Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Smoke And Mirrors

There’s something we all know about the radical Reich Wing. They lie. Yes, we all know they lie about Bush, Cheney, Obama, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Democrats, Liberalism, and everything else in the political spectrum. They also lie about other things. And they go to great lengths to propagate those lies. Here’s an entertaining, well for me anyway, exchange with one of them. I dearly love exposing their lies and they really hate it when I do just that.

On July 29, our friend the Gun Toting Liberal posted a video clip he called, "SHOCKING VIDEO: President Obama Smoking On Gulf Coast Beach With [Former] BP CEO Tony Hayward."
It was a “funny” animated clip of Obama tossing a cigarette on BP’s oil, destroying the world. Our old radical right wing adversary who calls himself F&B was highly amused, and left an idiosyncratic teleprompter reference in his comment.

I couldn’t resist taking him out for a spin.

Note: Forgive my omission of all the links. My points were explained and his were debunked. You can find all of F&B's referenced articles if you want to waste the time.

---
F&B:
Dang. LMAO. According to Obama’s teleprompter, it’s still all Bush’s fault.
---
DD:
Ah, but that was Bush’s teleprompter Obama inherited. No wonder it malfunctions…

I’m surprised conservatives are not happy with Obama smoking. That means more money goes to the republicans’ tobacco lobby. And this brings up a question. Do more Americans die from terrorism or tobacco?
---
F&B:
“Do more Americans die from terrorism or tobacco?” — The question is irrelevant. People can choose to smoke or not, but those who died from terrorism did not make a decision to do so.
Tobacco provides income to many low income farmers. In some cases, tobacco is the only crop they can grow. It provides a large share of support to many regions in this country. It has a downside, obviously, but it also has an upside.
Terrorism has no upside.

---
DD:
Ah, the cold heart of an authoritarian speaks. American deaths from tobacco are irrelevant. Tell that to the families.So it would also provide good jobs to grow weed and opium, too, right? Are Americans entitled to pick their own poison or should government decide for them?


"Terrorism has no upside" Oh come on, how do you think Bush/Cheney frightened enough voters to re-elect them? Terror, terror, terror. You'll die from terrorism if you vote for democrats. Do you really think we have no memory?? Cheney said, "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Terrorism was very good for the Republicans. They had no qualms of using such scare tactics for divisive vote pandering.United we stand, my ass.
---
F&B:
Sure Dubya, and you go ahead and tell the families who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attack that their deaths are no different than someone who dies from tobacco use. You really are heartless, aren’t you.
Well, y’see, tobacco is legal. Opium and pot aren’t. If they were then yes, growing them legally would provide jobs and income to the farmers. And again, yes, the people should decide what drugs are legal and which are not. We have a system in place to handle that sort of thing.
Correct, I said that Terrorism has no upside. If you think it does, that’s your issue, not mine.
Bush and Cheney may have frightened you, but they never frightened me. I was not unhappy with their administration. I did very well during the Bush years. (And the Clinton years, and Bush 41, and Reagan, but not Carter, and I’m hoping I survive the Obama Regime, time will tell.) (It sounds like your family isn’t doing all that well under the Obama Regime. How did you do under Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter (if you’re old enough to remember)). I don’t mean to be callous, but that is a fact you have shared with the internets. I deal with what is, not what I want to be.
You really need to do something about your BDS, it clouds your judgement. … Oh, I almost forgot … you’re a TRUTHER! You actually think Bush and Cheney were involved in the 9-11 attack. That explains a lot. I have to remember that you’re not just a closet liberal progressive, you’re also a Truther
---
DD:
Poor F&B seems sleep deprived. I asked a simple question that can be answered with reasonable estimates in numbers. He decides the question is irrelevant and proclaims, “Terrorism has no upside”. So far, he only displays a little confusion.


Then I had to think. If terrorism really had no upside, why would it exist? Somebody must think they benefit from it. Who? First I think maybe some terrorists (apart from the suiciders) gain some popularity with fringe members and possibly financial support. They it occurs to me there are some American mercenaries who are getting very rich on our tax dollars because of terrorism. Perhaps there are a few other corporate war profiteers as well. Then it occurred to me, wait a minute. Didn’t one certain American political party frequently invoke the words associated with terrorism during an election? Wouldn’t it frighten someone to hear the Vice President warning us about the danger we’ll get hit again if we don’t vote for him? You know, it sure does look like terrorism had an upside for certain cultural, economic and political interests. Yes, I would say so.

So, anyway, all I did was point this out to F&B, and he concludes I want to tell 9-11 families some crazy “heartless” nonsense from F&B’s wild imagination. Then we are reassured by F&B that he was never frightened by his Big Dick’s talking points.

Quickly he changes to one of his favorite subjects, money. We’re happy F&B has done well since Reagan, apart from his sad misfortunes (that were not his fault) in the Carter years. I’d like to thank F&B for kindly asking me how I did through the past years. I’m happy to say I was lucky enough to see steady employment since before Reagan. In fact I got a nice job back in the Carter era. I’m sure F&B would have done as well if he had maybe only worked a little bit harder. Some of us found our “bootstraps” before Reagan urged us to pull them up.

But then the dark days of George W. Bush came over the land. We were caught with someone sleeping at the switch. We were attacked AFTER being warned by a Presidents Daily Brief in August of 2001. More darkness followed. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act all clamped down on our civil liberties and Bill of Rights. Wars were launched. One was initiated by fear mongering through terrorizing words from Bush and his Big Dick. WMD’s and scary “nukular” aluminum tubes were falsely linked to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Very frightening images of mushroom clouds were seeded into the public’s anxieties.
Then the economy was devastated by labor and market manipulation, a Big Money casino mentality, and financial shell games. My wife saw her job go to Asia. The Bush era was very bad, but not as bad for us as for the uncounted thousands of human beings lost in their war for power and profit.

So here we are, trying to recover from the devastation brought upon us by the Bush era.
This is how we “deal with what is”. And unfortunately “what is” has nothing whatsoever to do with F&B’s next wild delusion. Poor F&B leaps to the conclusion (from what, I cannot tell) that I “actually think Bush and Cheney were involved in the 9-11 attack”.

I guess somehow F&B is disturbed so deeply about what I said about his Big Dick, that he needs to rush to protect his Big Dick from what he calls a “closet liberal progressive”. Please take your meds and get some rest, F&B. I hope you feel better in the morning.
----
F&B:
Don't worry about me Dubya, I feel great. I do regret that anyone has to suffer the paranoid delusions that you exhibit Dubya. But I'm sure that explains why you attack me for saying things that I didn't say. More voices in your head, eh? Too bad.
I could be wrong about Terrorism having no upside. If people with your mentality were in charge, Terrorists would be able to gain a great deal of control by frightening them. I am thankful that is not the case.
Just a couple of little hints Dubya, in spite of what your BDS forces you to think you believe, the economic issues that led to the current financial situation did not just manifest themselves during or as a result of the Bush Administration. You have to look deeper, farther back, like try the Carter years. Very important note: The President does not pass legislation, he can only approve or veto the bills sent to him by Congress. The current recession is not just a U.S. problem, it is global (not entirely, but I don't want this to get too complicated for you to follow). Another hint: President Bush had little to do with European economic policies, and their recession is worse than ours. I could go on, but I won't. I know these facts don't fit neatly into your BDS mentality, but they are facts nonetheless.
We've been down the Truther path before Dubya. Just admit who you are. You have revealed yourself as a Truther before, and you are again now. For you, everything leads back to your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Admit who you are and maybe you can begin the slow path to recovery.
If you want to equate Terorism and tobacco in your little world, that's your issue, as I said before. It is a foolish assessment, but it is your assessment. Don't be such a coward. Own up to what you said without trying to backpedal and change the subject as soon as someone challenges it.
---
DD:
Now there you go again with that famous right wing projection. Of course you feel “great” and want to project delusions unto me. Those mood swings have their highs, don’t they?


Unfortunately your thinking is still quite detached from reality. You see, you can’t reasonably accuse poor Carter of all your past woes along with the present financial picture. Really, that is quite a symptom of paranoia.

Hint: I know corporate dems are also responsible for the mess we’re in. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. Another hint: Unlike poor Americans, not one European is bankrupted by health care costs. I imagine you are proud of the fact that not only do we pay more for pharmaceuticals; we have more bankruptcies due to medical conditions. That is the stunning measure of success for your beloved insurance corporations. We do know whose side you are on.


