Dumb commenter in the WaPo

I don't usually post comments from idiot left-wingers because a) idiots don't represent the 'best' reasoning and positions of their respective sides; and b) there are idiots on both sides, so it's really not fair.  But I'll make an exception for a WaPo commenter calling itself "The ACA is here to stay," who commented on the emperor's decree wiping out U.S. law against American companies trading with Cuba.

Here he is (note the interesting use of capitalization):

[commenter "ACA is Here to Stay"]:

This will simplify the entire Caribbean.  We should be concentrating on our OWN Hemisphere right here.  Latin America is coming up strong and we have the chance to start a whole new relationship with the entire region.

Why don't we buy our Oil from Venezuela instead of Saudi Arabian Brutal Dictators? ohhhh nooooo! hahaha ---- Crazy-Eye Saudis are just fine with our rock-stupid "conservatives".

Why don't we concentrate on buying products & developing South America?
Why buy cheap plastic poisonous/broken junk from Communist Chinese Slaves?
China does more Abortions than the USA & Europe combined.
What say ye to that, Conzos ?

haha --- Obama Chumped you yet again --- we live in the Future, not the Past.

Since this was wrong in so many ways, the next commenter politely showed him where:

We don't buy much oil from the Saudi's--so far away--and we do buy oil from Venezuela.  But that oil is "sour crude" and you have to be specially set up to refine that stuff.  Valero is a big customer of Venezuela.

Having been educated by facts (gasp!), the moonbat commenter responds not by citing alleged facts to support his original bullshit claims, but by...changing the subject completely:

[commenter "ACA is Here to Stay"]:

Then I guess we need to get off Fossil Fuels completely.

It's a hoot!  One pictures two 5-year-olds arguing:  

    "The moon is made of green cheese," says the first.  

    A nearby adult overhears and helpfully corrects: "Actually American astronauts landed on the moon in 1969 and it turns out to be made of rocks and dust."  

    First kid (in that "You can't fool me" tone): "People can't go to the moon!"

I used to think that people like "ACA is here to stay" were the exceptions, and that most Leftists/"progressives"/Democrats were fairly normal people with goofy ideas.  But in watching short clips of, say, Rachel Maddow or "The Ed Show" (if you've never heard of those two, it's because they're on MSNBC--"all moonbats, all the time") I'm convinced that this commenter does indeed represent them fairly.

Obama, June 13th: "The U.S. won't send troops back into combat in Iraq" Yesterday: "Uh, just kidding."

Last June 13th the Huffington Post ran a one-minute clip of the emperor--looking vewy impewial standing in front of his marine helicopter--absolutely assuring his subjects that "The U.S. won't send combat troops back into Iraq." 

The scrupulously non-partisan CNN joined the adoring chant: "Obama says no combat troops to Iraq."

ABC: "Obama rules out sending combat troops back into combat in Iraq." 

The NY Times noted that "he ruled out using ground forces."

Of course we all know by now that the emperor's promises have expiration dates.  In this case the emperor has sent U.S. ground troops back to Iraq. 

That's the same Iraq that he crowed so loudly about removing all our troops from just three years ago.

It's just a hoot how the Democrats and Liberals and Leftists are all breathless with the emperor's glowy promises just six months ago--"Obama promises he won't send ground troops back into combat in Iraq."  And now just six months later--whoops, there we are!

I keep waiting for the HuffPo or anyone on the Left to suddenly wake up and say "Wha...?  I think that man may have broken his promise to us!"  But of course that won't happen.  The guy will continue to say one thing and do the opposite, or do something and deny doing it, and the Democrats will all swoon! over how great the creases in his pants look, or similar nonsense.

It's actually funny.

Would't be if the Resident was a Republican, of course.  But then we didn't expect consistency.

Just out of curiosity:  After Ogabe sent U.S. ground troops back into Iraq, what did he expect they'd do if they were attacked?  Cuz, you know, he sent 'em into a combat zone where shit like that routinely happens. 

I suspect he'd say "Well I ordered 'em NOT to shoot back but they did anyway?  So those who disobeyed orders will be punished."

