Thank You, Kathleen Donnafield

This morning I read an interesting comment to my post Barack Obama – Commodus Reincarnated? So interesting that I believe my response warrants an entirely new post. Here are her comments and my response:

“Commodus was an ancient figure I was doing research on and was astounded to find your post. Since I couldn’t take the time to read what was written at that moment, I decided to come back to the site and read what you had to say, since you were comparing Obama to Commodus. I have to say, after reading your simpleton blather, I have no hope left that you far right extremists will grow a brain.
Not only do you blame Obama for the abysmal mess Dubya left this country in, you try to distort his accomplishments, diminshing them to less than nothing. I find it interesting (to say the least) that he’s proven himself as a very competent and successful Commander in Chief (Duby certainly was anything but) and even though Bush lied America into going to war with Iraq, alledging WMD, all that has resulted in a war-torn state, trillions of dollars in debt (thanks to Dubya), and tens of thousands of Iraq civilians slaughtered. 600,000 jobs were lost under Bush and 200 plus jobs are being created monthly with Obama. For the first time since 1996, factory jobs are being created and the economy is improving. Dubya defrauded the American people with two corrupted elections with the help of Jeb in 2000 and with Diebold voting machines and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004. You far radical right Republicans are creatures of the dark and you will repeatedly lie, with the hope you will somehow be believed. You are nothing short absurd and may you reap what you dish out. I believe in Karmic law!”

Kathleen,

The article wasn’t intended to be a strict representation of facts. It was intended as an opinion piece that draws parallels between Commodus and Obama that I found interesting. With that said, at least I provided examples that illustrate my points which is far more than you did in your comment.

However, since you attempted to provide – and failed miserably at an intelligent rebuttal, I will respond accordingly.
First, with the exception of your subjective “Commander-in-Chief” statement, you provide no counter arguments at all with the actual content in my post. My four main points were:

  1. Lack of Military Training
  2. Currency Devaluation
  3. Narcissism & Elitism
  4. Tipping the Balance of Power (In His Favor)

Instead, you posted a series of rants, inaccuracies and opinions without a single supporting data source. It seems to me that your response is a better example of “simpleton blather”. Here is how I respond it.

“Not only do you blame Obama for the abysmal mess Dubya left this country in, you try to distort his accomplishments, diminshing them to less than nothing.”

Where did I do that in my post? Give me a specific example.

“I find it interesting (to say the least) that he’s proven himself as a very competent and successful Commander in Chief (Duby certainly was anything but) and even though Bush lied America into going to war with Iraq, alledging WMD, all that has resulted in a war-torn state, trillions of dollars in debt (thanks to Dubya), and tens of thousands of Iraq civilians slaughtered.”

Wow! A mixed bag of opinions and inaccuracies – subjective and unsupported. First, how do you measure “competency” and “success”? Those are subjective descriptions. As it is subjective, it ultimately boils down to your opinion versus mine. As I have 19 years of naval service, unless you can meet or exceed that, I’d say that I’m more qualified to make that judgment than you are.

Second, where is your proof that Bush “lied”? That fact that WMDs were not found is NOT proof that he lied. An accurate statement would have been to suggest that he made a poor decision to go to war based on less that reliable intelligence. I would have agreed with you had you done that.

“600,000 jobs were lost under Bush and 200 plus jobs are being created monthly with Obama.”

You must have taken this sound bite directly from MSNBC. Again, no supporting evidence whatsoever. Unfortunately, your assertion has absolutely no basis in fact. Here is that actual unemployment data that I queried directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can run the query yourself at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls.


Year
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12758 12806

In comparing Bush’s numbers (2002-2009) and Obama’s (2009-20120, you can clearly see, that unemployment rose dramatically that year Obama took office and has remained so.

However, you did make reference to one point concerning the “trillions of dollars in debt (thanks to Dubya)”. Here is one point where I can meet you half way. Bush did in fact add trillions of dollars to the national debt and he supported the bailouts. However, there are two key points I’d like to make here:

  1. Unsustainable government spending is not a conservative principle. In your comments, you make several references to “you Republicans”. Nowhere in my post do I claim to be a Republican. This is not a Republican website – it is a conservative website. I criticize unsustainable government spending as a matter of policy – regardless of the political party that initiates it.
  2. In terms of scale, Obama’s spending pales in comparison to Bush’s by a large margin. Bush came into office in 2000 with a $5.6T deficit and left office in 2008 with about $10T in deficits. That works out to $4.4T over the course of an 8-year term. Obama came into office with a $10T in deficits in 2008 and the national debt currently stands at $15.3T. That works out to $5.3T in spending in less than 3-1/2 years.

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

“Dubya defrauded the American people with two corrupted elections with the help of Jeb in 2000 and with Diebold voting machines and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004.”

Again, where is your proof? Furthermore, it’s one thing to suggest that there were voting irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 elections (provided you have supporting evidence). However, suggesting that George and/or Jeb Bush were directly responsible for it is another matter altogether. With that said there are plenty of purported examples of voter fraud to go around (on both sides of the isle) in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. Interestingly, the ACLU (not exactly a right-wing organization) claims “there is almost no voter fraud in America”:

Source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/there-almost-no-voter-fraud-america

“You far radical right Republicans are creatures of the dark and you will repeatedly lie, with the hope you will somehow be believed. You are nothing short absurd and may you reap what you dish out. I believe in Karmic law!”