I understand when we give factual information, your duty is to deny such facts and launch into accusations and reframe the issues completely out of perspective. Hench, you call me a truther and imply I am so frightened of terrorism I will give them “control” and somehow I “equate” terrorism with tobacco. This is either pure fabrication or mental illness. It matters not, because it’s the cult indoctrination that is important. Instead of simply calling you a liar, I leave open the option you are brainwashed.


Final hint: If tobacco was “equated” with terrorism, we would be seeing politicians telling us the tobacco corporations win unless we invade the South. Or I would be demanding the imprisonment of tobacco farmers. I’m not, of course, but you will likely want to accuse me of that, anyway, so go ahead. Make your accusations. I know it makes you feel better. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.

---
F&B:
You can't admit that people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so, but those who have died in terrorist attacks did not. For this reason alone, they cannot be compared in the manner in which you want to compare them.
But go ahead, indulge yourself, tell us what the numbers are. Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.
And again, you still can't manage to read what is actually written. You always try to spin everything. It is sad really that you are incapable of conversing without inserting this very disturbed aspect of your "personality". I'll clarify, and I will try to use small words for you. I did not blame Carter. I said the policies go back to Carter. That means policies that have been in place for over 30 years. Even with your full blown BDS you can't blame President Bush for policies enacted 25 years before he was elected.
Hint: Correct on Europeans not being bankrupted by their own health costs. They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.
---
DD:
It goes without saying people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so. See I can admit it. I have no problem agreeing with reality. You still cannot admit the true fact that Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. That must be against your programming somehow. Maybe you can get permission to make an exception.


You may avert your eyes for a minute, because here comes some truth that you refuse to acknowledge. Here are facts from the CDC: “Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.”

Now for a couple of your lies:
“Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.” - Done
“You always try to spin everything.” - Nope. Just giving you the facts.
“They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.” – Nope again. If they can pay taxes they are not bankrupt.

Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. Fact, Deal with it, bub, I am right and you refuse to admit it. I repeat. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.
---
F&B:
It isn't a matter of admitting that tobacco contributes to more deaths than are caused by terrorism, but I have no problem acknowleding it. It is still like comparing apples and oranges. In the case of tobacco deaths, they are willing participants - i.e. they know the risks of tobacco but use it anyway. In the case of terrorism, they are not willing participants.
bub.
---
DD:
The issue becomes making those deaths preventable or aggravating them. It is possible in both cases. Bush/Cheney manipulated fears of terrorism into a war that has needlessly killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians. Just sayin. Unfortunately certain corporate profits are enhanced by those deaths. That is the tie in to this “apples and oranges” thing. Human life is human life, and dead people are dead people.
---
F&B:
On a slightly different subject, Dubya... You often whine about legalizing marijuana so it can be taxed, etc. Not the governments business, blah, blah, blah. Here's a couple of little factoids you can roll up in your next doobie. There are more carcinogenic chemicals in pot smoke than in tobacco smoke. If legalized, it is probable that deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes. And yet, in your blind hatred and ignorance, you want pot legalized and tobacco to be made illegal. You are one serious piece of work, bub.
---
DD:
There you go again with the “blind hatred and ignorance” projection. Just because what I say upsets you, it does not mean it is out of hatred.


“Deaths from marijuana?” Hoo, boy. That sounds like old fashioned “reefer madness” fear mongering. You guys do love to fear monger. So what tobacco/liquor funded study did you get those “factoids” from? Or did you just pull that one out from where you pull your other crap like, I want “tobacco to be made illegal”? I never said that, now did I, You made that part up and only wish I said it.


I certainly would never advocate for anyone to smoke anything, except maybe a peace pipe, but you authoritarians don’t particularly care much for peace.

I have a request. Why don’t you show us medical evidence of all those “deaths from marijuana”? It won’t be easy, since marijuana is the safest drug in the world. But have fun! In the meantime here’s something for any reader interested in the reality based world.

From Web MD: Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer
Study Shows No Increased Risk for Even the Heaviest Marijuana Smokers

From Drug Policy Alliance:
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.


And, gasp! This one is from your favorite propaganda source,
FOX:


I wonder what motivates a person to so passionately deny the truth as much as you Righties do. I think our pal Weaseldog is onto something when he calls you a paid shill. Yes, I am “one serious piece of work” if you say so yourself. Isn’t it interesting how pot smokers like Willie Nelson are so much more grounded in reality than people in your cult?

---
F&B:
As I have said here many times before, Dubya, but you are just too dense to comprehend, I am not opposed to the legalization of marijuana.
That being said, you constantly dig up whatever data you can find to support your idiotic opinions, regardless of the plethora of contradictory evidence that is staring you right in your contorted little face. You present obsolete, outdated information and expect me to believe it? Get real dude.
"Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer" This is a NEWER article in WebMD, from 2009, contradicting the 2006 article you quoted from.
In addition, marijuana smoke has beenn added to Califormia's Proposition 65 list of known carcinogens. "A California state board called marijuana smoke a health hazard and has added it to the state's list of environmental hazards, placing the drug alongside other carcinogens like arsenic, asbestos, and DDT, the San Jose Mercury News


'Nuff said bub.
---
DD:
Yes, F&B, you’ve said “nuff”.
Your about.com article was unsourced. Your webmd article says, “"These results provide evidence for the DNA-damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers write, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development." Notice the words “potential” and “may be detrimental”. Is this your conclusive “evidence”?


Did you know your “plethora of contradictory evidence” comes from one, and only one, “study” that artificially created conditions in a lab where a chemical common to both marijuana and tobacco damaged a piece of lung tissue. Then you added the utterly hysterical comparison made by a “California state board” that marijuana is similar to toxins like arsenic, asbestos, and DDT. You failed totally in providing any conclusive medical evidence.

Now just for argument’s sake, because you know I love to argue, if marijuana was legal, it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize. So even if it were actually dangerous to smoke, there would be no need for smoking it at all.

So get real dude, you can’t come up with one human case of cancer, let alone one fatality, from marijuana. I asked, “Why don’t you show us medical evidence of all those “deaths from marijuana”? You failed completely, pal.

Not only did you fail in showing one death from marijuana, you pronounced a plague of deaths to come, “probable that deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes.” Wow. And then you cold bloodedly seemed to not care about those deaths by saying you are “not opposed to the legalization of marijuana”. Trying to have it both ways again, eh? Nothing new there.

I may be dense, but nowhere near dense enough to fall for your wild accusations, shoddy reasoning and factually impaired arguments. I wonder if anyone else notices the pattern where after I totally debunk your claims you quickly change subjects. You really do fit the pattern of right-wing discourse. First you lie or make an outrageous claim, then you throw unfounded accusations at your adversary after they counter it with facts, and finally you change the topic to further muddy up the discussion. We see this formula at work throughout all these exchanges.
Well done, my little right wing propagandist. You do your job quite well. I wonder how much you are paid for pushing this BS.
__

F&B:
The about.com article was written by a physician and peer reviewed by 12 other doctors before being published.
The WebMD article was from the same source that you cited but is 3 years more recent. WebMD was willing to modify their position based on new information. Something that you, sadly, are unable to do Dubya. Your article focused on a group of people from the LA area who had consumed varying amounts of pot during their lives, many of whom had not smoked for decades. The study was not controlled. The article was written by a WebMD reporter, not by a doctor. Etc.
Bandolier (a group of Oxford University scientists) - “6 studies with 494 participants undergoing bronchoscopy” – “Increase in abnormal and precancerous findings in marijuana smokers compared with tobacco smokers. Surrogate markers for lung malignancy more often found in marijuana smokers”
“ScienceDaily (June 15, 2009) — Using a highly sensitive new test, scientists in Europe are reporting "convincing evidence" that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.” … “Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” … “The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day”
Reuters: “The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption. In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.”
There is much more available, thus constituting a “plethora”. And the most recent evidence (as long as you avoid studies sponsored by High Times magazine) indicates serious health effects, including various cancers, from marijuana use.
So, Dubya, this is your idea of “marijuana is the safest drug in the world”?
Dubya’s psychotic personality actually allows him to ASSume that I am against legalization and he clumsily tries to call me out on that in one comment. Then after I explain that I am not opposed to legalization he tries to spin that to mean I don’t care if people die from smoking pot, even while claiming that marijuana is the “safest drug in the world”. Dude, get help, before the neighborhood dogs start talking to you.
Dubya said “…it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize” – Not the same thing, when it is smoked, a “freebase” form of THC is inhaled and absorbed directly into the blood through the lungs. It is a different “high” than obtained from ingesting pot, e.g. pot brownies contain THC but not the extremely reactive freebase form. This is similar to the reason why Nicotine gum or pills do not really satisfy a cigarette smoker’s craving for the freebase nicotine obtained from smoking.
---
DD:
So, which way do you want it, Prohibition leading to destruction of civil liberties, or legalization leading to tax revenue and your imaginary “deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes”? For someone so politically impassioned against something you don’t seem to mind all the “deaths from marijuana”. You still have NOT shown one case of cancer from weed. You have failed again.


