Quantcast

«

»

Dec 11 2012

Murray: Obama Thinks Like Hitler

William Murray, the incredibly stupid son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, delivers one of his typically ignorant and absurd screeds in his latest Worldnutdaily column. And he starts it with yet another fake quote from one of the Founding Fathers:

At the founding of our nation, Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

No he didn’t. Thomas Jefferson, to whom this quote is also frequently attributed, didn’t say it either. Or Alexis de Toqueville, another one it is attributed to sometimes. As Abraham Lincoln famously said, just because you find a quote on the internet doesn’t mean it’s real. I’m paraphrasing, of course.

President Barack Hussein Obama has a vision of an American utopia not of equal opportunity, but of centrally planned equal outcomes. Many refer to Obama as a socialist or even a communist, but those are just two of the roads politicians in the past have chosen to create their vision of a centrally planned utopia state, or a false Garden of Eden on Earth. Adolf Hitler is most often referred to as a fascist, but he was also one of the foremost central planners and utopianists in history. He called his brand of utopianism “national socialism.”

Mr. Godwin, call your office.

22 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

    I hope they never uncover Obama’s true manifesto, titled “Harrison Bergeron”.

  2. 2
    fifthdentist

    I don’t like cats. Cats have four legs.
    Goats have four legs. Therefore I don’t like goats.

    Also, Hitler wasn’t a “central planner.” He established multiple agencies with — apparently intentional — overlapping responsibilities. This created turf wars and confusion, and led to inefficiency. Kind of the opposite of central planning.

  3. 3
    laurentweppe

    At the founding of our nation, Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

    And if one ignore the apocryphal aspect of the quote, it’s involontary funny to see that the people who use it are always favoring the kind of system where aristocrats take the right to vote from the plebs and vote themselves power, lands, titles, tithes and droits du seigneur. That’s sooooo much better than the rabble voting themselves a social safety net.

  4. 4
    davidct

    I guess the strongest republic is one where people will consistently vote against their own self interest for the greater good. Nice idea but it does not work well with humans.

    It always seems odd that a person holding the views that would make him a moderate Republican in years past would now be called a socialist/communist. Now he is also a Fascist. He must be superman to do all that at once. Of course it is remotely possible that his critics don’t know what they are talking about or just don’t care.

  5. 5
    Akira MacKenzie

    At the founding of our nation, Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

    False attribution aside, two points :

    1) The only people who have been successfully voting themselves money are billionaire capitalists like the ones you and other right-wingers cheer for, William.

    2) If anything is going to cause the end of the republic it’s allowing the people the right to vote to starve the poor and helpless.

    Many refer to Obama as a socialist or even a communist…

    I fucking wish!

    Why not refer to Barry as what he is: a cowardly center-right political whore who in the face of recent victory is willing to bend over to his alleged enemies and sacrifice the needs of the poor and sick just to perpetuate the stupid illusion of American “bipartisanship.”

  6. 6
    peterh

    Jefferson did, however, warn against the bankers.

  7. 7
    Tabby Lavalamp

    I guess the strongest republic is one where people will consistently vote against their own self interest for the greater good. Nice idea but it does not work well with humans.

    Hey! Poor and middle class Republicans (and Conservatives up here in the Great White North) are just as human as anyone else! That they are mislead on what is the greater good isn’t their fault…

  8. 8
    democommie

    “fas·cism /ˈfaSHizəm/ Noun

    1.An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    2.(in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

    (source: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=what+is+fascism&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7_____en)

    If I was not only cynical but also a complete moron and total whore to whoever is signing my paycheck I might, like Murray seems to be doing, look at my daily copy of the WND and say, “Wow, wtf am I gonna come up with to top THAT?”

    “1) The only people who have been successfully voting themselves money are billionaire capitalists like the ones you and other right-wingers cheer for, William.”

    Oh, Akira McKenzie (have you considered changing your name to “Akita”? You are one dogged and ferocious fighter, especially with bullshitpeddling ReiKKKwing. I digress) you’re just being silly! They don’t have to vote, they BUY people to do that for them.

  9. 9
    Michael Heath

    Akira MacKenzie writes:

    Why not refer to Barry as what he is: a cowardly center-right political whore who in the face of recent victory is willing to bend over to his alleged enemies and sacrifice the needs of the poor and sick just to perpetuate the stupid illusion of American “bipartisanship.”

    It’s President Obama, and his first name is Barack, he does not go by Barry. And this is your view of who he is; it’s absurd to conclude your perception of him is definitive, especially by those who demonstrate they’re not blinded from reality by their political ideology.

