Swiftboating, HuffyPot Style

Why does Oblahma always wear those wife beater t-shirts that always show thru his starched shirts? He is so ghetto.

Yeah so stupid they sent Hill home. Man they are dumb. Can’t get any dumber. lol

I don’t see the link to this article. I’m aware of all internet traditions, and usually the writer is to include a link to the original article.

Maybe they’ll make it part of their October surprise. Release a ton of dirt on Obama to the public and the MSM and make it impossible for his wankers to rationalize, justify, ignore and excuse them. No sane voter would willingly vote for the Selected One in November.

Shitbag. How does it feel to be a shitbag? Attacking a soldier’s war record is the lowest you can go.

Do you really want to elect him?

If his opponent is George W. Obama — not only yes, but hell yes.

And nice touch about being so concerned about the troops, but a little late. All the military types I know are supporting McCain and scared shitless of Obama getting anywhere near the Oval Office.

did you serve then? If not, shut up! We vets have a lot of respect for him.

Not surprising to attack an American Hero. All things good are bad, truth is lies, love is hate, inside is outside….

Obama’s satanic influence just permeates everything around him…from his apostate church, to the way he treats women, his contempt for women, flipping birds while giving presidential campaign speeches, trying to give Iran credit for the US Military troops awesome job in Iraq, on and on and on it goes.

Nothing he does or will do surprises me anymore, frankly.

Sod Off

Another Obama troll or just a sock puppet?

Go home troll.

From the madras…

I hear he was tops in his Koran studies.

I would prefer that Obama get out of politics completely; it’s obvious he cares nothing about the welfare of his constituents.

If people are outraged at what was done to the Clintons, why didn’t they stop it, and why aren’t they trying to do something about it today?

McCain already has a natural strike against him…his age.

His age? He’s healthy. What’s your problem?
He only has top serve four years and then give it to Hillary.

He survived the Hanoi Hilton for five years of torture.

I think he can survive four years in the White House.

C’mon A. You can’t put this on O anymore than you can put the multitude of crap out there about O’s religion, african relatives, etc. etc. It’s deplorable I agree. There’s wackos in every election that can’t be controlled (see NQ). When the swiftboating and outrageous ads start coming O’s way I’ll bet a dollar to a dime all you’ll get from NQ is just a bunch of cosigners. Hell NQ is already complicit.

No Obama needs to go to jail!!

Wait until Rezko starts singing!!

I find these people trashing McCain’s service absolutely despicable.

They’ll drive every single “maybe Obama” vote AWAY from voting for Obama.

Democrats…..Swift Boating. I never thought I’d live to see the day.

You might want to read some of McCain’’s confinement in A CODE TO KEEP by Ernest Brace, who was held by the North Vietnamese with Mac at various times.

McCain was held by North Vietnamese forces, not VC. A small distinction, probably not all that important to those who weren’t There.

Well, I think progressives is a term for those raised by Republicans in rebellion against their moms. I chalk it up to pressure to go to Harvard, when they were really lucky to get into State.

Now, that is, indeed, a very informal definition.

They’re acting totally within the historical template for Progressives.

Here is an excerpt from a review of a book about Progressives.

IMHO the Progressive movement of the past was a vast assault on our Constitutional government.

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/sandefur-progressives.html

For instance, McGerr notes that the progressivist Walter Rauschenbusch “emphasized the fundamental importance of transforming individual human beings.” He quotes Rauschenbusch: “The greatest contribution which any man can make to the social movement is the contribution of a regenerated personality. . . . Such a man will in some measure incarnate the principles of a higher social order in his attitude to all questions and in all his relations to man, and will be a wellspring of regenerating influences.”

In 1900, such a far-reaching assault on individualism was much more radical than today. Its leaders, therefore, advertised their campaign in terms their target audience would accept: moral uplift; protecting the weak; helping the poor; serving your fellow man. This packaging attracted the middle-class audience, raised on Victorian moralism; Mencken said that Woodrow Wilson spoke to voters in “vague and comforting words — words cast into phrases made familiar by the whooping for their customary political and ecclesiastical rabble-rousers. . . . ” The union of government and altruism — what came to be called the “Social Gospel” — was born. This explains the apparently middle-class origins of progressivism. But the product itself was — as with all socialist movements — built by elites and sold to the people, not the other way around. Despite their frequent invocation of democracy, the progressives were quite un-democratic; their state would be a democracy programmed and operated by experts. John Dewey, for instance, insisted that “the cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy,” but he defined democracy as “that form of social organization, extending to all the areas and ways of living, in which the powers of individuals shall . . . be fed, sustained and directed.” Directed by whom? By Dewey, of course.