These are “studies” sponsored by agenda driven factions.


Bandolier is not a medical journal. They are clearly biased: Note the terms they use.
“So our starting point is to expect marijuana smoking to cause cancer, by simple analogy... ...This allows us to be even more certain of a probable link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer, and not to be too hung up about wanting more evidence.” Sounds like FOX’s fair and balanced “Obama hates white people” BS. No need to be “too hung up about wanting more evidence”. Now there’s real science, eh?

Science Daily was the same “study” from the first article. Why do you keep referencing the same study for your “plethora”? And again, here’s their agenda, “"The data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes...”

Again, did you know your “plethora of contradictory evidence” comes from one, and only one, “study” that artificially created conditions in a lab where a chemical common to both marijuana and tobacco smoke damaged a piece of lung tissue. Did you read this the first time? This is not a human medical study, it is lab conditions. Again, NOT a medical journal.

The Reuters article was about a New Zealand “study” that was by Richard Beasley and funded by GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals. Not exactly a void of conflict of interest there. Interestingly that same study showed cannabis to be less likely to cause emphysema than tobacco.

And this bit, “Dubya said “…it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize” – Not the same thing, when it is smoked, a “freebase” form of THC is inhaled and absorbed directly into the blood through the lungs. It is a different “high” than obtained from ingesting pot, e.g. pot brownies contain THC but not the extremely reactive freebase form. This is similar to the reason why Nicotine gum or pills do not really satisfy a cigarette smoker’s craving for the freebase nicotine obtained from smoking.” This is proof you don’t know what you are talking about. Many cancer patients get relief from vaporizing and eating it, and those who smoke it know it will not give them the cancer they already have.

You like to show off stats like this: “The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day”, but you CANNOT show me ONE person with cancer caused by weed. Why do you insist on fighting the truth with your fringe agenda driven studies? What is your agenda? Is it just to prove me wrong? You can’t. Nice try.

Do you even read this crap? I asked you to find real cases of humans with cancer caused by marijuana. You failed.

This is like debating someone who STILL believes Dick Cheney and George Bush about WMD’s, “nukular” aluminum tubes, and Saddam’s connections with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Oh...That’s right. You ARE a true believer. Your mind is made up. Well, there you go. The neighborhood dogs are starting to make a lot more sense than you.

---
Note:
By this point F&B is completely frustrated and fires his last salvo of lies. Instead of posting his tirade first and adding my response, I'll just fill in my replies line by line.
---
DD and F&B:

Okay, here’s one last quick summation just for you.

Frankly, Dubya, I don't care what you believe. And there you go again, trying to change the subject to emphyzema.

(LIE. Topic was always about smoking and health hazards. Death in particular from F&B. Emphysema has lead to death.)

Notice how Dubya accuses me of trying to change the subject, then he tries to change it in his next post. Lame.

(LIE. My “accusation” was”Reframe the issues completely out of perspective”, AFTER he started reframing the issue calling me a “truther”. Next, did I change the subject in my next post? No. Here’s the post:

“It goes without saying people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so. See I can admit it. I have no problem agreeing with reality. You still cannot admit the true fact that Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. That must be against your programming somehow. Maybe you can get permission to make an exception. You may avert your eyes for a minute, because here comes some truth that you refuse to acknowledge. Here are facts from the CDC: “Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.” Now for a couple of your lies:“Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.” - Done“You always try to spin everything.” - Nope. Just giving you the facts.“They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.” – Nope again. If they can pay taxes they are not bankrupt.Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. Fact, Deal with it, bub, I am right and you refuse to admit it.I repeat. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.”

There you have it, TWO LIES from F&B in one sentence.)

Even the link you posted indicates lung damage from smoking pot – And this is what you call “the safest drug in the world?”

(Yes, we know smoke makes you cough, but “lung damage” does NOT mean death. And yes, when eaten or vaporized it is the safest drug in the world. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

Wrong Dubya, - the Oxford meta-analysis used 6 studies composed of 464 people, the Science Daily report was from work done by Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Reuters report came from interviews with 79 lung cancer patients.

(Wrong about what? So? None of this provided ONE CASE of cancer from marijuana. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

Face it Dubya, you latched onto one study from 2006 that said what you wanted to hear and you ignored everything else.

(First LIE: Projection. YOU referred to the same lab study using no human beings twice. Second LIE: I “ignored everything else”.)

The Reuters report includes people with lung cancer that appear to have contracted it as a result of smoking pot.

(LIE: No, that’s what you “appear” to see. Note the words: “small group”, “cancer risk”, “could be” and “may see” Not one established case of cancer caused by marijuana was presented.)

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley." Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added."In the near future we may see an 'epidemic'.

(Said the man taking a pharmaceutical corporation’s money for his “research”.)

And yet Dubya thinks this is the "safest drug in the world".

(It is the safest drug in the world. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that? Zero lung damage when not smoked. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

So, really, there is no debate. It is like arguing with a child who refuses to accept the truth and will counter every argument with groundless denial.

(LIE: It is debated, lopsided as it is. Funny part: If I had made that comment, it would’ve been more truthful and made sense.)

Dubya even stopped trying to offer proof and is relying on lying about my sources and trying to change the subject.

(First LIE: YOU were the one asked for evidence, and you provided sources that FAILED to prove deaths occurred from marijuana. Second LIE: F&B is relying on lying about me relying on lying.)

Dubya again tries to use Alinsky tactics, he just isn't very good at it.


(What does Alinsky have to do with this? Oh, I forgot you’re probably under contract to mention him.)

Lastly Dubya, not giving you what you want hardly constitutes “failure”. But surrendering to the urge to throw a little hissy fit, as you did in your last post, is a sure sign of Failure.

(I agree. Not giving me what I want hardly constitutes failure. Your FAILURE started with your ridiculous claims. After that, your FAILURES were in reasoning, facts, and assumptions. You even FAILED in lying. Nobody believes you.)

As usual, I'll let you take the last jab, otherwise this will go on forever and you are becoming quite, uhhhh, tedious.

(Too bad you find this tedious. I’m still quite amused calling out your lies and watching you lose your temper. Tedious... yet you continue. So, how much are you paid to do this, again?)

42 comments:

Tim said...

You have the patience of a saint. I had an asshole trying to egg me on and it was ok until the name calling started. I figured f**k him I'm paying for this site and will not be lied to or insulted. So I banned his ass. Your guy sounded like mine.
They must all get the same talking points. Nice...
Later
Tim

S.W. Anderson said...

LOL, I don't know if it's the patience of a saint or the endurance of a pack mule. Whatever, I stand in awe.

I have an on-again, off-again right-wing reader (not T.P.) who I came to realize delighted in drawing me into long, drawn-out exchanges, with plenty of off-topic diversions and "proof" that turned out to be the bloviating of some right-wing noise machine propagandist. I finally got wise and stuck to limited, to-the-point responses, and only so many of them. When he'd start wandering off topic, changing the subject, I'd start ignoring him. Evidently not happy about that, he hasn't dropped by in months, or if he has, it was without leaving a comment.

Anonymous said...

The only thing I see here is as much as you claim the right is hateful and hurtful your comments are no less hateful and hurtful.

Years of Reagan bashing gave way to years of Clinton bashing which in turn yielded Years of Bush bashing that has now given way to Obama bashing.

and thru it all the left still continues to throw out the Hitler references while crying foul over the rights use of hitler references.

You proved nothing in this exchange other then you are as disrespectful as the person you were debating with.

Weaseldog said...

Yeah, Anonymous. Every Right Winger knows that when a Republican craps out a turd, it tastes like ice cream and cake. When a Democrat craps out a turd, it tastes like a turd.

Dave and I agree that crap stinks, no matter which party serves it on a platter.

So you bash us because we don't want to suck Republican or Democratic dick and because we won't suck their dicks, we're somehow hateful. That's cool. You go prove your devotion to whichever dishonest men you want to. There's plenty of room in Washington DC's men's room stalls.

Feel free to link your pictures of billboards, that compare Republicans to Hitler. I'd like to see them.

Anonymous, of course we know you're just trolling. You don't believe in your own words. You obviously they are very stupid and dishonest, as you don't even post under a moniker. If you used a name by which folks could recognize you, then it would mean that you stand behind them. As it is, you toss them out like turds, from behind a cowardly mask.