    You are also factually incorrect on your false claim he’s “willing to bend over to his alleged enemies and sacrifice the needs of the poor and sick just to perpetuate the stupid illusion of American “bipartisanship.”.

    He courageously, not cowardly, passed a monumental reform of health care financing which if fully implemented, will provide universal healthcare access to nearly all Americans, a first in our history at the federal level. That’s hardly cowardly and was not a bipartisan act. Instead he fought for this in the depths of the second great recession our country’s experienced since the advent of the industrial age against obstruction never experiences by the since the Civil War, except seventy-five years of conservative obstructionism in defense of Jim Crow laws. And just recently his Administration told those states who are attempting to avoid setting up either a state or federal exchange, no additional Medicaid funds will be delivered in spite of being budgeted towards their states unless they set-up the ecxhanges or allow the feds to do the same. Cite: http://goo.gl/Hgnve

  10. 10
    Akira MacKenzie

    democommie:

    My handle originates from a character I created for a long-running Traveller campaign. He was a human “Belter” of Japanese/Texan decent who traveled the spaceways in wearing a white Stetson, a katana on one hip, and an antique Colt “Peacemaker” on the other.

    He was always on of my favorites.

  11. 11
    Akira MacKenzie

    I’m sure that Nixion didn’t go by “Tricky Dick” either, yet we don’t hear a hue and cry over that bit of disrespect, do we now?

  12. 12
    Michael Heath

    Akira MacKenzie writes:

    I’m sure that Nixion didn’t go by “Tricky Dick” either, yet we don’t hear a hue and cry over that bit of disrespect, do we now?

    You do out of me. Slurs generally signal the person hurling slurs probably has nothing and knows it, thus the need for the slurs in place of an argument worth considering. So it becomes about the person hurling the insult rather than the target.

  13. 13
    Goodbye Enemy Janine

    You are using the same meme that birthers used when they talk about Barack Obama. Do not be surprised, Akira MacKenzie, when people call you on that.

  14. 14
    abb3w

    Persuasion attempts (or persuasion resistance attempts) based on social validation are dubious to begin with, but even more pitiful when the validating didn’t actually originate with the socially important figure claimed.

    I’ll also point out that Murray doesn’t seem to decry the Founding Fathers as prominently over their efforts at sociological engineering and centralized planning at the Constitutional Convention. Apparently, only central planning that he doesn’t like is akin to Hitler.

  15. 15
    slc1

    OT but is Mr. Brayton planning to comment on the union bashing legislation proposed in Michigan? Will MH’s hero, Rick Snyder, sign the legislation?

  16. 16
    Michael Heath

    slc1 writes:

    Will MH’s hero, Rick Snyder, sign the legislation?

    To other readers – slc1 doesn’t accurately represent my positions. So I would kindly request that you ignore his misrepresentations of me.

    I decided a couple of months ago I will also no longer provide a point-by-point rebuttal to any of his comment posts. That includes rebutting the content that has him lying about me with the sole exception of my noting he misrepresents what I’ve previously written and think, both in the past and here in this post.

  17. 17
    abb3w

    @12, Michael Heath:

    Slurs generally signal the person hurling slurs probably has nothing and knows it, thus the need for the slurs in place of an argument worth considering.

    More technically,

    Social validation and source derogation are responses that do not require message scrutiny, although both are likely to be coded as unfavorable thoughts in the general cognitive response approach. — (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5)

    Slurs seems to be used as a social signal, where the slurrer(?) indicates that not only is the message from the slurree(?) flawed, but that this is a tendency for messages from the slurree.

    In so far as actors can be message sources actually tending to higher or lower reliability, and in so far as message reliability (IE: “truth”) tends to be socially useful/valuable, signals as to calculated expected value of a message source would appear to be adaptive. EG, signalling that a source is less reliable, and thus messages sourced from the source should be subjected to higher scrutiny before acceptance; signalling that a source so consistently wrong that taking the opposite tends to yield reliably accurate messages; signalling that the source is so inconsistent that analysis cost of considering the message is likely to exceed the net benefit of conclusions drawn from it; signalling that the source is reliable in one arena, but unreliable in another; and so on.

    The catch is that such evaluations are themselves a form of message, which raise questions about reliability of the source.

