As if it wasn't already obvious, Harris is off his nut. He begins his take-down of Obama with claims of manufactured outrage over a radio pundits manipulatuion of Islamophobia, supports the Islamophobia, and then asks, 'so what's the big deal'? He even claims:
despite renouncing and rejecting Nation
of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in a recent debate, Obama stopped short
of saying he rejected Farrakhan's description of him as “the hope of the entire world," and specifically said he would prefer Nation of Islam supporters voted for someone else.
Now, if you can parse that sentence, it appears that Mike is saying that it isn't enough that Obama renounces allegiance to Farrakhan, but that Obama is required to start telling people what they are allowed to say in his behalf and who they should vote for (not him). Does that strike you as retarded, 'cause it definitely looks retarded to me. Usually, people who advocate such anti-American sentiments are called traitors, but I think we can forgive Mike for just being 'nucking futz'.
Mike then goes off another tangent about how all the ridiculous and stupid attacks against Obama started with (*GASP*) Democrats. Yeah, so? Political enemies attacked Obama stupidly, so that makes it okay for other political enemies to attack Obama stupidly. Apparently, Party affiliation is only sacrosanct to those who feel party affiliation is everything ... go figure. That is a rather lame projection to justify poor thinking by claiming others did the same first. Perhaps Mike isn't insane, but just regressing into an 8 year old. Time will tell.
Mikey then reverses himself, yet again, and then berates McCain for not embracing the attacks that Mike just said don't really matter, even though they do. To Mike, one shouldn't apologize for an attack that really wasn't an attack unless it came from a Democrat, and then it was an unfair attack. Man, I get a headache trying to keep up with this kind of psychosis.
Oh, and Mike? McCain isn't a Maverick, he is a political liability, and he's going to lose. Get used to it, and try not to slobber when you realize the weakness you endorse.
Mike then goes all off about how you can't call Obama a liberal (but he really IS!!!!!one!). He uses an article from the Boston Globe to 'prove' his point.
One of the more appealing innovations of
Obama's campaign is the way the candidate ends his stump speeches by
running through the arguments against him: too young, too new, too
naive, too trusting. Speaking before thousands of cheering young
supporters in the Texas capitol, Obama added another: too liberal.
Notice, please, that the Globe, while trying pathetically to claim that Obama tells you what you can call him, actually recognizes that Obama repudiates what people *do* call him. Obama's words:
"Oh, he's liberal, he's liberal," Obama said, mimicking his critics.
"Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to
reduce money in politics. That is common sense. There's nothing liberal
about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when
they come home . . . . There's nothing liberal about wanting to make
sure that everybody has healthcare. We are spending more on healthcare
in this country than any other advanced country, but we've got more
uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make
sense, and we should so something smarter with our healthcare system."
Damn. It looks to me as if Obama is telling the truth. What is implied by Mike's psychotic label of 'liberal' really has nothing to do with what Obama says, does it? Just like it's no big shakes that Obama's middle name is HUSSEIN!!!!DIE US DOGS!!! At no point does the Globe show Obama saying that you can't call him a liberal, only that you are wrong if you call him that pejoratively. That's called fighting back, something a weenie like Mike Harris poorly understands (except as regards the weenie he's going to vote for in McCain.)
The really fun part is the last few paragraphs where Mikey displays his ignorance and starts pulling anti-communist rhetoric right out of his ass.
He's an old-time socialist. Very little of the stuff that he says he's going to do, his policies, will ever happen.
Mike knows this how?
You go out, you try be a young person,
you try to get a job under President Obama. He wants to increase the
minimum wage and index it to inflation. You want to blast young people
right out of the job market, do the Obama plan. Good-bye high school
and college jobs for kids, good-bye entry-level jobs.
This has been unproven, time and time again in the real fricking world.
So will Barack step up and give our tax
money to those he puts out of work? Yeah. Because it's never going to
be his fault. It will be the evil Republicans in Congress who have no
compassion...think the SCHIP debate!
Sorry Mikey, but your Republicans in Congress are going to be in a such a *HUGE* minority that they will have plausible deniability.
He wants to manage upper-end wages, CEO wages.
GOOD! I'm tired of my investments giving huge bonuses to people who lead companies into the red.
He wants socialized medicine, to expand unions, empower teachers unions. All of this stuff is Marxism when you boil it all down.
Even copying that comment caused the froth to splatter the inside of my computer screen. Mike hasn't a fucking clue what he's talking about but he'll rave at you just the same. COMMIES!!! BEWARE!!!