Leftist: Hey, here's a great idea! Let's forgive all personal debt!

Most people on the political Left seem only slightly familiar with logic--which is no disadvantage when it comes to leading what passes for thought on the Left.

A writer for the Vox blog illustrates this perfectly, in a post commenting on an article written by Russell Brand--who I gather is some sort of entertainer--about what a great idea it would be if the government ordered that all personal debt was immediately cancelled.

Of course neither Brand nor the Vox blogger actually uses the phrase "...if the government ordered..."  Because of course who else would have the power to do that?  Instead they couch it in the passive tense:  "What a good idea cancelling personal debt would be," as if it just happened all by itself.

Gosh, this seems oddly familiar.  Have we seen this before?

Why yes, we have!  It's the same basic idea as Obamacare ("you can get free health care"), Obamaphones or any other liberal/"progressive" program:  If you elect us, our party will have the government give you free stuff.  All you want.

Here's the core 'grafs:

The key issue is...if a debtor gets an extra dollar he's likely to spend it on current consumption, whereas a creditor is likely to save it. In a full-employment economy, reducing the creditors' savings reduces the pool of capital available for investment. That raises interest rates and slows investment, even as the new money in the pockets of debtors raises consumption. The economic impact is neutral in the short-term, and by reducing investment you get a negative long-term impact.

But if the economy isn't at full employment — i.e., it's in need of stimulus — then this works differently. Because inflation is low, the central bank will keep interest rates low regardless of the diminished pool of capital. But the newly enriched debtors will still raise their level of consumption, boosting the economy. Even better, with more demand for consumption goods in the economy, companies may even be inspired to invest more. That boosts the economy's long-term prospects.

It's hard to cram as much ignorance into a single paragraph as the writer did in that second 'graf.

There's no doubt that forgiving all debt would unlease a torrent of consumer spending.  And the guy correctly sees that wiping out creditors' investments would "reduce the pool of capital available for investment."  He concludes in a full-employment economy" the long-term impact would be negative.

But see how deftly he waves away that profound negative in the second 'graf:  He argues that "the central bank will keep interest rates low regardless of the diminished pool of capital."  But of course even rock-bottom interest rates only help if a bank is willing to loan money to borrowers.  If the government has just forgiven all debts, how eager does he think banks will be to loan more money?

If the government is powerful enough and ruthless enough to forgive all personal debt once, what would keep it from doing so again?  But no matter--with "newly enriched debtors" flooding the markets with spending, all will be just super.

Ponder that phrase "newly-enriched debtors" for a moment.  One wonders if the writer would use the same euphemism for a bank robber or mugger:  Not violent or lawbreaking, merely...newly enriched.  This tells you almost everything you need to know about the guy's worldview.

One wonders if the writer has heard of Venezuela:  The socialist government of that country decided businesses were making too much profit, so they simply seized half a dozen businesses that they accused of setting prices too high.  This caused all businesses to double their efforts to sell goods at no profit, and now Venezuela is awash in products and the country's economy is roaring.

Just kidding, of course:  Other businessmen saw the trend and said "I don't think we should be doing business under this lawless government--let's go somewhere else!"  The supply of virtually everything got smaller and smaller.  Even the price of coffee went through the roof--in one of the world's largest coffee-exporting nations!  Now the government has started rationing food.

Yeah, that worked reeeally well.

But to leftists/socialists/"progressives" all such programs are a great idea, and in Left-thinking they should work.  So if they fail it's either because they were sabotaged by mysterious forces ("reactionaries", "counterrevolutionaries") or because they didn't go far enough.

It'll be interesting to watch this proposal gain momentum in chic leftist circles.  Hey, if you're a leftist/Democrat how can you not like something that give everyone thousands of dollars to spend, while penalizing only "rich" savers and banks?

If this is Thursday this must be a food line. But where?

Look at all the peeps in that *huge* line.  Wow, must be election day!  Or maybe some store is giving away free diamonds or similar.

Oh, wait:  This is a pic in Venezuela, and the people are lining up to buy *food.*

Ask your nearest socialist, "progressive" or Democrat to explain why people have to line up to buy *food* in the socialist workers' paradise of Venezuela.  Just see what kind of bullshit excuse they come up with.