    A second element is that longer messages tend more costly to analyze. As such, a detailed elaboration of Richard Nixon’s assorted offenses against the social order during his political carreer, and a comprehensive study of the relative degree of such offenses (detailing the exact metric used) compared to the historical distribution (and distribution over history, with confidence/uncertainty intervals for those distributions) for other Presidents, DC politicians, American politicians, and other human political leaders… takes a hell of a long time to compose in an orderly message. Also, if the message is likely to be accepted without such elaboration, or rejected without even evaluation of it, it’s inefficient. As such, less precise shorthands tend to develop.

    (I suspect all this could be made mathematically rigorous.)

    In short, slurring someone as a “dolt” or “tricky bastard” provides an efficient means for a type of valuable message. It may be easily abused, which suggests heightened scrutiny is warranted, and should reflect on the source if the message falls short in its warrant. However, the use of brief derrogatories does not seem to necessarily warrant automatic dismissal of the source.

    Still, I prefer to save insults for really special occasions.

    There’s probably potential for another semi-interesting digression on the cultural symbolism of giving/inflicting a name on someone as a mark of dominance over them, probably with examples from the Bible (starting with Genesis 2:17) and other cultures. Doesn’t seem worth the effort, though.

  18. 18
    John Horstman

    I’ve never understood why anyone thinks that quote is profound, whoever said it. It’s just idiotic. The public treasury is collected from the voters, and voting themselves services rendered with money generated by their productive behavior seems entirely reasonable. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    What’s harder (though not that hard, clearly) is maintaining massive wealth disparity in a democracy. But massive wealth disparity isn’t a necessary feature of a democratic republic, so in no way does not having massive wealth disparity mean that a republic can’t survive. Seriously, what?

  19. 19
    Michael Heath

    abb3w writes:

    In short, slurring someone as a “dolt” or “tricky bastard” provides an efficient means for a type of valuable message. It may be easily abused, which suggests heightened scrutiny is warranted, and should reflect on the source if the message falls short in its warrant. However, the use of brief derrogatories does not seem to necessarily warrant automatic dismissal of the source.

    I get this which is precisely why I qualified my point with the weasel word, “generally”. However, even in the case of, “Tricky Dick” (President Richard Nixon), such a characterization by the one slurring Mr. Nixon signals tribalis steeped in historical ignorance and an inability to dispassionately weigh the target’s total performance.

    The Nixon Administration was obviously a failed administration predominately caused by the systemic criminal behavior of the president and many of his closet White House aides (and a few outside the White House like Spiro Agnew). I think one of the biggest presidential mistakes of the entire 20th century was President Ford, in good faith, pardoning Mr. Nixon. However the Nixon Administration also had its successes, which are negated when we resort to slurs, leading the audience with a false caricature of the person being defamed and rises to just another monkey hoot within the clan one hopes to show loyalty towards. And that’s only a little better than the dog whistles we encountered from Sarah Palin in ’08 and Mitt Romney in ’12.

  20. 20
    Michael Heath

    abb3w,

    Great post by the way. My post above was a quibble and should have been framed as such. I really appreciate your perspective.

  21. 21
    slc1

    Re MH @ #19

    Richard Nixon was called Tricky Dicky long before he became president. In virtually every election in which he ran, his opponent was smeared as sympathetic to Communists, mostly disseminated and orchestrated by his hatchet man, Murray Chotiner. I can recall stopping by the California election office in downtown Los Angeles to pick up an absentee ballot for the 1962 election in which Tricky Dicky was running for Governor against incumbent Governor Pat Brown (Brown pere). The car parked in front of me had a bumper sticker asking the question, “Is Brown pink”? Brown was only the latest target, following in the footsteps of Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagen Douglas (wife of actor Melvyn Douglas), previous victims of Nixon’s smears.

  22. 22
    abb3w

    @18, abb3w:

    I suspect all this could be made mathematically rigorous

    A bit of looking turns up the “Byzantine Generals” problem in the CS literature, which looks similar, and an entry into the related problem of distributed unreliable computing.

    @19, Michael Heath:

    I get this which is precisely why I qualified my point with the weasel word, “generally”.

    Touché. However, I’m not even sure it holds “generally” rather than merely “frequently”.

    @19, Michael Heath:

    However, even in the case of, “Tricky Dick” (President Richard Nixon), such a characterization by the one slurring Mr. Nixon signals tribalis steeped in historical ignorance and an inability to dispassionately weigh the target’s total performance.

    Yeah, he did some good things, like the EPA and China. I still think the harms of Watergate and his other paranoia overshadows them enough to merit an insulting nickname.

    @20, Michael Heath:

    My post above was a quibble and should have been framed as such. I really appreciate your perspective.

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site