  1. Again, I don’t claim to be a Republican and this is not a Republican website.
  2. Show me a specific example of where I lied.
  3. If an example of “Karmic law” is the 2010 Congressional election, I agree with you. I may agree with you again in November.

To close, I’d like to thank Kathleen for responding to my post. Like many others before her, she has yet again proven the inability of the folks with left-leaning ideologies to provide reasonable, supported arguments for their positions. And as always, when reason fails, they resort to the same feeble tactics:

  1. Not addressing the actual arguments; instead, diverting the conversation to irrelevant threads of discussion.
  2. Not bothering to provide actual supporting data.
  3. Finally, resorting to ranting and name-calling.
Share

Comments

  1. Thanks, Andy.

    What is striking is that your original post and follow up comments stands in stark contrast to Kathleen. You present your opinions and arguments and back them up with calm and reasonable facts.

    Kathleen presented a temper tantrum.

    The more of these posts, the better. Conservative people are validated at every turn and independent-minded people are shown the weight of conservative arguments, as well as the tone of the argument.

    The more liberals who lash out, the better we’ll do in the upcoming elections.

  2. I just re-read this and had to add…

    A favorite quip of Chris Plante… “…debating a liberal is like chasing a squirrel around the backyard with a tennis racket.”

    I think that’s what you meant by #1 in the last ordered list… :-)

  3. You want to understand the Liberal’s mode of debate. Then read this fable by Aesop. http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/aesop/bl-aesop-wolflamb.htm

    There is nothing wrong with making historical parallels. Your observations made good sense. After all, tyranny is nothing new, and the weaknesses that have made mankind susceptible remain within these generations. Thus, I have also blogged on the historical parallels.

    Here I compare what we are experiencing to the fall of the Roman republic.
    http://citizentom.com/2009/01/22/the-moral-choice-between-capitalism-and-socialism-%e2%80%94-part-5/

    Here I draw upon the work of a historian, Empire of Gold: A History of the Byzantine Empire by Professor Thomas F. Madden. http://citizentom.com/2008/08/15/mccain-nation/

    The more things change, the more they remain the same. — Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr from http://greatthoughtstreasury.com/?q=node/188220

  4. Excellent, Tom. Thank you! I liked your post re: the Roman Empire.

    For those too lazy to click:

    WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf’s right to eat him. He thus addressed him: “Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.” “Indeed,” bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, “I was not then born.” Then said the Wolf, “You feed in my pasture.” “No, good sir,” replied the Lamb, “I have not yet tasted grass.” Again said the Wolf, “You drink of my well.” “No,” exclaimed the Lamb, “I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.” Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, “Well! I won’t remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.”

    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

  5. Kathleen Donnafield says:

    Andy; comparison of Obama to Commodus was just a silly little fairy-tale; nothing more. Commodus ruled as emperor from 180 to 192 AD, was a ruthless tyrant, slaughtered any who fell out of favor with him, brutally killed thousands of animals, and emotionally cared for no one long-term. I really got quit a chuckle from your statement; “The article wasn’t intended to be a strict representation of facts.” I have to say, your comment was reminiscent of the follow-up after Senator Jon Kyl made a blatantly false accusation, stating that 90 percent of all women who walk into Planned Parenthood are going to the clinics for an abortion. When reporters attempted to contact Kyl, members of his staff produced the same impotent response you provided in rebuttal to my post, again; “The article wasn’t intended to be a strict representation of facts.” You and ole’ J.K. are great for not “intending” to be relevant.

    I do my research Tom, and my argument was based on fact and logic, despite your own illogical blather refuting what I posted. Let’s face it; Obama inherited a disastrous economic mess from George W. The fact Obama is bi-racial with quite a number of vile epithets attributed to him by the Republicans, he’s had to work harder than any President preceding him to get any bill passed by the totally ineffective, ‘hell no’ GOP party.

    You proved nothing; you provided links, but you at least should make an attempt to be factual if you wish to appear somewhat historically well-read when attempting to position yourself as an authority on Obama, or Commodus, for that matter. I’m so glad you have your little recruit Harry to help you in an attempt to bolster your inane ramblings against Obama. My, my Andy; I dare say if a white man were in the White House, Democrat or not, and the situation were exactly the same, you probably wouldn’t have posted your farcical little tale about two men, separated by vastly different personalities, circumstances, and, thousands of years.

  6. Classic. Thank you for being the quintessential liberal.

    1. You claim to base your arguments on “fact and logic” yet you provide not a shred of supporting evidence in your comment.
    2. You state that “Obama inherited a disastrous economic mess from George W”, to which I agree with to some degree, yet conveniently leave out the following (a small sampling from a very long list):

    a. Barney Frank’s role in the housing bubble (http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html)
    b. The widely held view by the majority of small businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that this administration’s policies are detrimental to small business growth and prosperity (http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/14/news/economy/obama_jobs/index.htm).
    c. GWB increased the debt $4.9B over an 8 year period. Obama has (so far) increased it $6.5B in just 4 years.