Odds are they'll claim a) there is no shortage of food or coffee or cooking oil or toilet paper in Venezuela; b) any claim that there are shortages is simply anti-socialist propaganda by eeebil rich folk trying to cheat the po' folk by higher prices; c) that this photo is NOT a line for food; d) that this photo was not taken in Venezuela; and e) anyone implying that socialism doesn't result in a workers' paradise is a raaacist.

Leftist mag claims Venezuelan demonstrations are a plot to seize power for...the right wing??

"The Nation" is a far-left rag staffed by socialists and revolutionaries.  Normally they enthusiastically support every revolution.

But interestingly, they don't like the protests in Venezuela.  And if you've got a high tolerance for idiocy you can check out their "logic" here.

Short answer:  They believe the demonstrations in Caracas and other cities in Vz aren't "genuine."

Seriously, that's what this pencil-neck ex-Berkeley poli-sci professional propagandist wrote.

Behind the scenes, the protests are a reflection of the weakness of the Venezuelan opposition, not its strength.

Seriously?  You're claiming the packed crowds filling block after block, street after street don't amount to genuine protest?

And you'll love the guy's "reason:"  He claims the protesters aren't authentic because he says they're all (gasp!) middle-class.

That's right, comrade:  Middle. Class.  Not the poor working folks that communist theory says are the only people who can make "real" revolutions.

Not only that, the socialist author claims the *real* purpose of the demonstrations is to take power back from the Glorious Socialist Peoples' Party and give it to the eeebil Rich Overlords.

The author roasts the leading political figures of the opposition--one for the crime of having had a "friendly 2005 sit-down with George W. Bush," another for having been "trained in the United States from prep school to Harvard’s Kennedy School, an elite scion if ever there was one."

Well there ya go, campers!  If anyone has any ties to the U.S., they're politically disqualified from taking any leadership role in another country--according to this guy, at least.

Oh, and he excuses the violence of the colectivos--groups of armed thugs, usually on motorcycles, who beat and shoot unarmed protestors.  According to the author the thugs "are in reality among the most independent sectors of the revolution, those most critical of government missteps and hesitations."

These forever victims of the state have nevertheless bet on its potential usefulness in the present, or at the very least have insisted that the alternative—handing the state machinery back over to traditional elites and voluntarily returning to a life on the defensive—is really no alternative at all. This is not a decision undertaken desperately or nostalgically, however, but instead with the most powerful optimism of the will...because to bet on the Bolivarian [i.e. socialist] government is to bet on the people, to wager on the creative capacities of the poor that always exceeds that state.

He's seriously claiming that the organized groups of armed thugs shooting and beating unarmed protesters are "victims of the state" instead of working for the government.  Interesting.

Mind-boggling bullshit.  Commenters on the piece claim businesses are deliberately holding products off the market to destabilize the government.

I wish Venezuelans the best, but have to say I'm not optimistic about their chances.  With guys like this author casting this as an attempt by "the rich" to overthrow a supposedly beneficent, legally elected government, and with China and Cuba both having huge investments in the socialist government, I suspect the Maduro regime will kill thousands more rather than yield.

Venezuela's economic disaster--the lack of most staple commodities, caused by dumb government policies and currency controls--should be a lesson for other countries on the pitfalls of socialism.  Of course it won't be.

And so it goes.

Caracas street scene

According to a regular columnist at the Huffington Post, the unrest in Venezuela has been instigated by...the U.S. government???

Yep, that's what he said.  Funny, I hadn't noticed a single word from the U.S. government supporting the protesters, but maybe they've just been reeeally quiet about it.

In related news, here's a photo of Caracas yesterday:

You may think there are a lot of people there--sorta like the Tea Party gatherings in DC a couple of years ago.  But I hear the Elites at MSNBC estimated the crowd as "a few hundred demonstrators"--just as they did for the Tea Party.

Gosh, sure looks like more than a few hundred, but...our media wouldn't lie about something so easy to disprove, would they?

What's the difference between Liberals and children?

Ever watch one ten-year old explain to another how something works?

