen were willing to state without reservation that Obama is the legal and constitutional President of the United States.

Seriously,… how far through the looking glass have we come now that congressmen themselves fear (or worse) speaking truth to absurdity?  Personally, I blame the media for promoting ‘on-the-other-hand-ism’ brand of ‘journalism’.  When journalism itself denies the very existence of objective reality, it’s only a matter of time before it’s taken to the point of farce.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. He sounds like a real wingnut, but he had the guts to go on camera and tell the birthers that they are completely wrong.  That takes guts, given the sorry state of the Republican party these days.

    • except of course his citizen status.  He did not sound like a wingnut to me, he sounded like a man secure in his convictions. He demonstrated grace, honesty and intelligence.  Is he a wingnut because of his opposition to abortion? That makes my mother a wingnut.  Is it because he fears that the United States is going in the wrong direction in regard to the size and role of our Federal government?  That makes John Stuart Mill a wingnut.  Is it because he wants to change the way this country will deal with the jihadists?  That would make have made Obama a wingnut before he was elected and changed the way we engaged the Islamic world.

      <

      p>I don’t think that you using wingnut or Gerry Callahan using the term moonbat is helpful.  The demonization of the opposition is not new, it has been going on since the beginning of our republic.  The new progressive tactic is to engage the other side with dialogue and win them over with argument and not resort to lame name calling.

      <

      p>BTW, what is with the saucy ads on the site? Not that I am complaining now, but I am afraid to click on the play button.  What does it do?

      • “Is he a wingnut because of his opposition to abortion? “

        <

        p>Here is what the guy said:
        “…promoting abortion on demand…”
        The idea that Obama is promoting abortion on demand is a wingnut idea.  

        <

        p>”…standing by and letting Jihad gain traction in the world,…”
        The idea that Obama is standing by is a wingnut idea.  Chances are this guy is just more hawkish than Obama, but what he said here is wingnut.

        <

        p>”…doing things to undermine our constitution for turning us into a socialist nation…”
        I don’t like the ways in which Obama is undermining the constitution either, but these have nothing to do with socialism.  To the extent that anything in Obama policies can be said to be socialist, they are hardly “turning us into a socialist nation”.  Wingnut.

        <

        p>He can worry about these things all he wants, but ascribing a characteristic to Obama that is contrary to reality is what makes him a wingnut.

        • and because Howie Carr does not agree with you you  become a moonbat.  I do not see where this gets us.  

            • if you just resort to name calling.  I hear my conservative friends do the same thing.  It is not productive.  Give me all the 4s you want, in fact, go back and give me a zero while you are giving me the finger and sticking your tongue out.  That is a tad more mature than name-calling.

              • Last I checked, 4 isn’t ‘stick your tongue out’.  Sorry if you take my estimation that your remark needs work as some kind of insult.  For my part it means exactly that; it needs work.  Of course I can’t control whatever else you want to read into that I suppose.

                <

                p>As for it being derogatory,… I seem to remember someone selling moonbat T-Shirts here some time ago.  I imagine similar goings on in differently-winged communities.

              • Look, the post was weak.  You were both putting words in Mr. Lynne’s mouth and acting superior abut it.  It’s something I’ve seen you do over and over. So, I gave you a 4.  Deal.

                • I commented on DAVID’s use of the term wingbat.  Carrying his water are we now?

                  <

                  p>I think that some on this site have a lot of insight and much to say, and David is at the top of this list in this regard.  He weakens his arguments and credibility by name calling the man who dared answer the birth question.  As for you, I couldn’t care what you write or how low of a rating you gave my post.  I won’t insult you, I won’t demean you, I just don’t care.

                  <

                  p>Regarding your ally, Mr. Lynne is upset for another reason which I will not go into at this time.  He knows what I am talking about.  PEACE!!!

  2. Did Mr. Stark get a chance to interview every single member of the House GOP caucus?  I find it very hard to believe that only two members do not buy into this birther nonsense.

    • Do you read somewhere that he interviewed every single member?  Where are you getting that?  I find it disturbing that even an handful of US Congressmen or Congresswomen are or are compelled to seem so absurd.  

      • However Salon appears to be all over this today and apparently they’ve identified 17 members giving aid and comfort to the birthers, although even Ann Coulter has called them out.  If he hasn’t interviewed the entire caucus then it would have been nice if we were told how many he did interview to give us some perspective.

        • … the Salon tip.  I must say, though, that inferring ‘everyone’ from ‘staking out’ and ‘trying’ seems an ill-though inference to me.  I suppose the last sentence taken without context could infer that he’s tried with every one.  Then again the more likely inference would be ‘of those he was able to talk to’.

          • At the time I posted the link there were four articles posted front and center regarding this issue.  As of this writing you have to scroll down to the main list of stories to find two of them, while the other two can be found in the “War Room” section.

  4. From the LA Times

    <

    p>

    Lou Dobbs had David from Freeport, N.Y., on the line, the caller musing darkly about President Obama “rushing all these programs through by whatever means,” knowing he will soon be exposed as a fake, a fraud, a . . . Kenyan.

    At that point, a scrupulous radio host had three options: (A) hit the kill button (B) laugh and hit the kill button or (C) offer some push-back against the fantastical notion that Barack Obama was born on foreign soil and thus serves — illegally — as the Oval Office’s first resident alien.

    Instead, Dobbs chose the maximum complicity-minimum integrity route, or (D): “Certainly your view can’t be discounted,” the host said.

    <

    p>and

    <

    p>

    Dobbs did not return my call Tuesday. But he did go on the radio and rant about the L.A. Times and the other liberal media that are “subservient and servile to this presidency.”

    He insisted he believed Obama is a citizen, while continuing to tell listeners “there is no actual birth certificate.” He did it because he is a Man of the People. And, as he explained, “the American people want an answer.”

    <

    p>BTW, this book referenced in the article sounds like an interesting read:

    <

    p>

    Jackson has studied the kind of “disordered thinking” exhibited by the foreign-birth gadflies, known collectively as “birthers.” His book “unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation” — co-authored with another journalism authority, Kathleen Hall Jamieson — explored instances in which the public let itself be overtaken by emotion.

    Jackson said he saw a bit of this emotional attachment to a conspiracy theory from Democrats who insisted that Sen. John F. Kerry lost the 2004 election only because of voter fraud in Ohio. They kept finding new examples.

  5. Move along, no story here.

    <

    p>Democrats:  “hee, hee, let’s have a anti-birther resolution.”

    <

    p>

    RESOLUTION
    Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State.

    Whereas August 21, 2009, marks the 50th Anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s signing of Proclamation 3309, which admitted Hawaii into the Union in compliance with the Hawaii Admission Act, enacted by the United States Congress on March 18, 1959;

    Whereas Hawaii is `a place like no other, with a people like no other’ and bridges the mainland United States to the Asia-Pacific region;

    Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;

    <

    p>Passed 378-0.  True, that 55 didn’t vote. But of those 55, 35 were Democrats.

    <

    p>Maybe there’s more traction with some of the other wing-nut conspiracies:

    <

    p>Bush intentionally let Bin Laden escape! Let’s bring on the congressional crazy.

Archives