    3. And the “Piece De Resistance”: When all else fails (because you have no valid arguments), you throw baseless accusations of racial bigotry on my part.

    Thank you for reinforcing the “classic” liberal point of view and I encourage to continue to post comments on this site.

  7. Kathleen Donnafield says:

    Ah shucks Andy; I’m so humbled by your graciousness, but you’ve again provided links that show what a hard-core right winger you are. The Chamber of Commerce has no interest in the middle class or poor of this country and to tout them as an authority on anything relevant to fact, is well, just absurd. To be precise, the good (I say ‘good’ in jest, lest you misinterpret my intent) ‘Chamber’ aligns itself with powerful corporations who out-source American jobs. This corrupt entity flooded the airwaves with bogus ads about Obama, attempting to persuade Americans to vote for Romney. They also rallied around the U.S. Supreme Courts unprecedented decision in making law instead of interpreting it with “Citizens United” (what a contradiction in terms, Citizens “United”). So Andy, I’ve come to realize you are willing to go to some lengths to prove you are right about Obama, and that I’m wrong, but you’ve proven absolutely nothing. Here’s a link for you: http://propagandaprofessor.net/tag/presidential-debates/
    As far as Forbes magazine is concerned; again a ‘conservative’ rag where journalists write articles trying to cast blame for all of America’s social ills on Obama, as well as Democrats in general, there is nothing they’ve written that is not anything other than fodder for their lap-dogs on the right. I also know that Alan Greenspan and his cronies on Wall Street were responsible for the housing bubble, so you can ‘try’ as you will to place blame with Democrats (in particular, Barney Frank), which has no merit.
    Even the Economist, Andy, endorsed Obama for President because Romney had no credibility or serious political potential as leader of ‘the free world’. In fact, as we all know, Romney has done a free-fall into political oblivion because of his ‘any position’ rather ‘a position’ on virtually all national and international issues debated and discussed during the 2 years leading up to the 2012 election. You right-wingers should all be embarrassed that you backed a candidate that the media refused to report anything that was not flattering. Yet, Republicans continue to portray the media as “Liberal biased”, which is laughable, at the very least.
    Your numbers are skewed Andy, and anyone paying attention to the political foibles of Washington politicians know that Bush was able to keep a great portion of his spending from the figures included in the national debt by borrowing as ‘emergency funding’. Furthermore, Bush initiated the 700 billion Wall Street bailout which the Dodd-Frank Act authorized 431 billion (remember Henry Paulson, George’s good buddy?). You continue writing fairy-tales Andy and I will continue to derive great pleasure to the extent of which you are proving yourself to be a fool. To be clear, I would much rather be identified as a devotee of MSNBC than the farcical Fox News (“News” which is another contradiction in terms). You are little more than a purveyor of fantastical writings which should be cataloged as ‘fiction’.

  8. Ugggh.

    Well, I guess you can’t fix stupid.

    There’s a good reason for the lack of fresh posts lately. I’m exasperated. Yes, I think that’s the right word.

    Here we’ve had four years, four full years, of trillion to trillion and a half dollar deficits. Four years without a budget. And we have people who are carping about Bush??? That Grover Cleveland, now HE was a piece of work, that bastard!

    So, exasperation sets in.

    As long as there are people who think Bush is STILL the problem; as long as we have people who think confiscating more earned wealth will grow the economy; as long as we have people who think the government should provide cradle to grave entitlements; as long as we have people who believe in the notion of static class; as long as we have people who think there is a finite pool of money in the world…. as long as all these things exist in any number… we’re doomed.

    I think there are a good many people like me… Those who see the obvious problems and the obvious solutions, but are called racist, bigot, misogynist, homophobe, backwater yokels for explaining them. So, we’ll go about our productive lives while those like the sycophantic subject of this piece flippantly go through life having subjugated themselves without even knowing it.

    Sigh……..

  9. Kathleen Donnafield says:

    I understand the “sigh” Harry, and so appropriate your words “well, I guess you can’t fix stupid”, because you are a classic example what can’t be fixed. But not to worry Harry; there will be more Democratic Presidents for whom to place virtually all blame for America’s failings. I know you will be ready and willing to make yourself the sacrificial Conservative lamb to be the first over the metaphorical cliff of Progressive condemnation. You weren’t one of the fellas in the “Caucus Room” plotting Obama’s political demise, were you?

  10. Kathleen Donnafield says:

    Btw Harry; I’m sure the reason the time span in responding was it took you that long to read through the link I sent you. I’m willing to give you the benefit of doubt (which is far more than what you’ve extend to Liberals) and say only in closing; congratulations Harry!

  11. Another sigh.

    What seems so lost on you fools is that you think this is about a president, or blaming liberals for something….

    You’re so blind.

    This is about freedom or tyranny. It is about what the Republic was, is and what it should be.

    So, one of my favorite Mark Levin sayings… Get lost you big dope.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Thank You, Kathleen Donnafield from To Be Right!: Harry answers a critic. [...]

Speak Your Mind

*