Dave, it looks like F&B also represents the tobacco lobby.

Dave Dubya said...

Tim,
It's not really patience. I just happen to love to slice and dice the lies. That's one thing we can trust the Righties on; they will always resort to lies.

SW,
Fortunately for me F&B would usually stay near the topic. He steered us from the hazards of tobacco to the fabricated "deaths" from marijuana. I welcomed the argument because he was entirely wrong.

Anon,
No persons were hurt or otherwise injured in the preceding entertainment. F&B and I have a history of taunting each other. He accused me of being one of those Socialist/Commie/liberals destroying the republic, so I called him a liar. It took off from there.

And I will ALWAYS be disrespectful of dishonesty.

Have you bothered to notice the actions that triggered the fascism references? One side cried fascism over war based on lies, destruction of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless spying on Americans. The other side cried fascism over... health care.

Same difference, eh?

And the burden of proof was not mine. F&B made a false claim and I just asked for evidence. He failed to prove his statement. What WAS proven was the fact that a right wing mentality is determined to cling to a lie, and when cornered on the lie, will fling out even more lies.

Wease,
F&B represents something more than the tobacco lobby. He represents our national slide into fascism.

Tom Harper said...

I have to agree with Tim. This is more patience than I have. But I'm glad you two are at least civil to each other. That's very rare, and both sides are guilty of flaming and name-calling.

I don't comment at rightwing blogs any more. Even if the blogger him/herself is civil, there's always a fellow wingtard who will come over and start spewing out hatred and slanderous comments. Then I have to spend the next week going back there to see what names I've been called, and stoop to that person's level and call him names, etc. And then I have to remind myself that I'm not 8 years old any more.

Anonymous said...

The Ops opening thesis sentence.

""There’s something we all know about the radical Reich Wing. They lie. Yes, we all know they lie about Bush, Cheney, Obama, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Democrats, Liberalism, and everything else in the political spectrum. They also lie about other things.""

Then you guys proceed to lie about many things while passing it off as your version of the truth.

Oh wait. The question now becomes who is the judge. I suppose its your site so you get to decide, but that seems a little weak minded and quite lame to cut and paste a debate from another site, bring it to your site and continue the debate without the other person even involved.

But then I suppose that is because as Mr. Weaseldog pointed out....someone in all this asked him to sniff turds and suck dicks.

I'm not sure where that was in the debate but if he saw it then I can understand why you guys think that your right and everyone else is Reich Wing Liars.

Dave Dubya said...

Tom,
GTL isn't even a right wing blog. It's infested with amateur propagandists who think they can influence a Second Amendment Liberal.


Anon,
You sound just like a typical Rightie, calling us liars with no evidence. Every time a Rightie calls Obama, or a liberal, a Marxist he is lying. Furthermore every time they do so emulates the tactics of the fascists from the last century. This is how they attacked political opposition. Today's Reich Wing Amerikaners attack their adversaries as mortal enemies of the state. Remember Cheney accusing Obama of giving “aid and comfort to the enemy?” That would be his projection of the treason he is guilty of by lying us into war. His and Bush’s actions are responsible for more deaths than terrorism. Deaths of innocent Americans and Iraqis were abetted by their terrorizing the American people, inciting the public’s fears with lies about Saddam’s ties to al-Qaeda, WMD’s, and “nukular” aluminum tubes, These are facts, not a “version” of the truth.

Did you not read this? "Have you bothered to notice the actions that triggered the fascism references? One side cried fascism over war based on lies, destruction of Habeas Corpus, and warrantless spying on Americans. The other side cried fascism over... health care."

Did you read the entire post? F&B said it was "tedious" and decided not to continue. You are welcome to take up his false claims and carry on.

We judge truth by evidence, not by mere assertion as we've seen so often by right wingers.

So far, all we've seen from you is outrage, and no facts...

Feel free to step up and contribute to reasoned, evidence based debate if you care to. Or you can just whine like the “oppressed” tea baggers and howl at the moon over the “tyranny” of Constitutional taxation like Limbaugh and Beck.

Anonymous said...

""Today's Reich Wing Amerikaners attack their adversaries as mortal enemies of the state.""

I think what people like you fail to see is your own perversions of the truth in your over zealous attempt at defending your own turf while railing against those who would question your beliefs.

""So far, all we've seen from you is outrage, and no facts...""

What facts am I to present? What outrage am I to orchestrate? Your rants could be cut and pasted from a million just like them all over the internet.

They say the same thing. They invoke the same Occam's razor.

Ergo the right is liars therefore everything they say is lies.

That is why It would be pointless for me to do anything except to call into question your motivations. I have already been labeled by you as a reich winger and ergo a Liar.

Step up with facts? Facts to support what? Really. What good would it do for me to cut and paste a 1000 defenses of something when you could cut and paste a 1000 reports to rebut my 1000 defenses?

Isn't it true that you simply like to piss people off with your postings of left wing Communist dogma and your radical mumbo jumbo?

Or do you seriously believe this stuff your spouting?

Dave Dubya said...

Anon, or would you like to be called Cheney or Rove?

You're validating my point here with this "postings of left wing Communist dogma" line.

"Today's Reich Wing Amerikaners attack their adversaries as mortal enemies of the state."

You do understand Communism is anti-democratic rule by single party dictatorship, don't you? Sorta like Bush v Gore and its aftermath. How does that go? It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes.

Attacking fascism is NOT the same thing as promoting Communism.

"They invoke the same Occam's razor. Ergo the right is liars therefore everything they say is lies."

Are you sure you understand Occam's Razor? Is that your simplest explanation?

Weaseldog said...

Anonymous, I will accept that many people can't tell when they are being lied to, even when the lies are blatant and obvious.

This does not mean that other people cannot tell when statements made are in direct contradiction to observable facts.

If you're one of those people that have trouble determining when they are being lied to, then I don't think you'll be able to follow this debate. I've known quite a number of good people who lack this ability.

For myself, I grew up around too many shysters. I learned quick enough how to tell if someone was trying to con me. I also learned that when someone is lying to you, politeness just encourages them.

When someone is lying to you, they don't respect you. They are insulting you. They are expressing their dominance over you. It's a form of bullying, of control. Essentially, they are pissing on your leg.

If you want to be used like a whore, then by all means, don't call them on it.

For myself, when I'm being insulted by liars, I tell them I don't believe them. I explain exactly how I determined they are lying to me. This changes the tone of the conversation.

Now to sum, I accept that you may have difficulty in detecting when people are lying to you. Many people do. I think it's a very common condition. Further, many liberals think they should be polite to liars. If someone tells you that 1+1=3. And insist that 1+1!=2, then a polite liberal will accept that the person feels this way and respect their feelings.

And I hear you in your liberal viewpoint that we should respect what people say and remain polite even when we know they are lying, but I utterly reject that advice.

My own personal experience is that this is just another way to get screwed by sociopaths.

TomCat said...

Tim beat me to my comment, Dave. The next time you get the 'terrorism have no upside' argument, agree, but say that 'no upside to terrorism' opposes the Republican position, becaise Republican administrations have sponsored more terrorist acts that all the fanatical Muslim groups combined.

Weaseldog said...

Well Dave our good friend F&B is now arguing that only Christians can marry. Uhm wait, he's backpedaling... He says he didn't say that...

As to posting behind F&B's back, I agree we're being a bit naughty. But it's not like he can't click on the linky's for our names and find our websites.

Dave Dubya said...

TomCat,
I try to make every effort to include Cheney in any list of terrorists.

Wease,
This is all with GTL's blessing and don't worry about F&B. He actually found a previous post featuring his comments. He said he was "honored". I imagine he has his reasons to not stick around. Such a swell guy.

Anonymous said...

DaveDubya wrote: The other side cried fascism over... health care.

To which I would respond. Fascism is prevalent in both parties if you dig deep enough and look hard enough. One striking thought about fascism is the idea that....

A part of what was written at Wikipedia: Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.

Here we can see that solidly in taking over health care in this country. But of course Im a liar so I am lying even though the Fascist Wiki has been rewritten about 300 times since Obama took office in order to paint the right with it solidly.

Yet with Fascism it seeks one party rule. Much like both parties would love to see happen in this country. Today we essentially have one party rule. The GOP is and has been forced to sit out of legislation committees as the democrats write the legislation and the first time they get to see it is when its written and ready for debate.

