Let’s get divorced!
Okay, granted I didn’t write this, but it’s just too spot on not to share…
Marxists and Obama supporters, et al. We have stuck together since the
late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me
realize that I want a divorce.
I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future
generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two
ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what
is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and
chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is
a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass, each
taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our
two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be
relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly
divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate
tastes.
We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the
NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie
O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel
vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical
companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal
aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and
rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain
the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our
way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security..
We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islamic
Terrorists, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.
You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can
take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing
doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a
right.
We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic andthe National Anthem.
I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the
World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give
trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and
our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like
minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just
hit delete..
In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us
will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.
The funny thing about that is I’m not even liberal, hahaha.
“Sure, he was a liberal of his era, but a liberal of the 60’s is more like a moderate of today. The liberals of today are more like the communists of the 60’s.”
I was going to argue all the other wrong things in your comment (and there are many, many, MANY wrong things in your comment), but it occurs to me, for comedy value, this sentence may be the best one to call you on.
Hapajap, I hereby commission from you a 3,000-word (or more) essay proving the assertion made in this comment: You must prove to me:
1.) The United States Democratic Party today is to the left of where it was in 1963.
2.) The Soviet Union’s Communist Party of 1963 is similar to the Democratic Party of today.
Cite your sources, but you can use the entire Internet. Your essay will be judged on the following criteria:
1.) ORIGINALITY of thought.
2.) Demonstration of an understanding of the terms used in your essay.
3.) Clarity of argument.
4.) FACTUAL ACCURACY.
If you can write such an essay and post it to this blog, meeting the above rubric in such a way that would earn you at least a C- in a high school English course (independent of mechanics grades), I’ll donate $300 to your stupid-ass site.
Incidentally, logical cohesion is a part of condition 3.) By “logical cohesion,” I mean a lack of clearly identifiable logical fallacies. A list of common logical fallacies can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Others are enumerated in Chapter 12 of Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon Haunted World.”
I’ll leave it up to the commenters on your post – including me – to argue for or against your assertions. But just like you, they can’t just say you’re factually incorrect or making a fallacious argument. They (I) have to prove WHY you’re factually incorrect or making a fallacious argument.
Take as long as you want. Please let me know when you’re ready. There’s $300 riding on it.
Er, minor fix:
The 2.) you should prove should read:
The Soviet Communist Party of 1963 is MORE similar to the Democratic Party of 2009 than the latter is to the Democratic Party of 1963.
Obviously you could prove their similar. They’re both political parties comprised of Homo sapiens who comprise a majority of elected officials in a nuclear superpower. Duh. No fudging the terms here, bub. You know what you meant, and you know what I’m asking you to prove.
(And I absolutely will pay $300 if you can prove that the Democratic Party of 2009 is to the left of JFK’s party without factual inaccuracies or logical fallacies. No joke.)
Yeah, I’ll get right on that. Maybe you didn’t get the part where I’m not doing Electronic Tigers anymore because I don’t have the time to spend on it? lol.
And apologies, it’s a lovely offer, but in the amount of time it would take me to research and write a 3K word essay, I could do about $1K worth of work.
Maybe I’ll take you up on it after my contract ends, if I don’t have something else to work on after my current project.
Well, if anyone wants to back up my action until it gets to a dollar amount that would make it worth your while, they’re welcome to.
I think Hapajap is just too chicken, and knows he doesn’t have the facts to back his mindless drivel up.
I think Hapajap should realize he has cider in his ear, but if he doesn’t, hey. The remote possibility of me being out three clams is a very fair risk for the extremely high probability of laughing my ass off at how ill informed he is.
Hapa doesn’t even have time to do ET. What do you think he would rather do, write a 3,000 word essay or draw?
Why doesn’t anyone write a 3,000 word essay REFUTING Hapa instead of just telling him to do it? Oh wait, I know why . . . you CAN’T.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_evidence_for_neocommunism.html
That’s an interesting read. You can count and see if it’s 3,000 words . . .
FairlyObvious: Hapajap Buttmonkey Extraordinaire
I think Hapa would like money. I am putting some of it on the line. I will pay it if it’s necessary. I do not think it will be necessary, but I’m ready to be proven wrong and will be man enough to pay up if I am.
As for the “American Thinker” article, if Hapa’s essay resembles it in any way, he will fail to earn $300. He will fail to earn a C-. Aside from the factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies, the author of the article fails to offer a SINGLE TANGIBLE EXAMPLE of American leftism being more radical today (or in October 2007) than it was in the time of the liberals it holds up as role models: Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman. He cites exactly one news article about a specific liberal organization (note it’s not one affiliated in any way with the Democratic Party – Media Matters) doing something specific that he disagrees with – specifically, saying mean things about Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, et al. (An action which does not suggest a specific political agenda – it’s not “left,” “right” or “center” to say mean things about a loudmouthed sex offender or a bloated drug addict, for the record.) He cites exactly one newspaper columnist – Gail Collins – for doing something specific he dislikes – again, saying mean things about somebody. He claims Howard Zinn’s book “The People’s History of the United States,” quote, “is proud to ‘revise’ everything we think we know about America,” without offering a single example of such a revision, factually accurate or not. He mentions exactly one Democratic (at the time) elected official, Hillary Clinton, and he makes NO REFERENCE to a SINGLE political ideology of hers. In fact, he even flat-out states, “It’s anybody’s guess what she believes today,” which presumably includes her political philosophy, at least in the mind of the author who, you know, doesn’t say a word about it. He provides a laundry list of the “methods” of “Neocommunism” without providing a single tangible example of any of them – not stated, not linked to. And he references Lawrence Summers (who now works for the Obama administration, by the way, and is therefore part of “the Left”) being fired from Harvard and “blackballed” at UC Davis (actually, even the “American Thinker” article he links says Summers was pulled from the speaker list due to an issue of timing more than anything else, but whatever).
