Rightwing hacks and their zombie fans

[Odin]

It's hard to believe even braindead zombies are stupid enough to swallow the crap rightwing hacks like Tom Sowell, Annie Coulter, Burt Prelutsky, etc., put out on a regular basis but seeing is believing, as exemplified by the idiotic conglomeration of misinformation and media swill otherwise known as The Patriot Post.

Hard to do justice to the lying lepers like Annie and Burt who recently wrote that 14-year old George Soros was a "Nazi collaborator." Modern conservatism has been a shameless con since Reagan sleazed his way into the WH and these "columnists" are the latest examples of why conservatism is plummeting to a deserved and ignoble death.

[Jeffreydan]

It's hard to believe even braindead zombies are stupid enough to swallow the crap rightwing hacks like Tom Sowell, Annie Coulter, Burt Prelutsky, etc., put out on a regular basis but seeing is believing, as exemplified by the idiotic conglomeration of misinformation and media swill otherwise known as The Patriot Post.

Say, care to enlighten me on what "crap" of Dr. Sowell's has been swallowed? And while you're at it, be a lamb and back up your other assertions.

Hard to do justice to the lying lepers like Annie and Burt who recently wrote that 14-year old George Soros was a "Nazi collaborator."

This is what I'm talking about. What were they referencing (link?), and how is what they wrote a lie?

Modern conservatism has been a shameless con since Reagan sleazed his way into the WH and these "columnists" are the latest examples of why conservatism is plummeting to a deserved and ignoble death.

Couldn't agree more. There was no substance to President Reagan, and his policies and governing were a complete disaster for the USA. And that nasty conservatism, well golly! It's no wonder that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are such failures in their field, and just look at the massive butt-kicking the conservatives/Republicans got in the last election.

[Odin]

"They say that records are made to be broken. President George W. Bush set a record by adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt over the course of his eight years in office. But Barack Obama has already beaten that record with $4.4 trillion in just his first three years in office." - Thomas Sowell, March 22, 2011.

If the braindead stupidity of that isn't readily apparent to you, my response is in the thread -

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2011/03/22/random-thoughts/

As for the others, I suggest you google their names and "nazi collaborator" to see their manifest sleaziness in their own words. Or I can direct you to those threads too. If that lie isn't obvious to you, you probably know as little about history as the average zombie.

[Jeffreydan]

"They say that records are made to be broken. President George W. Bush set a record by adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt over the course of his eight years in office. But Barack Obama has already beaten that record with $4.4 trillion in just his first three years in office." - Thomas Sowell, March 22, 2011.

If the braindead stupidity of that isn't readily apparent to you, my response is in the thread -

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2011/03/22/random-thoughts/

If there's something that should be labeled "braindead stupidity" as you put it in the above paragraph, it's not apparent at all. That is unless you're under the impression that it is a fair description of "first three years." The label is hyperbole at best.

As for the article and your comment, in all fairness there is a little more meat. I don't think Dr. Sowell was being stupid, necessarily, but I'd say he was being unclear at best. Speaking for myself, I thought he should've worded it better. BO hasn't been in office 3 years, as in 1,095 days, but he has been in office 3 calendar years. If the methodology to peg his spending uses the OBM's 2008 figure as the starting point, then Sowell would need to have President Bush's spending total originate from the OBM's 2000 figure to be accurate. I don't know whether or not he used OBM's records to make his claim, but their record-keeping might have something to do with it. I read the blog you referenced in your comment: http://sroblog.com/2010/08/22/4-4-trillion-wsj-com/

"To appreciate the magnitude of this spending blowout, compare CBO’s budget “baseline” estimate in January 2008 with the baseline it released Thursday. The baseline predicts future spending based on the law at the time. As the nearby chart shows, in a mere 31 months Congress has added more than $4.4 trillion to the 10-year spending baseline. The 2008 and 2009 numbers are actual spending, the others are estimates. As recently as 2005, total federal spending was only $2.47 trillion."
Maybe year 2000 was the baseline for President Bush, which would make the comparisons accurate, but it doesn't say. As I said, Sowell should've worded it better.
Regardless, your "braindead stupidity" characterization appears ridiculous, and isn't very thought-out.

As for the others, I suggest you google their names and "nazi collaborator" to see their manifest sleaziness in their own words. Or I can direct you to those threads too. If that lie isn't obvious to you, you probably know as little about history as the average zombie.

Actually, Soros' actions as a teenager absolutely fit the definition of collaboration. Now, if you want to debate whether he could've/should've fully appreciated the situation at that age, fine with me, but any decent person would find it incredibly disturbing that he doesn't express any sadness, anger, or regret whatsoever when looking back on that time.
All you have shown is that Coulter lied in libs' opinion.