The Democrats in my opinion have embarked upon a dangerous strategy that will have repercussions for years to come. That is a strategy of passing bad legislation against the will of the majority of the people. In this country if a minority are affected we have usually pushed the problem down the road till the country is ready to address something. Not so now. The democrats have simply embarked upon passing legislation that only a minority favor in this country and so one has to wonder what will the GOP do when they are in charge of all 3 branches?

I suggest they will do the same and that is bad for us all.

As to Weasel deriding me for posting anonymously.weaseldog is your name? DaveDubya is your real name?

Having said all that I understand that It does not much matter what I say in response to anything written here because as the sites owner stated:

""There’s something we all know about the radical Reich Wing. They lie......I dearly love exposing their lies and they really hate it when I do just that.""

So since I disagree with some of what was posted here....

I have been tagged as a radical right winger and hence a liar.

So I am sure that what I wrote at the top of this post will be sliced and diced and you will walk away patting yourself on the backs for being so smart when in reality I simply tried to point out from the very beginning that...

Getting in the gutter with your opponent makes you both smell like turds.

Anonymous said...

DaveDubya wrote: The other side cried fascism over... health care.

To which I would respond. Fascism is prevalent in both parties if you dig deep enough and look hard enough. One striking thought about fascism is the idea that....

A part of what was written at Wikipedia: Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.

Here we can see that solidly in taking over health care in this country. But of course Im a liar so I am lying even though the Fascist Wiki has been rewritten about 300 times since Obama took office in order to paint the right with it solidly.

Yet with Fascism it seeks one party rule. Much like both parties would love to see happen in this country. Today we essentially have one party rule. The GOP is and has been forced to sit out of legislation committees as the democrats write the legislation and the first time they get to see it is when its written and ready for debate.

The Democrats in my opinion have embarked upon a dangerous strategy that will have repercussions for years to come. That is a strategy of passing bad legislation against the will of the majority of the people. In this country if a minority are affected we have usually pushed the problem down the road till the country is ready to address something. Not so now. The democrats have simply embarked upon passing legislation that only a minority favor in this country and so one has to wonder what will the GOP do when they are in charge of all 3 branches?

I suggest they will do the same and that is bad for us all.

As to Weasel deriding me for posting anonymously.weaseldog is your name? DaveDubya is your real name? Do you not see the irony in accusing me of not using my real name?

Having said all that I understand that It does not much matter what I say in response to anything written here because as the sites owner stated:

""There’s something we all know about the radical Reich Wing. They lie......I dearly love exposing their lies and they really hate it when I do just that.""

So since I disagree with some of what was posted here....

I have been tagged as a radical right winger and hence a liar.

Weaseldog said...

Getting in the gutter with your opponent makes you both smell like turds.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke?

As to Weasel deriding me for posting anonymously.weaseldog is your name? DaveDubya is your real name?

I've been posting under this moniker since 2001. Prior to that on forums that no longer exist, I was posting as Weaseldog. It isn't hard to find my real name with a bit of googling. I still occasionlly get emails from folks asking if I'm the same Weaseldog from those earlier periods, so I do have a bit of name brnading going on here.

As anonymous, you can slip in out and deny that you posted other articles at will. We won't know the difference. Those of using registered names don't have that moral flexibility.

i agree with you that both parties are one. And fascist.

I don't have a problem with the concept of passing legislation to benefit in a minority in principle. I have a problem with it when it causes damage to our nation, our economy and the rule of law. Likewise bad legislation intended to look like it's intended to benefit the majority also earns my derision.

You mention Health Care, so is it safe to assume that this is the legislation intended to help the minority?

Let's start with the reality of this legislation. It's a bail out for fat cats in the Insurance industry. Mandated payments to insurance corporations. Tax fines for non-compliance? No real penalties for breach of contract. No real protections for those making the payments. That's a Republican wet dream. It's a giant handout for the rich, while raping the middle class and poor. It's simply a remake of the Republican TARP plan that Bush worked his ass off to pass.

The Healthcare bill has very little to do with Healthcare and everything to do with limiting liability and increasing revenue for the Insurance Corporations.

But to address the theory behind public health care. We've had socialized health care services for over two hundred years in this country. This come from the knowledge the West gained in the Middle Ages that When the poor get sick, everybody gets sick. The Black Death didn't care if you were rich or poor. The wealthy realized that if the poor were healthier, then they themselves were less likely to get sick and die. So the built sewers, started public animal control services, street cleaners, garbage collection and municipal water commissions to insure that drinking water was safe.

These services are socialist health care services. Would you like to see them eliminated?

A good rancher understands that his livelihood depends on the health of his livestock. For some reason, our corporate leaders think that if their workers get sick, everything will be fine. This is what thinking in terms of quarterly goals gets you.

Health care in USA is worse than Poland's now. Our minority groups like the Middle Class and poor, receive worse care than the poor in Poland. And though you'd like to see Health Care for Middle Class and the Poor reduced or eliminated, this end up costing us more in the long run as communicable diseases spread and we start seeing the return of epidemics.

continued...

Weaseldog said...

Our generation has been insulated from the horrors of disease and plagues. But it wasn't that long ago that every American was better acquainted with death from diseases that we treat with a simple pill today.

I believe that your dream of declining health care will come true. We are going to return to the world my grandparents knew. The one were it was common to see children die from diseases we have since 'conquered'. Perhaps you'll see a child in your family die from an otherwise preventable disease because of declining health care standards?

We're in a long term decline. I expect more bullshit legislation and for the media to continue to train the public to stand up and fight against their own interests. And I fully expect that our rulers will continue to do as they please. And they will continue to lie and fool most of us. Just as Obama has done throughout his whole career.

Anonymous said...

Weaseldog

I have not advocated a single position on anything other then to point out how the Democrats put into existence a health care bill against the will of the majority of Americans.

When the government forces upon us anything then they are no longer serving the will of the people but rather are serving their own self interests in the name of the people.

I will see your:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke?

and raise you a:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,

It seems to be your belief that public health care is more characteristic of fascism than the actual definitions. As Wease explained, this version of health care was hardly a "take over" unless you also believe mandated auto insurance is government take over too. Is car insurance fascism??

This is all of course pure nonsense to distract from what real fascism is. We've seen what the GOP does when they were in control.

Real fascism is very much like our last "war president" put us through. Remember "You're either with us or against us," and "Americans better watch what they say"? Fascism is, according to my American Heritage Dictionary, "A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."

If this sounds more like Obama's
health care than the Bush Administration's actions, I'd love to hear your reasoning. I will agree that as much as Obama has embraced Bush policies, he is also perpetuating fascism. Bush made real his alleged comment that the Constitution was only a "Goddamn piece of paper."

And about that health care thing. You do realize the bill's unpopularity wasn't all from the teabaggers. In fact, now as before, most Americans want health care reform. The Right hated it because they hate Obama and wanted him to fail. Same reasons for their obstruction of Wall Street regulatory reform. The people want it. Corporate politicians do not.

The Health Care Reform Bill was unpopular from the left because it had no public option and was a forced gift to insurance companies.

Now that the "death panel" idiocy from the peanut gallery is settled down and not getting 24/7 "news" coverage, public opinion is shifting.

A recent Kaiser poll shows that it's supported by 50% of respondents and opposed by only 35%. And of that 35%, only 27% think it should be repealed right away. The rest think it should be given a chance to work.

I wonder if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are as popular.

Weaseldog said...

Well, it's obvious we have the Health Care bill now, whether we want it or not.

We have no choice but to wait and see.

The sad thing is that the real arguments against it were by the right, and intended to detract attention away from some of the more insidious parts.

This tactic was used all through the Bush administration and it's part of a smart strategy that the Democrats haven't quit figured out.

You put a bunch of stuff in a bill that is outrageous, along with your special interest clauses, then have the media make a big deal out the outrageous parts.

Finally, you agree to take out the outrageous stuff during negotiations, and you've now compromised, and kept the pork that was the point of the bill in the first place. They only lose the stuff they intended to lose to begin with.

Democrats only ask for what they think they'll end up with. So when they negotiate, their bills are stripped, they aren't removing fat and bones, they are getting the meat ripped out of their bill.

Nancy Pelosi reminds us again and a again that Democrats should not ask for more than Republicans will give them. Then they compromise. Republicans ask for the moon, and often get it.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
I'm pretty sure the Dems "bargain" from a pre-compromised position in order to present their shift rightward as the "best we can get". And it is true in a sense. It is not the best the public can get, but the best their corporate sponsors can get in a rigged system under the guise of a political process.

Anonymous said...

No I never said public health care is fascism.

My position is that the Democrats are on record as saying this health care bill is but the first step in universal health care.

