Previous post
Next post
Here’s some real classiness from the classiest of liberal blogs, the Huffington Post (emphasis mine):
When John McCain says government is too big, what do these people think he means?
Who are we kidding?
John McCain was in the navy and then he was in the U.S. Senate. He has never cashed a check a bureaucrat didn’t write. I’m not trying to be glib, and I realize he was doing a solemn and dangerous job, killing people from the sky. But it was still government work.
Wait, except for those years as a POW. A sick but undeniable fact about John McCain: The only period in his life when he wasn’t living off the American taxpayer, he was living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.
John McCain’s father was in the navy and his father was in the navy. The last McCain who didn’t live in government housing owned a plantation in Mississippi when the state still had slaves.
Which is why John McCain always sounds so emotional when he gets to this line in his stump speech:
“I am absolutely committed to reducing the size of government.”
What he’s promising is eventually he’ll die.
—
Oh, by the way, John Glenn’s fine.
So, basically, all in one post this idiot is: smearing and devaluing John McCain’s service as a pilot as “killing people from the sky”; insulting John McCain’s heroic service as a POW, who turned down the opportunity to get released as the son of an admiral, choosing to stay and be tortured for five years, as mooching off the Vietnamese taxpayers as if it was some kind of luxury vacation; smearing McCain and his family as racists who once owned slaves (Is this even true? I guess because’s he’s white, this smear is OK, because then it must be true, because all white American’s ancestors owned slaves, right?) and likewise smearing his family’s military service as mooching off of the government; and then finally, making jokes about McCain dying.
Real classy.
If any conservative said anything even remotely similar to this about the Obamamessiah, they’d be tarred and feathered by the mainstream media. Really, that’s irrelevant. This piece is disgusting filth. If I ran the Huffington Post, the idiot who wrote that would be fired on the spot. (Yes, there is such thing as freedom of speech. But that doesn’t mean everyone else has to agree with your freedom of speech, and as a privately owned blog, Arianna Huffington can censor as much as she wants on the HuffPo, just like I can censor whatever I want on my blog.)
Anyways, I find it especially rich that a lefty is complaining about someone living off of the government. Even if that is what they consider military service to be, living off of the government (a stupid concept if I’ve ever heard one), why would that bother them? Isn’t that the ultimate liberal goal, to get everyone completely dependent on the government?
Finally, to really show just how depraved not only the author of this post is, but also the entire Huffington Post, be sure to check out the response to this piece. I didn’t read all of the comments, but I didn’t see one that decried this smearing of McCain. It’s interesting that they aren’t willing to attack McCain on policy differences or on the issues. They have to resort to crap like this, usually because they have no other platform to stand on. I may not agree with everything that McCain stands for, but at least the American people know what he stands for, something that they can’t usually say about the Obamamessiah.
This kind of filth is what the left stands for. It’s not particularly the kind of filth I want representing my country.
Hat Tip: Ace
Steve L. says: I’m really getting sick of this tendency of the HuffPo authors looking for any little thing to whine about. Besides being an incredibly stupid and insulting post, this is overwhlmingly ridiculous. It is even more so coming from the party that believes that every problem can be solved with a government check.
baz says: Doesn’t seem any worse than what you said about Obama and gas prices the other day. Doesn’t seem any worse than what Bill O’Liely says on a daily basis. Actually kinder than what was said about John Kerry’s service in ’04.
How’s it feel when the left responds in kind?
And yes, the McCains owned 52 slaves according to Wikipedia. Not the most reliable, I know, but presumably someone at the McCain camp would correct it if wrong.
I wouldn’t fault McCain for this, obviously, but he did benefit from the wealth it created.
And which part of “killing people from the sky” is inaccurate? Not flattering, but undeniably true.
Mat says: And so what if he did kill people from the sky? It’s called military technology and it’s progressed since the beginning of time and will doubtless continue to do so long after we kick the bucket. What would the left want our military to do, fight our opponents with bolt-action rifles (or maybe muzzle loading muskets)?
Cassy, you have to remember that the left does want everyone to suck off the government teat, just not anyone who can protect this country (i.e. the military). Therefore, it’s not really a contradiction for this twit to state as such.
baz says: Mat sez:
“the left does want everyone to suck off the government teat”
Really? What’s your source on that?
I’m left of almost anyone you’ve ever heard of, and that’s just about the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. I know honest-to-God Socialists who think anything resembling that is a terrible idea.
So please, a source for this notion, if you would. If you’ve got no source, I’ll have to assume you’re making this up, which I think you probably are.
And being left has nothing to do with the military whatsoever. Stalin and Mao had very well-funded militaries.
baz, your need for citation of an obvious reality of Liberal policy brings to question your knowledge of current affairs and of Liberal actions to date.