Your assertions just went from "damning facts" to "left-wing hackery."

[Odin]

BO hasn't been in office 3 years, as in 1,095 days, but he has been in office 3 calendar years. I

Unbelievable. What day do you think he took office?

[Jeffreydan]

BO hasn't been in office 3 years, as in 1,095 days, but he has been in office 3 calendar years. I

Unbelievable. What day do you think he took office?

I remember clearly the dark day in U.S. history that jerk took office.

I'm happy to explain what I meant by "3 calendar years" if you don't follow, but don't expect my entire last post to be rewritten fer ya with fewer syllables.

[Odin]

Ok, I'll bite. What's the difference in length of time between a year and a "calendar year"? If you think Obama has been in office for 3 calendar years, how many days was that as of Sowell's assertion and how does that in any way support what he said?

I also don't see your point about the $4.4 trillion Sowell said Obama spent. How do you start at the day Obama took office and arrive at the conclusion he spent $4.4 trillion dollar since then, particularly when the number seems to be describing budget estimates, not actual expenditures? And if you go by budgetary years, which would be fairer, how do you get to $4.4 trillion from 10/01/09 to 3/22/11?

How does a supposedly educated man post such crap? Is he really this stupid or does he think his readers are?

[Jeffreydan]

Ok, I'll bite. What's the difference in length of time between a year and a "calendar year"?

It's the numerical year, which you tend to see phrased in legal documents ("contractor agrees to warranty his goods until the end of the second fiscal quarter, in the second calendar year after completion...."). If Dr. Sowell's intent was to cite calendar years, then he was talking about 2009, 2010, & 2011.
Again, at the very least his wording was confusing. From what I've seen from him (video & print), it's quite possible he was using calendar years. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been either a mistake, exaggeration, or dishonesty, but complete stupidity is the last thing any literate, clear-thinking person would see in Thomas Sowell.

I also don't see your point about the $4.4 trillion Sowell said Obama spent. How do you start at the day Obama took office and arrive at the conclusion he spent $4.4 trillion dollar since then, particularly when the number seems to be describing budget estimates, not actual expenditures? And if you go by budgetary years, which would be fairer, how do you get to $4.4 trillion from 10/01/09 to 3/22/11?

As I said in my last post, I don't know how the math was done. Read it again, especially the italics. I'm not exactly Milton Friedman or Warren Buffett, so I could only speculate: perhaps the OBM's figures always originate before the president takes office for whatever reason. IF that were the case, it would explain Sowell. And even if he was being arbitrary or illogical in the timing of his baseline, what's really important to me is that he apply the same standard to both men. If the numbers start at a baseline on so-and-so date for BO, the baseline for President Bush should be the same.

How does a supposedly educated man post such crap? Is he really this stupid or does he think his readers are?

Better question: how does a supposedly educated man think there is an Austrian language?

[Odin]

For easy reference, here's that quote again -

"They say that records are made to be broken. President George W. Bush set a record by adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt over the course of his eight years in office. But Barack Obama has already beaten that record with $4.4 trillion in just his first three years in office." - Thomas Sowell, March 22, 2011.

Given Sowell's phrasing, the only "baseline" that makes sense is the beginning of each man's presidency or the date of their first fiscal year. (Obviously, using a baseline to account for inflation using constant dollars would benefit Obama in the comparison to W.) Also given Sowell's phrasing, future budget estimates aren't relevant.

Stupid or evil?

[Cap'n Billy]

I don't know what the purpose of this post was, but if this specimen thought he might win a few hearts and minds he's stupider than he thinks we are. All I see is a deliberate attempt to insult. The very title shows that this is the kind of cretin that decent and reasonable people tend to give a wide berth. However, since my pal Jeffrey is involved I decided to do a little search and came up with this story from October 2010 on the Dan Rather network web site: National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch:

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

Now I don't know why Dr. Sowell used the 3-year figure and $4.4 trillion, probably an honest mistake, and by the way if so it's the first factual error I've seen in anything I've read by him during the past 20 years or so, but anybody who writes as much as he does is bound to get something wrong once in a while. But anybody who says Sowell is stupid or evil is a fool and a liar.

Another fun fact from that CBS News column:

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.

So regardless of the accuracy of Dr. Sowell's figures (and they disagree with the $4.9 trillion figure above, too), Obama is on track to surpass the free-spending Bush's 8-year total in his first term. This wretch can quibble all he wants with Sowell's figures, but no serious person can doubt that. And there's serious talk about giving this mountebank another term?