Legislate anything onto the books. Once on the books they can regulate Americans to death.

One of the most powerful tenets of fascism is the government control of industry. This health care bill has in its long term design the means to run insurance companies out of business. When that happens the people will have to turn to the government for health care.

Its been their plan for decades and they have quietly been carrying it out in the shadows of government. The problem is that once they came to power in the form of Obama suddenly the lights were turned on and everyone was digging into every corner of the progressive world.

The cockroaches are scurrying. Just as liberals nearly folded over the scrutiny and the right/conservatives have folded in the last 5 years over the scrutiny their policies have brought to light.

America is a forgiving place. But in the grand scheme of things "don't lie to us. don't tread on us"

All of us. Liberals, progressives, libertarians and conservatives. If you do. You will be shot down and your hypocrisy exposed.

To sum up my position. I do not defend big business or corporations. But neither do I defend big government who is even less responsive to its citizens wants and needs and simply tells them what they will and wont have.

Thats not the freedom you seem to be coveting. That is just a different slave master.

TomCat said...

And Cheney is just the top of the list. It was Rumsfeld who brokered the deal through which Saddam first obtained chemical weapons to use against Iran. The CIA under GHW helped finance the formation of Al Qaeda to commit terrorist acts anainst the USSR. Nixon and Kissinger plotted the Chilean coup in 1973 and oversaw the reigh of terror that followed under Pinochet. And I'm just scratching the surface.

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,

Regarding a couple points you made:

“Today we essentially have one party rule. The GOP is and has been forced to sit out of legislation committees as the democrats write the legislation and the first time they get to see it is when its written and ready for debate.”

Where’s the legislation that was not gutted by republicans? Is there one law passed exactly as democrats originally wrote it, or have they been compromising with the GOP only to have them not support anything anyway? I don’t remember Bush’s agenda being so dismantled by Dems. Can you? It sure looked like one-party rule under Bush. It is far easier for the Big Money interests to push a country to the Right than for comparatively dirt poor populism to bring it back towards public service. Besides, the point has been made that we only have one corporate party with two names.

“No I never said public health care is fascism.” Ok, fine. So why is it that’s what it looks like you’re saying here? “Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. Here we can see that solidly in taking over health care in this country.”

Is Medicare fascism? Is Canada a fascist country? Is France fascist? If not, why is public health care fascism here and not there?

“To sum up my position. I do not defend big business or corporations. But neither do I defend big government who is even less responsive to its citizens wants and needs and simply tells them what they will and wont have.
Thats not the freedom you seem to be coveting. That is just a different slave master.”

It seems clear you side with the insurance corporations over government funded health care.

I think it’s a false choice between big business and big government. Too often the two are entwined against the interests of most of the people. Where do Wall Street and the Fed end, and where does government begin? What we have through our system of campaign finance and the lobby industry is corporatocracy. Are you certain a multi-national corporation is more responsive to the people than a government of elected officials?

Ok, maybe you're not a Cheney type Neocon fascist, and more of a Ron Paul libertarian. In that case, do we agree with Paul’s assessment that Obama is a corporatist?

TomCat,
The list of sociopaths is long indeed.

Anonymous said...

First of all I do not side with the insurance companies.

They are not the problem. Doctors, hospitals, clinics, medical devices, drugs etc...etc...are the problem.

Insurance raise their rates because they have to in order to keep up with escalating price hikes by all of the above. If any thing health insurance companies are the only ones trying to keep prices down.

But we all know that it was much easier to demonize one clearly identifiable industry and so Insurance was it. Insurance was a benefit. Not a right. So they made corporate choices that benefited there bottom line.

As for Fascism in the health care bill. It has the the possibility of becoming fascist IF the bill was written in such a way as to cause an entire industry to collapse. IE....Insurance industry. If it was the goal of the government or the democrats to force the insurance industry to crash and burn then its fascist. Right now that is not happening and so I can only say that its possible and in the long term plans of the democrats.

AS to who is a corporatist I believe that nearly all politicians are corporatists. They were raised that way. Big Business/Corporations is who we are as America.

I have no problem with social programs. I even have no problem with health care if its done right. But the democrats in their haste to get something on the books did it totally wrong.

Medicare was estimated to never cost more then 100 billion per year. Its now pushing 2 trillion.

Medicaid is so bad that its forcing states into insolvency.

The government cant do anything right that it touches and so when Obama promises me this will reduce the deficit I can only shake my head and wonder how many people really believe that?

Anonymous said...

As for the health care bill and rewriting it to get it to pass that had almost nothing to do with the GOP.

If you remember there were several Democrats standing in the way including some pro life democrats. There were many groups within the democratic party that were holding up progress on this bill.

Most notably the blue dogs who are sort of moderate who fought for pay go on this deal.

There is no way that we could pass universal health care. Or a public option because it was going to drive every insurance company in America out of business.

An industry that hires literally millions of employees. So yes the The GOP was indeed locked out of the process, while many democrats didnt want to see Hartford's 50,000 employees in his state go on unemployment.

The only bill that the GOP has set in on was the Cap and Trade and they actually worked out a bill that was going to have a slim chance of passing only to have it put on the burner by Harry Reid.

This congress felt as if they could force upon America a mandate. The problem is that Obama wanted one thing and 538 politicans all had their local and state constituents who weren't exactly amenable to Obama's vision, even though many of them might have voted for him.

As it was often parlayed about Obama. He was a great blank canvas and you could pick up a brush and paint him anyway you wanted to.

That is what happened and that is why so many people are now upset with him. Their version of Obama is not the same as someone elses.

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,
Although you’ve said you don’t defend big corporations or side with insurance companies you seem do be doing just that. Something tells me insurance companies would survive even a public option or single payer health care system. There will always be demand for Medicare Advantage, auto, fire, life, homeowners, rent, property, boat, flood insurance, etc. I have a feeling most of those 2.3 million insurance industry jobs will be safe no matter what happens.

You are right about blue dog Dems. They were doing a lot of the Republicans work for them. However, the public option was taken off the table in the beginning as a “compromise”. It seems the insurance business has more senators than any twenty states. And as I pointed out, often the distinction between Big Business and government is difficult to delineate. Not only does campaign and lobby money usurp the people’s right to free speech, the Supreme Court also grants the quality of personhood to corporate entities. Regular people cannot match the unaccountable “super personhood” or wealth of Big Money. Also due to industry insiders in government regulatory roles, and politicians passing through the revolving door from government to lobbying, the system is rigged. It has become very much a government of, by, and for the corporations. And corporatocracy is antithetical to democracy.

I don’t want to get too picky with you on some of your generalizations, seeing as how I’ve been know to be guilty of them myself. However you assume our national identity a little too far with “Big Business/Corporations is who we are as America”. Just because they practically own the government doesn’t mean they are “who we are as America”. I understand where this thinking comes from. Big Money puts a lot of cash and effort into defining what modern Republican conservatism entails these days.

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said, “government can’t do anything right”, especially by those pro-war, tough-on-crime law and order types. The VA, Social Security and Medicare are government run programs that people are well served by and they wish to keep. And my mail always seems to get through as well.

I agree with you about Obama is seen as a blank canvas. Many Liberals think he is one of them, yet he acts like he works for Wall Street through his economic advisors. Teabaggers think he is a Marxist/Commie/Nazi/Socialist largely due to the false and inflammatory rhetoric of the Beck and Limbaugh types. When I first called Obama a corporatist, both sides were wigged out. I owe Ron Paul a little debt for coming to my aid with the same conclusion in that regard.

Obama is pro-life and pro death penalty. He was anti-Iraq War but pro-Afghan War. He talks about the abuses of civil liberties from the Bush Administration, but invokes “state secrets”, supported Bush’s FISA Amendment, and renews the Patriot Act.

Obama really is a centrist working within an institutionalized, right wing engine of empire and corporate profiteering known as the US Government. The public service/welfare state apparatus is under continuous attack and dismantling due to the ravings of the Right.

To the radical Right he is a Socialist. To the Left he is an appeaser to corporatocracy.

Maybe, as they say, “since everybody is upset with him, it means he is doing something right.”

Anonymous said...

As a compromise to whom? The Democrats had 60 votes in the senate and they were all in tow. They were not compromising to the GOP which seems to be your take. Of course we lost Ted Kennedy and so it became 59 votes and then the wrangling began.

The real battle was within the Democratic party.

Because. In the democratic party you have the progressive wing and you have the liberal wing. They are fighting each other behind closed doors and no where was that more evident then in this health care debate.