Why don’t you do research on your own, educate yourself, and come back once you’ve gotten up to speed?
Otherwise, you’re just sounding like an intellectually dishonest person whose idea of debate is acting as contrary and obtuse as Alan Colmes.
ATLDave says: I actually work for the military (not a war veteran, though) so I think I’ll contribute to the discussion.
WELFARE: The government gives you money even though you don’t work for the government.
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT: You do a job and receive monetary compensation for your time, training, and experience. This is how most people over 18 provide for themselves and their families.
What McCain has done for much of his life is have GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT for the government. There is nothing wrong with that–you do a job, you get paid. This HuffPo writer seems to miss the difference between these two concepts.
HuffPo also seems to ignore the numerous violations of the beloved Geneva Convention committed by McCain’s captors. It ain’t welfare if they’re depriving you of food, sanitation, contact with the outside world, and breaking bones.
Stalin and Mao did have very well-funded militaries. So much so that they neglected the basic care of the people those militaries were supposedly protecting. (That’s what always seems to happen with wealth redistribution: it makes everyone poor.) Stalin and Mao used that military might to spread their philosophy to other countries. That’s why we were in Vietnam in the first place.
And if one has the technology to defeat the enemy from a great distance, why wouldn’t one use it? I can see it now: “We have the ability to knock out their storehouses and training grounds with bombers, but let’s send in groundtroops instead because leftists will think it’s more noble and dangerous.”
If flying a bomber mission was so non-dangerous (as HuffPo implies) then why did McCain spend all those years in prison? It’s not like they nabbed him when he was out for an afternoon stroll.
The palpable lack of common sense that some writers display is just appalling.
Matt (the other one) says:
baz Says:
Really? What’s your source on that?
Are you f—ing kidding me? You deny that the Left wants more social programs designed to “help” the disadvantaged, but which end up making people dependent on the State for their livelihood? 40 years of liberal advocacy for such causes hasn’t convinced you?
It’s like you demanding a source for knowing that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president, or that the Soviet Union was communist. Speaking of the latter…
I’m left of almost anyone you’ve ever heard of, and that’s just about the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. I know honest-to-God Socialists who think anything resembling that is a terrible idea.
so·cial·ism Listen to the pronunciation of socialism
Pronunciation:
ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Source: http://www.m-w.com (merriam webster online dictionary)
So please, a source for this notion, if you would. If you’ve got no source, I’ll have to assume you’re making this up, which I think you probably are.
So please, a source for this notion that the modern Left doesn’t advocate socialism as described above. If you’ve got no source, I’ll have to assume you’re making this up, which I think you probably are.
And being left has nothing to do with the military whatsoever. Stalin and Mao had very well-funded militaries.
Precisely. What do you think enabled Mao and Stalin to stay in power for so long and therefore enable socialism (actually, Marxism) to continue for so long in their respective countries? You’re going to tell me that ordinary citizens in China and the USSR imposed socialism by popular vote? It never happens that way. Here in the US, it’s being imposted by unelected judges.
Sorry, but you’re an idiot.
Matt (the other one) says: For the life of me, I will never understand why Leftists (and especially those “honest-to-God-socialists”) feel the need to stop by conservative websites and blogs, and try to straighten us out. Especially with such transparent nonsense. It would be one thing if they were attempting to argue that socialism was somehow in society’s best interest – this is, after all what Lenin and Mao were saying as they overthrow the previous regimes in their respective nations.
But instead of honest discussion, we get blatant lies about what the Left is really all about. I can’t decide if such people are crazy or stupid. More likely the latter.
Tim says: Dear Baz,
Please post a source from where you found about John Kerry’s service was false. Not even John Kerry himself would release his service files to prove the charges were false.
O'Really? says: baz sez:
“Really? What’s your source on that?”
So, then, baz, do you know any leftists who favor universal, government run health care? Yeah, I thought so, every leftist you know, including yourself, right?. See, that’s an example of the left wanting everyone to suck off the government teat. Source for example: baz.
baz also said:
“And which part of “killing people from the sky” is inaccurate? Not flattering, but undeniably true.”
There’s nothing wrong with the fact that John McCain’s Air Force duties included “killing people for the sky”, is there? I mean, it wasn’t a ‘wrong’ thing for him do do, was it? However, the fact that you perceive the phrase “killing people from the shy” as “unflattering” explains perfectly what is wrong with characterizing John McCain’s service in that way. So, again, baz answers his own question.
Then baz said:
“And being left has nothing to do with the military whatsoever.”
Amen, bro
baz says: a source for this notion that the modern Left doesn’t advocate socialism as described above. If you’ve got no source, I’ll have to assume you’re making this up, which I think you probably are.