These are all old ideas, old regressive
progressive ideas that have failed, and Obama is a young, naïve man who
apparently holds tight to failed old ideas. But the cool thing about
being a liberal progressive is that they're like a Trojan Horse, who have to shield their agenda from you, the suckers.
There you go, people. Mike the psycho, has just called you all idiots because you don't agree with him. I'd call this a desperate attempt at elitism, but I'm laughing too hard.
How far would Obama get if he actually
came out and said that he want's to nationalize health care, raise
taxes to confiscatory levels on the "filthy" rich (i.e. who make more
than $75,000 a year) preemptively surrender in Iraq, and flood the
country with illegal aliens and then turn them into citizens in a
transparent attempt to get votes and keep the the nanny state solvent?
This is where Mikey proves that he knows absolutely nothing about Obama's health care proposals or tax plans or the War On Terrified Americans. Obama has clearly stated his plans for health care, and unlike Clinton, he has gone for opt-in. Where he has a commie mandate is for kids. NANNY STATE!!! Excuse me, but humans have employed nannies for our children for going on 10 thousand years. Calling Obama a 'nanny statist' for insuring our young is a complement. Repealing the tax cuts for wealthy Americans is well favored. Since the tax cuts were offered 8 years ago, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and incomes for those who work for a living have flatlined. Now, Mike, having inherited wealth that he turned into more wealth, obviously thinks that having to pay more is heinous ... to him! Too bad. It isn't socialism, it's Democracy, and Mike only wants to cloud the issue with sympathy for himself and fear of that very bad thing. I think that behind that very bad thing are self-serving head cases like Mike, and I'm not alone in that. Too bad, Mikey. The country has given you a lot, and now it's in debt and need. Your ante is again required. Pay the fuck up.
As for the great Crusade in Iraq, over 65% of the country now see it as a vanity war that saps resources from the real WOT. Mike has issue with Obama ... why? Because Obama won't put Israelis before Americans? I really don't get what the hell he's on about, here. He'll have to explain it through the haze of his obvious foaming nuttiness. And the illegal alien thing? It's pretty definite that Mike pulled this terror fantasy right out of his ass, 'cause that just hasn't been real important on the Democratic side . (GO GO TANCREDO!!!!) But nevertheless, Mike is going to vote for a guy who's immigration policies are as or more liberal than Obama's. I can only assume that's because his wife told him to.
What really pulls all this together, and establishes Mike as a fruitloop, is the comment left to his website that Mike hasn't "repudiated or refuted". I print it here, since this post might actually shame Mike into action:
If anyone is a racist it’s Obama. He belongs to a black separatist
church which only ascribes to black values and Africa. They revere
Louis Farrakhan. The pastor is anti-white. If he is elected, white
people will become second class citizens. Are you for that? Also
Obama is a world socialist controlled by the CFR and Zbigniew
Brzezhinski. He will go to war in Darfur, Pakistan, or any other place
they tell him to. This article below proves that he’s merely a tool
for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to
fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to
other countries. “A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty
Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack
Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the
imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has
the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S.
foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.” “The
bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set
out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly
Resolution 55/2 (2000).” “In addition to seeking to eradicate
poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and
light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the
International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming
treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.” An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA. In one of Obama’s campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it! Read the rest here: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml “MANAGUA,
Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in
Nicaragua, says Barack Obama’s presidential bid is a “revolutionary”
phenomenon in the United States.” Yeah, the Marxist Revolution. Judge the man by the company he keeps. He’s a dangerous empty suit.
Go Ron Paul! The only real conservative -- still solvent, still in the race.
There you go. Mike Harris, Ron Paul supporter.
And he thinks that Obama is the racist. And just for the record, GeeGuy, you know better than to endorse this kind of incredible crap.
Update: Since Harris seems oblivious to the obvious, I think I need to point out directly that requiring him to own or repudiate the insanity of his commenters is exactly *his* argument. His refusal to do so means either that his argument about Obama is crap (it is) and/or that Mike is a wailing hypocrite. But at least it clarifies who the real wannabe-martyr is here.
He establishes his 'hypocrite' cred when he posts from an email I sent him, after getting all up-in-arms for claiming that I posted "private" emails from him. I've never done that. Convenient morality you got there, Harris.
I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the
functionality is limited. My 5 year old son pointed out that the
passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly
fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the
detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said
"that's the worst security ever!". But it turned out to be okay,
because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to
hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who
only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the
The best thing about this product is that it teaches kids about
the realities of living in a high-surveillence society. My son said he
wants the Playmobil Neighborhood Surveillence System set for Christmas.
I've heard that the CC TV cameras on that thing are pretty worthless in
terms of quality and motion detection, so I think I'll get him the
Playmobil Abu-Gharib Interogation Set instead (it comes with a cute
little memo from George Bush).