Every other example of the “New Left” is European, and even most of those are either vague or factually inaccurate.
No. Sorry. If Hapa wants to earn $300 or whatever else anybody wants to front for the essay, he has to PROVE HIS THESIS, not just make a bunch of baseless, unsourced claims about what “they” are like or the stuff “they” do. This is called a “bare assertion fallacy,” and it is the fourth on the above Wikipedia alphabetical list of logical fallacies I told Hapa to avoid if he wants to get paid. He doesn’t have to list every single example. Hyperlinks will do – but he’d better make damn sure the hyperlinked sources are factually accurate, lest he fall into the argumentum ad logicam (argument from fallacy).
But you are right in one thing. Microsoft Word, into which I copied and pasted the text of the article for a word count (because that’s faster than sitting and counting words like a dumbass) says the article is 3,696 words. So, see, Mike? 3,000 words isn’t terribly long. Should be able to bang out an article in no time, right?
Assuming such a thing can be done, but I’m pretty sure you have started to realize you do, in fact, have an earful of cider. On the other hand, you once claimed, in all seriousness, Yu-Gi-Oh! cards disprove evolution. So I might be giving you way too much credit.
And as for why I don’t refute Hapa’s claims with a 3,000 word essay, in fact, I have, and in fact, I will. You just gotta do something: Pay for it. You put up the money, I’ll write another article on JFK or anything you like. But I’m a professional. You gotta show me the money first.
Actually, FairlyObvious, if you can prove to me you’ll pay me $300 to write such an “essay,” I’ll do it. I wouldn’t even really have to bother putting it into essay format. I just Googled the 1960 Democratic platform, have my stack of JFK speeches handy, and I can find the 2008 Democratic platform and Obama quotes pretty easily. Give me a few minutes to find some citable definitions of “left” and “right” (or even just “left,”) and I can have the essay done in under 30 minutes, absolutely water-tight facts.
Please do it. My rent’s due. I need the $300.
I think TonyC is just too chicken, and knows he doesn’t have the facts to back his mindless drivel up.
I think TonyC should realize he has cider in his ear.
Sweet, you broke FO. Congrats!
Oh Hamburglar, you flatter people so . . .
I’ve never heard this ‘cider in his ear’ colloquialism before… What is it’s meaning and origin? I mean, I can deduct what you’re saying by it’s context, but I’d like some specifics.
When I lived in Texas, the first time someone told me they had to ‘drop the kids off at the pool’, I had no clue what he was talking about. lol.
Anyway, TonyC, sorry I had to edit your posts. My site, my rules.
So yeah, your contention is really that JFK was as much of a communist as Obama is? Really? I’d love to see some quotes that support that argument. But please, keep it pithy. Your writing is really boring. I’m surprised you’re a professional. Though clearly not a very well paid one, or you wouldn’t be asking for your rent money from FO.
Now I’m watching old JFK speeches on youtube. lol.
Check this one out. Kinda creeps me out.
When I was a young man about to go out into the world, my father says to me a very valuable thing. He says to me like this… “Son,” the old guy says, “I am sorry that I am not able to bank roll you to a very large start, but not having any potatoes which to give you, I am now going to stake you to some very valuable advice. One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice, brand new deck of cards on which the seal has not yet been broken. This man is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. Now son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you stand there, you are going to wind up with an earful of cider.” — Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando), “Guys and Dolls”
As for how much money I make at writing, it’s enough to bankroll $300 to get someone else to take a sucker’s bet, but not enough to turn down $300 from someone else’s sucker bet. And sorry if I’m not putting my A material on your site, Hapa, but I have standards.
(Edit what you want. I don’t care.)
And no, I didn’t say JFK was “more communist” than Obama, nor that the Democratic Party of 1960 was “more communist” than its 2008 counterpart, any more than I’d say the reverse. See, unlike some “professional cartoonists” I could name who accuse others of being bad professionals while they copy-paste the same four panels over and over again, I don’t use words unless I know their meaning. And since I do actually know the meaning of the word “communism,” I know it’s patently ludicrous to call either Kennedy or Obama or any incarnations of the Democratic Party “communist.”
What I have implied and will say – because it’s objectively true – is that Kennedy’s political ideology was and is to the LEFT of Obama’s (to the left, not “more communist”), and the Democratic Party (and indeed, the Republican Party) of 1960 was and is to the LEFT of its 2008/2009 counterpart.