You can’t prove the absence of something in this way. It logically makes no sense. It’s like trying to prove Bush doesn’t talk to aliens. Can’t do it. It makes no sense.
Sorry, but you’re an idiot.
Dear lord, do I have to spell out everything for you? My point is that both rightist and leftist governments can have well funded militaries. In response to the idea that leftists want to defund the military. You missed my point entirely.
Please post a source from where you found about John Kerry’s service was false.
That doesn’t even make sense. I have no idea what you’re asking for. But Kerry’s commendation records are public, and they recount the events.
So, then, baz, do you know any leftists who favor universal, government run health care? Yeah, I thought so, every leftist you know, including yourself, right?. See, that’s an example of the left wanting everyone to suck off the government teat. Source for example: baz.
So you’re saying America can’t do universal healthcare properly? I always suspected the right wing hated government because of a fundamental lack of faith in America. You’re saying it’s impossible? How defeatist…
Matt (the other one) says: You can’t prove the absence of something in this way. It logically makes no sense. It’s like trying to prove Bush doesn’t talk to aliens. Can’t do it. It makes no sense.
This is interesting stuff coming from the crowd that insists that conservatives prove Bush wasn’t behind 9-11. It’s the old “You can’t disprove a negative.”
To the point. You could start by providing some examples of high-profile Leftists advocating something other that government intervention for some social problem. You could show me where Al Gore, Michael Moore, Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Sean Penn, ad nauseum, has called for a private-sector solution for this societal ill or that one. And you’d need enough of them to demonstrate a pattern. One or two out-of-context quotes aren’t going to cut it.
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Oh wait…yes it is. BECAUSE YOU CAN’T FIND THOSE EXAMPLES – THEY DON’T EXIST. The Left DOES want more government. Did you even read the definition of a socialist which I provided above? And don’t try to claim there’s no connection between the modern Left and Socialism either, as you were the first to use the term.
In response to the idea that leftists want to defund the military. You missed my point entirely.</I?
I take it back. Leftists LOVE to spend money on the military. You’re absolutely right. It’s a much bigger priority to them than social programs. It’s definitely conservatives who drive around with “It will be a great day when schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber” on their rear bumpers.
They DO want to defund the military, if you’re talking about the American Left. Were you asleep during the Clinton and Carter Administrations? (Never mind…you’re probably too young to remember ol’ Jimmah’s regime back in the late 70s, though the information can be found online.) Our Navy alone was cut down to around 50% of its former size under Clinton. The other branches of the military suffered similar cuts. We can debate some other time whether this was good or bad.
As I said earlier, it’s one thing to argue that military spending is reckless and irresponsible. But don’t come on here and insult our intelligence by pretending the Left doesn’t advocate for that.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone is entitled to his own opinion…but not his own facts.
You’re really one to lecture others on missing the point. You were ascribing to me (and your other opponents) the position that left-wing regimes never spend money on defense. Nobody here said that, and I think your position has been pretty well destroyed. Everyone’s who’s responded to you has pointed out that the Soviets and Red China were happy to spend money on military goods. The question is why they did it – for defense, or for expansionist aggression? (Are you admitting to being a Communist?) I think it’s YOU who has missed the point.
It’s interesting to note, though, that the left-wing “socialist democracies” of Western Europe have a fraction of the United States’ military budget. Do you need to see the “sources” for that, too…or will you take me at my word when I tell you that this is why the USA found it necessary to spend over 50 years protecting them from the Soviets? With the end of the Cold War, they saw even less need to do it themselves.
I’m beginning to wonder if you have ever read a newspaper, watched a TV newscast, or browsed an Internet news site in your life.
Get lost, moonbat. Nobody here cares what you think.
Matt (the other one) says: You can’t prove the absence of something in this way. It logically makes no sense. It’s like trying to prove Bush doesn’t talk to aliens. Can’t do it. It makes no sense.
This is interesting stuff coming from the crowd that insists that conservatives prove Bush wasn’t behind 9-11. It’s the old “You can’t disprove a negative.”
To the point. You could start by providing some examples of high-profile Leftists advocating something other that government intervention for some social problem. You could show me where Al Gore, Michael Moore, Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Sean Penn, ad nauseum, has called for a private-sector solution for this societal ill or that one. And you’d need enough of them to demonstrate a pattern. One or two out-of-context quotes aren’t going to cut it.
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Oh wait…yes it is. BECAUSE YOU CAN’T FIND THOSE EXAMPLES – THEY DON’T EXIST. The Left DOES want more government. Did you even read the definition of a socialist which I provided above? And don’t try to claim there’s no connection between the modern Left and Socialism either, as you were the first to use the term.
In response to the idea that leftists want to defund the military. You missed my point entirely.