Personally, I'm holding out for the Lego Don't Tase Me, Bro' Town Hall Meeting set, with realistic spittle action and Reactionary Police Prudence Manual.
Johnson's letter did not spring from a vacuum. It is rather in response or as a political addendum to an "extra-session" resolution/petition from the Montana legislature, signed by such level-headed notables as Joe Balyeat, Roger Koopman and Rick Jore.
Three times at work today, I had conversations with those following the Iseman- McCain story. The conversations all had the typical earmarks of a poor media inspiring poor knowledge. 'The New York Times had no proof', 'It's a smear campaign', 'Why release the news now unless you're a yellow bellied liberal outfit which hates the nation' ... yada yada.
I take this kinda stuff well in stride. I rarely talk politics at work, and when I do, I concentrate on instruction, not on ideology. But the biggest surprises today were the outcomes of all three conversations. They all ended at approximately the same point.
Yeah, Really. In fact, he had several affairs on his first wife, Carol. None of my coworkers knew. I'm not certain that they believe me even now. But John McCain has a history of mixing his desire for tail with his political and financial ambition. The allegations, which to them seem so much like media contrivance, to me seem like business as usual for Maverick McCain.
In fairness, 2 of my working peers did ask me,
'Why haven't I learned any of this from the media?'
Understanding that that query has several answers, I can say this ... You know, that's a damn fine question.
One of the nice things about growing up in Montana is that I've been around a whole bunch of East coasters, especially New Yorkers. I could write at length about their affectations, not the least of which is their idea that the city is the end all-be all of American culture. But what impressed me the most was their ability to pinpoint an asshole at 1000 yards.
It took me some stupid emails and some really asinine posts to figure it out, but yeah. Mike Harris ... what a fuhkin asshole.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a strong military defense of the nation. But just exactly when the hell did it become the government's job to protect *me*? Last time I checked, that would be ... never.
Jack the Blogger points out exactly what is wrong with the thinking of security fetishists. Throughout his dim indictment of the leftiness displayed by Jon Tester, JtB consistently conflates and confuses the role that our government was meant to play in defense of the country with personal protection. The Constitution spells out fairly clearly the need for a standing Army providing for defense of the nation. No where do I remember it calling for intelligence services required to save his or my ass.
Regardless of how anyone feels personally about the issue of prevention = defense, or civil rights trumping a need to feel safe, JtB has one thing very very wrong. So many of us who voted for Jon Tester (which I strongly doubt JtB did) voted for him specifically because he saw the dangers inherent in relinquishing freedoms for a (false) sense of security. That's not a 'liberal' issue or a 'conservative' issue. That's an American issue that has been with us since before the War for Independence. Pretending that Jon Tester, who wants to bring down loose FISA standards, the MCA and the Patriot Act, is a 'liberal' who cares nothing for personal security ... well, that's going to be a very hard sell in the state of Montana. JtB seems to forget that Tester *won* the election, based in no small part because of his resistance to the encroachment of governmental control. But I wish JtB well in the pretense. After all, I consider such illusion to be an insult to the people of Montana, and a plaintive cry for us to surrender what bravery we value most. So, seriously, good luck with that, Jack.
As the season progresses and I read my 4 millionth "I CAN'T POSSIBLE
VOTE FOR AND/OR SUPPORT CANDIDATE X" post/diary it's useful to remind
us all that presidential politics is not a contest to woo your little
narcissistic self, it's a contest to get 50%+1 of the electoral college
And most people do little to "support" any of the
candidates. Many do, of course, give money and time. But most don't. It
takes away from all that time spent bitching about the world online.
being said, you are free to stay home and not vote. You are free to
withhold what time and money you may have otherwise been willing to
give for a different candidate. But nobody gives a shit. It's not about
The notorious MarkT might wish to pay particular attention to paragraph 2 next time he goes off about his disdain for Democrats 'supporting' useless candidates who aren't *really* Democrats because they don't agree solely with him.
And one helluva lot of Republicans out there might want to remember how embarrassed they feel having screamed at the top of their lungs that they WILL NEVER VOTE FOR THAT AWFUL McCAIN!!! now that they're twisting in knots to justify their intent to vote for that awful McCain. As if anybody thought they would do any different than vote for whatever Republican got foisted on them in the first place. As if anybody but themselves truly gave a shit.
And that's really the problem. Bold and absolute pronouncements serve no one, (unless that one is God). I have attempted to remind some of my fellow Democrats of that fact as regards Senator Clinton. Some appeared to have listened. That's a good thing.