It's a hoot, because a lot of the time they're utterly, laughably wrong, but they "explain" the thing with such conviction and sincerity that you can't help but laugh.

Adults are much the same:  How many times have you heard a liberal, Democrat, socialist or "progressive" claim--apparently completely seriously--any of the following?

--"Massive federal deficits don't matter."

--"Islam really really really is 'the religion of peace,' and if only we'd stop doing...X...then Muslims would stop trying to kill the folks they call 'infidels'."

--"Capitalism and corporations are eeeevil, and if we'd all just pay more taxes and stop trying to sell things to other people, most of our problems would be solved."

--"If the government would just give more money to the poor, crime and drug use would disappear."

--"If we'd just stop spending money on the military, other countries would do the same and we could all spend former defense dollars on something useful."

--"If the government would just give free health care to every citizen, the cost of health care would drop for everyone."

--"If we just paid teachers a decent salary, and had modern school buildings, and unbiased textbooks, and...and...and...then the dropout rate and gang membership would drop to almost zero;"

--"Social Security is NOT going broke.  That's just a scare-story pushed by Rethuglicans.  It doesn't need "fixing" or changing to keep it solvent;"

--"What difference does it make if Iran builds an atomic bomb?  After all, they'd never actually, you know, use it or anything. Because, after all, they're really no different than we are."

--"If we would just close that awful, awful prison at Guantanamo, Muslims would stop trying to kill Americans;"

--"It's no problem that Barack didn't close Gitmo right after his inauguration as he promised, because it's actually a comfortable place and all the inmates are eating three good, Islamic-approved meals a day and playing soccer and volleyball.  And of course we've known that all along and you can't prove any of us ever actually said Gitmo was horrible or demanded that awful Booosh person close it!"

--"There's no problem with vote fraud in U.S. elections, and it's just a coincidence that Dems have won every close election in the last 30 years.  People just like our policies better!"

--"States shouldn't be allowed to require a photo ID to vote, because that would impose a horrible, unconscionable hardship on minorities--a clear violation of their human rights.  Besides, there's no vote fraud in the U.S.  Those Acorn people who registered "Mickey Mouse" to vote were just playing around."

--"We're absolutely fine with making everyone from 90-year-old grandmothers to six-year-olds show photo ID to get on an airplane, because we need to be sure that air travel is safe.  Besides, the alternative would be racial profiling--which would violate human rights of Muslims;"

--"The people who hijacked those planes and crashed them into those two buildings in New York did that because Bush had invaded Iraq and our troops were killing literally millions of their kids and wives!"

--"Those two buildings in New York weren't brought down by the planes that flew into them, but by explosives planted by government agents on the orders of George Bush.  We know that's true because fire can't melt steel!   We Dems know that because Rosie O'Donnell said it on her national TV show, and there's an FCC rule that says the networks can't let something go out on national television if it's not true."

--"The economy has been absolutely booming in the last few months--a roaring recovery--and unemployment is way, way down.  And when Republicans claim the only reason unemployment is down is because 11 million people who have lost their jobs are no longer being counted as unemployed because they're no longer looking for work, it's just because they're raaaacist and devisive.  Because they hate the idea that a black man is president;"

--"Cash for Clunkers" was a great idea that resulted in a huge increase in new-car sales.  Republicans who claim it was unconstitutional, or that it merely shifted sales a couple of months earlier than they would have occurred anyway, are just raaacists. Besides, the "commerce clause" gives the president the responsibility to control all commerce in the U.S."

--"Barack's $60-Billion bailout of GM was a great idea.  It saved all those jobs!  People who claim it was unconstitutional are just troublemakers.  Besides, anything the president does is legal by definition, since the president is the highest officer in the country."