The liberal wing of the Democratic party is the old school liberals who believe in personal freedoms. The progressive are more interested in the collective. Health care was a collective issue.

Blue Cross, Blue Shield does not sell boat insurance. Nor do a lot of insurance companies.

Where you and I diverge on this is in the outcome somewhere down the road, say 10-15 years.

This bill was written to run health care insurance companies out of business by not addressing the root cause of inflated costs.....Doctors, lawyers, medical devices, hospitals, clinics and drug makers.

So in forcing health insurance companies to cover everyone despite the industry being able to escalate prices without government freezes to curtail inflating prices the insurance industry is in a no win situation.

This health care bill was written by Democrats to bring about universal health care as the final solution. What ever that takes and what that takes is the demise of health care insurance companies because when health care becomes a right and not a benefit then there is no profit in it.

The democrats are not fools. They understand this. Thats why many including Barney Frank and the Daily KOS are on record as telling the progressives to be patient.

this is but the first step to universal health care.

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,

Obama was compromising to both Republicans and conservative Dems. Remember his delusion about bipartisanship? It’s amusing you think the Democratic Party has Liberal and progressive wings, and at the same time agree most politicians are corporatists. Who defined those terms as being different? Liberalism has historically been progressive. What about the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dog “Republicrats”? Are you telling me they are liberal? Are you also telling me progressives don’t care for personal freedoms? Tell that to the women who “small government” conservatives wish to monitor their pregnancies to full term. Tell that to all of us who are outraged by the Bush/Obama tag team assault on our Bill of Rights.

Yes, health care is a collective issue as much as contagious diseases are. What’s the problem with that? War is a “collective” issue. Over-reaching unconstitutional law enforcement is a collective issue. Government itself is a collective issue. People have a valid opinion that health care is a right. Other nations’ people have that right. And since when is having more rights fascism?

You continue to evoke fascism with health care with this, “universal health care as the final solution”. Get a grip. I’ll answer a couple questions you ignored. Canada is not a fascist country. Medicare is not fascism. Universal Medicare is also not fascism. Fascism is the nexus of right wing government and business controlling the economy and political process. Insured working people are bankrupted by health care costs. People die as a result of our health care system’s “profit uber alles” priorities. Fascism is putting the welfare of corporate interests above that of human beings. Just what is so sacred about health insurance corporations? Why are they more important than the citizens of our country?

You’re right about pharmaceutical companies driving up costs. Why is that? Why do we pay more than others for drugs made in America? As I said, corporatism is the opposite of democracy. And democracy is what liberals/progressives believe in.

It appears you work for one of those corporations. If so, it's too bad you couldn’t find honest work instead of profiting from the misery of others.

Who defined those terms, liberal and progressive, as being different? Let me offer you one answer that says progressives are populists, and “liberals” have become stuck in the status quo.

JIM HIGHTOWER: “The difference between a liberal and a progressive is that liberals want to assuage the problems that we have from corporate power. Populists want to get rid of corporate power. An example is what's happening, right now, with the Wall Street reform that's in Washington.”

I’m curious where you got your rather lame “personal freedom/collective” distinctions. It makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

The following are all quotes from sources on the internet. I have not bothered to link them because you will reject them. But they are the reasons I make the assertions that liberals and Progressives are different. Have differing goals and while they might share some idealogies they are different in other areas.

Found in a rant against Glenn Beck who doesnt get it about Progressives:

According to Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman, authors of The Challenge of Democracy, progressivism is “a philosophy of political reform based upon the goodness and wisdom of the individual citizen as opposed to special interests and political institutions.” Liberals, on the other hand, are individuals “who are willing to use government to promote freedom but not order.”

Unlike liberalism, a centuries-old established political philosophy, “progressivism was a reform movement [of the early 20th century] so varied and comprehensive it almost defies definition.”

Progressives stood opposed to robber barons, political bosses, and they believed in expanding democracy, they believed in an open, honest and efficient government, along with corporate regulation, and social justice for the working class.

Some progressives are disappointed with President Obama, who has used markedly liberal policies to end the financial crisis.

Another source and perhaps the most relevant is from the founder of the Progressive Think Tank:

John Podesta one of the leading Progressives of the day defined the difference between liberals and Progressives:

Liberals tend to care more about individual freedom, Podesta wrote, while progressives care more about the public good.

Why is that significant.

President Barack Obama's favorite policy institute, the Center for American Progress, may be the most progressive of all. It uses the term 12 times in its online mission statement.

The founder of course is John Podesta who was Bill Clintons last chief of staff.

Just as their are differences between conservatives so to are Liberals and Progressives different with differing goals.

Weaseldog said...

"This health care bill has in its long term design the means to run insurance companies out of business."

Yeah, I've heard that rumor, the insurance corporations wrote this legislation because they want to be run out of business.

I don't think so.

Sun Tzu in the 'Art of War', makes it clear that deception in all things is the key to winning battles. He advises us to appear to retreat when we are attacking and to appear to attack when we are retreating.

If you have it in you, I suggest that you try to put aside the ideology and much of the partisanship we've all been trained to believe in, and look at exactly what gets accomplished.

The supposed infighting in the Democratic party, somehow leads to the same predictable conclusions, every single time. The corporations win and get their sponsored legislation passed, every time it matters.

Remember, Congress doesn't write their own bills. The bills are written by lobbyists. the insurance industry wrote the Health Care Reform Bill and they paid to get it passed.

You can argue about the ideology and infighting in a party that says they are liberal, and believe that, or you can observe that they pull together and work hard for Republican causes. But it's gonna give you a headache to believe that what they do, has anything to do with what they and others say they do.

But think for a moment, why would the Insurance Corporations write and sponsor the Health Care Bill, if it's going to damage their industry? What would be their motive?

Weaseldog said...

"The following are all quotes from sources on the internet. I have not bothered to link them because you will reject them."

The problem with words about intentions or philosophy is that they mean nothing if no action backs them up.

What both parties do, betrays their stated intent and their stated philosophies. Most of the Republican and Democratic politicians in Washington, spend their days lying about everything.

They don't have policy goals. They simply want money and fame. The lobbyists guarantee this for them, so long as they dance on puppet strings. The lobbyists work to make sure that their clients get lots of pork.


And that's all that matters. How the pork get disbursed is where the creativity comes in.

Anonymous said...

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called the far left in his party the "professional left" saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."


To underscore how his comments created party in-fighting again, some Democratic lawmakers responded negatively to Gibbs' charges.Rep. Ellison, D-Minn. even initially indicated to the liberal website the HuffingtonPost that that he felt Gibbs should be out of his job.

Thats just today. If you don't want to believe that the progressives and the liberals in the Democratic party are not infighting and struggling for power then thats your choice.

As for me. I know what I see and right now the progressives are battling the liberals for the soul of the party.

Even Robert Gibbs acknowledges what I said here.

Dave Dubya said...

Wease,
You are so right. Funny how all politicians campaign on "change", yet after they're elected, do their best to preserve the status quo. A truly progressive politician is a very rare thing.

Anon,
I’m curious why you have not addressed the issue of my Rightie friend’s assertions about the “Evil Weed of Death”. After all, that is the lie he clings to so adamantly, and the example I presented as my case.

I agree there are differences in degrees and attitudes among both liberals and conservatives. This liberal/progressive divide seems to be in quite in flux. I would have trouble trying to differentiate, and I think it is still largely a matter of opinion, more than clear lines of distinction. I might be excluded from both the Liberal and progressive camps by my support of the Second Amendment. I support all the Bill of Rights. So call me whatever you will. One thing I am for certain is pro-democracy and equality, and anti-authoritarian and anti-fascist. Yes, even when the fascist tendencies are in Obama and Democrats.

We see in addition to the example you gave of Podesta's version of liberal/progressive in an article in the Seattle Times, “Still, Podesta wrote that when asked the difference between liberals and progressives, he responds, ‘Call me whatever you want’. “

One thing for certain is the propagandists of the radical right did a remarkable job demonizing the word "liberal".

From that same article we see, "Mary Helms, 54, whose family raises peanuts and cotton in Dothan, Ala., said she knew what a liberal was: "Someone who doesn't have very good morals." And a progressive? "I don't really know anyone who says he's a progressive," Helms said. So she has nothing against them."

"The political gain from shifting to "progressive" is massive, according to the public-opinion research firm Rasmussen Reports. Only 20 percent of respondents considered calling a candidate a liberal to be a positive description, it found. However, 35 percent considered it positive to call a candidate a progressive. Equally telling, 39 percent considered "liberal" a negative, while only 18 percent saw "progressive" as negative."

Mission accomplished.