Now since this wretch has proven to me that he is unfit for decent company that is the end of my involvement with any of his posts.

[Odin]

Zombies got hearts and minds?

if so it's the first factual error I've seen in anything I've read by him during the past 20 years or so,

Doubtful. Might be the first one you've noticed now that someone else has pointed it out for you.

probably an honest mistake

You're going with stupid then. An economist would have to be braindead to honestly get basic numbers this wrong, badly understating deficit spending under Bush while overstating deficit spending under Obama. This site also contradicts Sowell -

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

This wretch can quibble all he wants with Sowell's figures,

Who's quibbling? I'm saying he's either braindead or a liar - stupid or evil. His numbers are laughably wrong, not that zombies seem to notice or care. In zombie Wonderland, facts and truth don't seem to count for much.

Now since this wretch has proven to me that he is unfit for decent company that is the end of my involvement with any of his posts.

Zombies got standards! In my experience, zombies embarrass themselves less if they don't respond to my posts. As for decent company, it aint the Dems who've made scumbags like Beck and Limbaugh rich. Consider not using words you don't understand.

[robin in fl]

why is it that some people like the OP seem to have a need to call anyone with an opinion other then their opinion a rightwing HACK.I mean ,I was a liberal for many years,but I still wanted and do own guns and believe it's my right to do so..the posters such as him were the type of people that made me not want to be a liberal dem..listening to air America when it was still on,or msnbc, made me want to flee from that side...hate spewing from the mouths of people like jeneane garufalo (or however it is spelled),saying that if people listened to toby Keith they were racist trailer trash idiots...that nonsense made no sense to a person with a brain.I mean do they actually hear what they say,or do they just say it to hear them self speak I wonder?????perhaps OP could enlighten me on why the need to say that stuff...

[Jeffreydan]

Zombies got standards! In my experience, zombies embarrass themselves less if they don't respond to my posts.

If you opened your mind a little, you might learn that conservatives typically don't follow blindly, especially when the Republican in office spends like a liberal. Anyone like that you can think of in recent memory?

As for decent company, it aint the Dems who've made scumbags like Beck and Limbaugh rich.

Absolutely right--the free market did.
BTW, ain't the conservatives who made jerks like Franken, Stark, Pelosi, Reid, and the 2 douchbags in the WH rich and, more importantly, powerful. On decent company, we're out of your league.

Consider not using words you don't understand.

Like "calendar year"?
It's pretty easy to label Dr. Sowell evil/stupid, I understand. Despite his decades-long body of work, branding him as you do probably helps your argument more than attempting to defend BO and JB.

But if you really want to understand what "zombie" means, consider this: President Bush was despised, his policies maligned, by the same people currently defending BO. That's right, liberal democrats adoringly look at the guy spending like Bush (but on steroids) as the hero who will save our economy.

[flyphish56]

So, ah Odin, I've got a simple question for you.

You seem to be quite disturbed about percieved untruths and misrepresentations and falsehoods and such purportedly spread by the likes of Rush and Beck, Coulter and the like. Why is it when people like you spout off on this topic I NEVER hear you mention Olbermann or Maddow etc. ?

I find it sad that liberals as a whole are so dishonest.

[Odin]

So, ah Odin, I've got a simple question for you.

You seem to be quite disturbed about percieved untruths and misrepresentations and falsehoods and such purportedly spread by the likes of Rush and Beck, Coulter and the like. Why is it when people like you spout off on this topic I NEVER hear you mention Olbermann or Maddow etc. ?

What lies have Keith and Rachel told? At the beginning of Clinton's presidency, Limbaugh said on national tv there was a new dog in the White House and showed a picture of 13-year old Chelsea Clinton. That's a scumbag.

When Beck was a morning d.j., he reportedly called the wife of a competitor while she was in the hospital recovering from a miscarriage and told her on the air that her husband couldn't even make a baby right. That's a lowlife scumbag.

What have Keith and Rachel ever said or done that would lead you to believe they're disreputable, let alone as putrid as Limbaugh and Beck?

If you opened your mind a little, you might learn that conservatives typically don't follow blindly,

Actually, conservatives are known for blindly goosestepping together, from "I'm for Mr. Reagan, blindly," - Bush Sr., to brainless dittoheads. In contrast, leading Dems has long been compared to herding cats.

why is it that some people like the OP seem to have a need to call anyone with an opinion other then their opinion a rightwing HACK.

Only in zombie Wonderland. In the real world the word "hack" is generally used to describe people who take money to produce crap.

I was a liberal for many years

What were you before that - Popeye?