--"It's perfectly okay to make a 'recess appointment' even if the senate says it's NOT in recess, because only a Democratic president can determine when the senate is actually in recess.  Besides, that's how the president of Venezuela does it;"

--"It's perfectly okay for a Democrat president to ignore minor laws--like those concerning bankruptcy, or committing American troops overseas without getting congressional approval--because the president has the power to decide which laws need to be obeyed. That's right in the Constitution!;"

--"It's perfectly okay for the Attorney General of the U.S. to let people in the U.S. buy guns and send them to Mexican drug gangs, because the A.G. and the president  decide which laws need to be obeyed;"

--"It's perfectly okay for Barack and the Democrats to make taxpayers subsidize that wonderful Gaia-friendly, global-warming-preventing miracle car--the Chevy Volt--by $7500 per car, because every smart person in the world knows that electric cars help slow global worming.  That small subsidy is needed because without it, not enough people would buy the car.  If something's necessary, that makes it legal.  Besides, Barack is just protecting the taxpayers' $60-billion "investment" in GM;"

--"It's perfectly normal for a presidential candidate to refuse to release any of his college records, because his college grades and the courses he took are none of the public's business. Unless, of course, you're talking about a Republican."

--"No one should be a bit concerned that a recent presidential candidate had five Social Security numbers associated with his name.  After all, that's happened to several people I know.  And the same reasoning applies if the candidate is now using a SSN from a state he never set foot in before taking office, because...well, sometimes those hard-working people at the Social Security office make a mistake.  That's perfectly normal."

--"Barack was right to have the EPA issue regulations that will force dozens of coal-fired electric powerplants to shut down.  Claims by utility execs that this will cause the price of electricity to nearly triple are just scare stories, because everyone knows the laws of supply and demand don't apply to things like electricity;"

--"Barack was right to deny drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill, because drilling is a dirty business and we ought to discourage it.  When Rethuglicans claim that Barack's refusal to allow drilling in most coastal waters around the U.S. will cause the price of gas to soar to over $4 per gallon it's just because they hate Mother Earth.  Besides, the laws of supply and demand don't apply to oil and gas;"

--"Tim Geithner was the absolute best person available to be Secretary of the Treasury, and his little oopsie on his personal income tax isn't worth mentioning, because, hey, everyone makes mistakes.  In fact, his little mistake was so trivial you probably didn't even hear about it until just now."

--"It's perfectly normal for the government to make billion-dollar "loan guarantees" to wonderful "green" companies like Solyndra.  After all, if the government didn't invest in startup companies, who would?  It's just bad luck that a dozen of the companies the government gave taxpayer-guaranteed loans to ended up going broke.  And it's simply coincidence that all those companies were connected to major Obama donors;"

--"Anyone who doesn't believe humans are causing global warming is a right-wing nut paid by the Koch brothers.  If someone tells you that a huge number of scientific facts weigh against AGW, don't ask to see their proof--no one can understand stuff like that unless you have a degree in global warming--but instead demand that they tell you what oil company is paying them to be divisive and raaaaaaacist!;"

--"Every woman has a right to free contraception.  It's a basic human right, written right in the Constitution, where it says "everyone is endowed by government with certain unalienable rights."  That means everyone on earth has those rights even if they're not U.S. citizens.  Oh, and if you hear Rethuglicans say there's really no such thing as "free," that everything has to be paid for by someone, don't you believe it.  After all, if you don't have to pay for something, it's "free," right?"  I mean, that's a definition!  Duh!

--"We need to make it easier for people to vote.  So states shouldn't be allowed to pass any law that would force people to show identification before voting."

--"If we just banned guns, crime would practically disappear.  After all, Britain banned almost all handguns years ago, and they hardly have any crime at all!";

This list could go on for several pages. In any case, the next time you hear one of these claims from a liberal, think of an oh-so-serious ten-year-old trying to explain sex or isotope separation or neurochemistry or the European Union to one of his friends.

It'll help put the whole charade in perspective. Really.

Eh, that was a weak wrap. Let me try again:

Far too many Liberals, "progressives" and Democrats seem to be idiots, because they constantly say wacked-out crap like all of the statements listed above--the falsity of which should be self-evident to a clever 12-year-old. (For starters, obviously none of the "It's right there in the Constitution" statements are true.)

This is not to say that conservatives don't sometimes make stupid statements of their own--and if you're a liberal/Dem/prog I welcome any submissions citing dumb things conservatives have said.

And no, Meghan McCain doesn't count as a conservative.