I take it back. Leftists LOVE to spend money on the military. You’re absolutely right. It’s a much bigger priority to them than social programs. It’s definitely conservatives who drive around with “It will be a great day when schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber” on their rear bumpers.
They DO want to defund the military, if you’re talking about the American Left. Were you asleep during the Clinton and Carter Administrations? (Never mind…you’re probably too young to remember ol’ Jimmah’s regime back in the late 70s, though the information can be found online.) Our Navy alone was cut down to around 50% of its former size under Clinton. The other branches of the military suffered similar cuts. We can debate some other time whether this was good or bad.
As I said earlier, it’s one thing to argue that military spending is reckless and irresponsible. But don’t come on here and insult our intelligence by pretending the Left doesn’t advocate for that.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone is entitled to his own opinion…but not his own facts.
You’re really one to lecture others on missing the point. You were ascribing to me (and your other opponents) the position that left-wing regimes never spend money on defense. Nobody here said that, and I think your position has been pretty well destroyed. Everyone’s who’s responded to you has pointed out that the Soviets and Red China were happy to spend money on military goods. The question is why they did it – for defense, or for expansionist aggression? (Are you admitting to being a Communist?) I think it’s YOU who has missed the point.
It’s interesting to note, though, that the left-wing “socialist democracies” of Western Europe have a fraction of the United States’ military budget. Do you need to see the “sources” for that, too…or will you take me at my word when I tell you that this is why the USA found it necessary to spend over 50 years protecting them from the Soviets? With the end of the Cold War, they saw even less need to do it themselves.
I’m beginning to wonder if you have ever read a newspaper, watched a TV newscast, or browsed an Internet news site in your life.
Get lost, moonbat. Nobody here cares what you think.
Mat says: Wow, I kinda fired off the post and forgot about it for a day and Baz goes nutso. Normally, I wouldn’t reply to silly leftists, since it’s usually a collossal waste of time (it’s like trying to punch air, so I would suggest that you guys just ignore Baz, since all arguments with leftist degenerate into “I know you are, but what am I?”
Ok, Let’s see, New Deal programs and Great Society programs to name a couple, all introduced by the Democrats, which memory serves me were usually to the left. Also note that I said that the left wants to eliminate those who want to protect our country (I should have noted “as is”), which means that my notion that leftists want to take down the military is actually quite true. Our military, as is, would never go along with a leftist ideology so the Left sees the need to place every obstruction in front of it to demoralize and crush it. Now, I’m sure the Left would love to see a paramilitary force more in keeping with its ideas (let’s face it, the Soviet Red Army and PLA were never independent bodies but extensions of the Communist Party). That’s all I have to say about that. Thanks.
baz says: Wow. Y’all are really paranoid. Like smoking-way-too-much-pot paranoid.
Anyway, I’m sick of being told I’m somehow less American than someone else. I don’t think your ideas are any more American than mine. I’m amazed that you think America is so fragile that a Democratic president can break it.
baz says: Oh, and for the record, Obama’s health care plan is mostly private-sector based. Hillary’s plan is almost entirely private-sector based, both with government oversight and regulation, but not government run.
Just so you know.
Matt (the other one) says: Anyway, I’m sick of being told I’m somehow less American than someone else. I don’t think your ideas are any more American than mine. I’m amazed that you think America is so fragile that a Democratic president can break it.
I’m sick of being told that it’s really the Left who wants to reduce the size of government, strengthen our economy, roll back regulation, make it easier (not harder) for the military to kill our enemies, increase incentives for immigrants to assimilate into our society, lower taxes, move toward energy independence, and other things that would actually benefit the country that the Left claims to be working on behalf of.
I’m amazed that you think the country is so resilient that leftists can trash every institution, policy, and tradition that made it great, with no adverse consequences. A Dem president can do a lot of damage; even more so with a compliant Congress and Supreme court.
Oh, and for the record, Obama’s health care plan is mostly private-sector based. Hillary’s plan is almost entirely private-sector based, both with government oversight and regulation, but not government run.
Just so you know.
The very fact that both Clinton and Obama proposed to increase regulation of private-sector health-care providers and expand publicly-funded coverage…discounts any notion of it being “private-sector based.” A true private-sector solution would be one that called for an easing of regulation on the healthcare industry, a streamlining of the process needed to bring new drugs to the market, and so on. Just so you know.
Aren’t you sick of being proven wrong, over and over and over?
Matt (the other one) says: Wow. Y’all are really paranoid. Like smoking-way-too-much-pot paranoid.
No, we’re just sick of leftists spouting transparent gobbledygook and outright lies about their own views.
Mat says: Good points, Matt. When I read Baz’s final posts, I just yawned and checked another posting.
home employment says: What this country needs is a good five-cent nickel.
20 Comments