As for variations of conservatism, I would say the Amish are conservative and my grandmother was conservative, but they are nothing like Dick Cheney. This is why I call the political radical Right “Reich Wingers”. With their war mongering, and fear mongering, they have much more in common with fascists than down home American conservatives. Like the fascists of last century's Germany, Reich Wingers accuse their political adversaries of being traitors, Marxist/Commies and other mortal enemies of the state. Reich Wingers instigate and support unprovoked war. Reich Wingers believe in warrantless surveillance of citizens. Reich Wingers imprison without charges or access to counsel. Reich Wingers accuse a black president of "hating white people". Reich Wingers say Obama was not born in the US and wants to destroy America. Reich Wingers inflame racism, anger and hatred for political opposition. Reich Wingers wear hoods and robes.

As for Nazis in America, and there are those who identify themselves as such, this is the kind of authoritarianism they would embrace. So Cheney and his sort are not Nazis, but his kind would not have been among the poor souls behind the fences in those camps. Reich Wingers may not be Nazis, although some surely are, but they are American fascists. If I considered myself a conservative, I would hasten to distance my political views from the Fourth Reich type of American extremists.

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,
Gibbs is proof the Democratic Party is mostly moderate/right corporatists. Contrary to the propaganda machine of the Right, Liberals/Progressives are a minority in the party.

Anonymous said...

The battle over demonizing liberal worked. So the liberals renamed themselves progressives.

That is why today the battle is raging to rebrand progressives into an ugly brand. More ugly then liberal.

It will work too. The progressives made a horrible mistake in my opinion by seperating themselves from their classical liberal fellow democrats. It shows the real divide within the party.

It was very evident in the health care bill as the classical liberals fought for fiscal responsibility and the right of personal choice in the health care bill while the progressive arm stood its ground trying to get a public option which was there intent of driving the evil corporations out of business.

The fact that the progressives chose to come out of hiding finally now puts crosshairs on their backs by their political enemies which include some pretty powerful people in the democratic party.

Who wins will determine the direction the party goes. It is why you have such a hard time with the Democrats even though your sympathies seem to lie firmly in the liberal camp. Liberals are indeed moderate and look like Republicans compared to hard left progressives.

Weaseldog wants me to believe that Democrats are nothing but Republican clones and to him or anyone who is a hard left progressive that is probably true because classical liberals are much more like their GOP counterparts then they are like progressives.

AS to marijuana. Legalize it. Stop the insanity. We have studied it to death. The people will know the risks and then it becomes their choice to use it or not.

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,

It‘s becoming clear you have strong libertarian inclinations. As such I have more respect for your “rational self interest” , as Ayn Rand would put it, than I do for the ignorant, bible thumping, hateful, FOX-Suckered, Beckerheaded, dittohead “birhter” shills of the radical right. Most of those fools are oblivious to their “rational self interest”. They don’t know they are being used by the corporatists and economic elite to further enrich themselves at their expense.

However you do share certain characteristics with the radical right. One of those is the tactic of muddying issues and debate by redefining words and concepts. You tell us liberals are now moderate, and progressives must now be demonized. We’ve seen the powerful right wing propaganda machine rename the inheritance tax as a “death tax”, and end of life counseling as “death panels”, and of course demonize any and all dissent to the agenda of the economic elite.

One would think if liberals were so bad there’d be no need to demonize them. This speaks to the motives behind the propaganda. It goes without saying terrorists hate America. There’s no need to demonize evil. The truth will suffice. However the Reich Wing’s agenda to demonize liberals/progressives begs us to ask why they would want to do that. They demonize any voice calling for citizen benefits and public services from government. They whine about “tax and spending” and point to the deficit as the reason for ending those benefits and services. Yet they demand tax cuts for the economic elite, no matter that they also add to debt and deficit. This is where “rational self interest” quickly becomes simple selfishness.

The reason is clear. To them it is war. It is a war for power and profit. The aristocracy must indoctrinate members of the working class in order to get them to vote for the politicians who support the interests of the economic elite.

Notice how you frame the demonizing of liberals and progressives as a “battle”. I suppose it’s a “battle” no matter how great the imbalance. Almost unlimited money and power is wielded by the propagandists.

Yes it is class warfare. Warren Buffet admits this and says his side is winning. And of course they are winning. It’s a matter of money and access to media. The Radical Right has its own propaganda network in FOX. There is simply no equivalent 24/7 broadcast television for the left, no matter how much the propagandists whine about the fictional “liberal media”. Liberal media is Mother Jones, not corporate monoliths like GE, Disney, Verizon, or Time Warner.

You mention, “Who wins will determine the direction the party goes.” There really is no question about who wins. As I said liberal/progressives are a minority in the moderate/right corporatist Democratic Party. Big Money wins...all the time. It is their government, not the peoples’ government.

There’s your bottom line.

Weaseldog said...

Anonymous said, Thats just today. If you don't want to believe that the progressives and the liberals in the Democratic party are not infighting and struggling for power then thats your choice.

Politicians will engage infighting and struggle and fight to stay in office. You can view them much as you would a pack of hunting dogs, fighting over scraps of meat and jockeying for position. But when the master comes around, he gets their complete attention.

I volunteer at a big cat rescue center. You'd surprised at how tame many of the cats can appear, so long as you're holding a scrap of meat in your hand. Cats that enjoy charging the fence on me to see if I'll jump, will sit and lie down on command if I'm holding a treat.

Likewise, our typical Washington politicians will pass any bill for cold hard cash, no matter how unsavory it is to their sensibilities.

Anonymous said...

DaveDubya.

Let me use your words against you but not with malice. Only because you confused the hell out of me.

I said....Liberals are indeed moderate and look like Republicans compared to hard left progressives.

You responded at the top and bottom of your post with.....

You tell us liberals are now moderate, and progressives must now be demonized.

And then at the end of your post you say.....

As I said liberal/progressives are a minority in the moderate/right corporatist Democratic Party.

I thought what you said is what I said.

AS to claiming that progressives should be demonized. I said no such thing. I said that is what is going on.

No less so then the left is trying to demonize the Religious Right and the Conservative brand.

That appears to be politics and the Democrats this election season have embarked upon the politics of fear.

IE....if you elect a Republican you will take us back to the Bush years and I think you have layed out rather succinctly what the hard left thinks about the Bush years and their politics of neo-nazism and fear.

Dave Dubya said...

Anon,
First, I'd like to say I appreciate your comments. Neither side’s assertions should go unchallenged.

I see immediately after I brought up your “flexible” definitions as a characteristic of the radical right’s muddying the issues and debate, you responded with an accusation that I “confused the hell” out of you. It’s interesting to see you quickly take up the radical right tactic of projection as well.

Not to use your words against you, but to further substantiate my point, let’s take another look here.

“The battle over demonizing liberal worked. So the liberals renamed themselves progressives. That is why today the battle is raging to rebrand progressives into an ugly brand. More ugly then liberal. It will work too.”

Liberals “renamed themselves progressives”. Which liberals would that be, the “moderate” ones, or just the demonized ones? Why would “moderate liberals” want to call themselves progressives, only to be viciously mauled by the propagandists?

Now I’m the one confused. What I am NOT confused about is your obvious tacit approval of such demonization.

As I said, there’s no need to demonize evil. The truth will suffice. This is why the .0000radical right must resort to dishonest and baseless accusations about liberals/progressives. We are not America-hating, communists bent on the destruction of freedom. Obama is not a “racist who hates white people”. This is their Big Lie, and why I accurately call them Reich Wingers because of such fascist tactics.

This reminds me of Adlai E. Stevenson saying, “I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”

For Corporate America, and thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court, multinational corporations as well, money not only talks, it is also gives them, and their politicians, a huge advantage in “free speech” both in corporate media and in influence on our government over any opposition.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

I said: As I said liberal/progressives are a minority in the moderate/right corporatist Democratic Party.

You said: I thought what you said is what I said.

I say: No, what I said is NOT what you said.

Let’s remember what the radical Right said in response to the Left’s protestations against Bush/Cheney assaults on civil liberties

---

“You have no civil liberties if you are dead.” – Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.” – Senator “Big John” Cornyn, R-TX

“Our civil liberties are worthless if we are dead! If you are dead and pushing up daisies, if you’re sucking dirt inside a casket, do you know what your civil liberties are worth? Zilch, zero, nada.” – Rush Limbaugh
---
I will let this quotation finish my perspective.

“The really dangerous American fascist,… is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power…..

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.” - Vice President Wallace, The New York Times 4/9/44.

Anonymous said...

Okay I get it now.