The progressives’ moral relativism gave the illusion of democratic values because of its majoritarian style. But in fact, it set the standard of justice as The Rule of the Stronger, whoever that rulemaker might be.

Progressivism transformed democracy from rule by the people into rule by a government elite in the name of the people. As McGerr writes, “In 1908, the Democratic platform demanded, ‘Shall the People Rule . . . ?’ It was a deceptively simple question. Who were ‘the people’ . . . ? It was not obvious at all.” Indeed, “the people,” as used by collectivists, has always meant the rulers, who claim that being controlled by the state is in “the people’s” interest, whether they like it or not. Even the socialist historian Eric Foner criticizes the progressives for being overly confident “that the state could be counted upon to act as a disinterested arbiter of the nation’s social and economic purposes.”

But when their bureaucracy failed to reach this unreachable star, the progressives’ only solution was to further insulate the bureaucracy from public influence. The result of this was a state that was less democratic, not more. As their pursuit of “rational,” disinterested economic planning increased, so too did the exclusion of the voices of the people, who seemed always, to the progressives, to be tainted with “partisan” interests.

Consider also the many exclusionary programs created by the progressives — programs which show that not everybody counted as “the people,” notwithstanding the progressives’ “pull-together” rhetoric. When Theodore Roosevelt said he had to “stop the influx of cheap labor, and the resulting competition which gives rise to so much bitterness in American industrial life,” he was explicitly excluding a vast group of the world’s population from achieving the prosperity and “more abundant life” that the progressives invoked as their aim. In this case, organized labor was “the people,” not the Chinese immigrants.

Legal segregation was another progressive “solution.” The late 19th century saw a rash of lynching throughout the nation — in some years, more than one every other day. “The solution,” McGerr writes, “was a dramatic intensification and codification of segregation. . . . Through differing mixtures of law and custom, every Southern town, city, county, and state tried to achieve two goals: first, to send an unmistakable message of racial inequality that would intimidate blacks and reassure whites: second, to deprive blacks of so much economic and political opportunity that they could never threaten white power.”

In short, the progressives failed to solve the problem they created, which Richard Hofstadter describes as “whether it is possible in modern society to find satisfactory ways of realizing the ideal of popular government without becoming dependent to an unhealthy degree upon those who have the means to influence the popular mind.” They failed because this task is impossible — and because whose influence is “unhealthy” depends entirely on whom you ask. Like all government intervention, progressive “solutions” were subject to the public-choice effect. As government becomes more powerful, as it redistributes more resources to favored groups, the incentives for lobbying increase. Government power then falls into the hands, not of the most deserving, but of the most politically adept. Since the 1900s, political innovations intended to put “the people” in charge have sooner or later been taken over by political elites. And every year’s crop of candidates speechifies that this time, they really will eliminate the “special interests,” and empower “the people” to rule through a new menu of agencies and bureaus.

But progressives had also destroyed their only hope of rescue from government-by-faction when they attacked the concept of natural justice. Progressive political theory laughed at the idea that human beings were naturally free, or that political principles preceded the state. Instead, since “social being determines consciousness,” justice could be chosen a priori and imposed by government: a society was “unjust” if it differed from some preconceived idea of the “good society.” And without any pre-political standard of justice, those shaping society (on behalf of “the people”) were free to choose any standard they wished, and once written into law, it became, ipso facto, justice. The progressives’ moral relativism gave the illusion of democratic values because of its majoritarian style. But in fact, it set the standard of justice as The Rule of The Stronger, whoever that rulemaker might be. This is how progressives justified violating individual rights in the name of “democracy,” even though previous generations had understood that democracy could never legitimately violate individual rights. For Justice Holmes, it was a oxymoron to say that a law was unjust — it was “like shaking one’s fist at the sky,” because “the U.S. is not subject to some mystic overlaw that it is bound to obey.” But without a pre-political standard of right and wrong, how could progressives complain when government was taken over by “special interests”? Moral relativism undermined their appeals to democracy, therefore, even as it enshrined the absolute rule of the majority.

Even rituals like the Pledge of Allegiance — a progressive invention for inculcating national obedience — remain today.

Imposing preconceived standards of justice on society meant a lot of cutting and stretching, and thus progressives saw World War I as “a special opportunity for reform, a chance to promote their agenda at point after point.”

Phear the Progressives

I think Progressive refers to the state of their respective mental illnesses.