But hey. If you think I’m wrong, instead of saying it over and over again in hopes that it will eventually become true, prove it. If you can do that, I’ll do for you what certain comics publishers won’t do – give you money.
You clearly have no idea who Barack Obama really is, then, Tony. That’s the bottom line. He is a communist. He was raised by a radical mother, mentored by a communist party member as his father figure in his formative years (Frank Marshall Davis), sought out and befriended Marxist teachers in college, launched his political career in the livingroom of communist and terrorist William Ayers… Add it up. You don’t have a circle of influence, mentorship, and political allies if you’re NOT a what? Say it with me now… a COMMUNIST.
Sure, he softens his rhetoric when he can remember too, but it still slips out every once in a while what his true intentions are. And in 60 days, he’s steered our grand ol’ ship of state more toward that goal than any other president in history. And that is beyond dispute. TWO MONTHS, he’s done this much damage. Just imagine what TWO YEARS will bring.
Of course, you’ll probably be happy with his new world order. You’ve already drown in the Kool Aid.
“You clearly have no idea who Barack Obama really is, then, Tony. (etc.)”
Wow. I am so going to keep my $300. I was going to list the fallacies from the Wikipedia list you have used JUST IN THIS PARAGRAPH, but then I realized I’d bore you with big words you don’t know the meaning of. Besides, it’s literally easier to list the fallacies I can’t specifically see you have in that comment. Those would be… the conjunction fallacy; if-by-whiskey; the homunculus fallacy; the masked man fallacy; the naturalistic fallacy; the nirvana fallacy; any of the formal syllogistic fallacies per se. Those are just the formal fallacies. I’m not bothering going through the informal ones, but it doesn’t look good just at a glance.
“And in 60 days, he’s steered our grand ol’ ship of state more toward that goal than any other president in history.”
Toward what goal? Toward communism? Wow. You… you REALLY have no idea what communism is, do you?
*sigh* Okay. Fair enough. You won’t write a 3,000-word essay for $300. So write ONE factually correct, non-fallacious sentence as to ONE THING Barack Obama has done in his first two months that is communist – that actually fits the definition of communism – and I’ll pay you $30. How’s that for a deal?
You just have to produce ONE THING that is communist. You don’t even have to prove it’s MORE communist than any president in U.S. history. It just has to be small-C “communist.” ONE THING that fits the actual definition of communism that Barack Obama has said, done or said should be done.
In fact, $30 PER ITEM that you list that he’s done that is, in fact, communist. Name 3, get $90. Name 10, get your $300, and you don’t have to even spend 3,000 words on it!
NOT what somebody else has done. NOT what his mother, wife, best friend, barber or first grade teacher said.
FOR EVERY SINGLE THING Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States, has done since January 20th, 2009 that adheres to the political ideology called “communism,” you get $30 if you can name it.
HAPAJAP, YOU SIMPLY CAN’T TURN DOWN THIS FANTASTIC OFFER!
“Of course, you’ll probably be happy with his new world order. You’ve already drown in the Kool Aid.”
How can you drown in poison Kool-Aid you’re supposed to drink to…? Oh, I see. You have no idea what the phrase “drink the Kool-Aid” means, either.
You’ve got cider in your other ear now, Hapajap.
That offer doesn’t extend to anyone else, by the way. No helping Hapajap. He said it, he’s got to defend it.
I will say this much: By the terms I laid out, there is ONE THING that if you were to state it and present it accurately would cost me $30.
You will never list it, and my money is safe. But hey. Prove me wrong, why don’tcha? I know you could use the money.
Silly Tony, you just proved me RIGHT by admitting there is at minimum one thing even your own slanted view will admit to being communist in nature.
I win.
Though I may take you up on the rest some time.
No. I did not prove you right. I said there is one thing you would actually earn $30 on. And since you didn’t list it, I’m going to tell you and cost you the only $30 you could’ve made off me.
Obama has said more troops should be sent to Afghanistan:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ibEL2evo0W2dcirDt4LR2VRyBQXA
In the capital-C Communist Party of the Soviet Union from the late ’70s through the ’80s, the Communist leadership deployed an increasing number of troops to Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
Therefore, a specific, factual Obama policy is, in fact, identical to a specific, factual Soviet Communist policy. (Although it has nothing to do with small-c “communism” as an ideology.)
All you’d've had to do would be to have said that, and you’d be $30 richer right now, Hapa. You didn’t. You’ve got nothing else. And from here on out, if you want to earn the money, you’re going to have to demonstrate a clear grasp of small-c communism as a political and economic ideology.
Just admit the cider’s starting to stain your shoulder already and move on with your life.
I am going to be completely honest here. I consider myself to be a conservative (not necessarily a Republican) and I tend to agree with Hapa on most of the issues presented on this site. At the start of this post, I agreed with him here as well. He does have a very good argument for Obama having a communist slant. But wow TonyC, you are an amazing debater. Hapajap was good too, but you really stood out here, and you have even convinced me, a reader who generally can’t stand large portions of the Democratic party and the left. Bravo, and I hope this site sees more logical, rational thinkers like you and many more of these intelligent, insightful debates.