Repub claims "Liberals hate real Americans who work hard, believe in God!"

So, children, what have we learned so far from the Republicans? Of course, we already knew that Real Americans live in small towns. Now we can add to this knowledge the fact that Real Americans aren’t liberals – or at least, liberals aren’t Real Americans. Liberals also don’t work hard, and liberals don’t believe in God. Plus? Liberals hate “real Americans” for doing all of the above.

Where am I getting this from? Here’s the story. Continuing the rightwing’s vicious attack on … well, anyone who doesn’t fit their narrow view of what is Good and Right and Real and American, a North Carolina rally for McCain on Monday opened as follows (warning! irony overdose may result after reading the below quote!):

After this account was published in the Godless Commie Fake American City Observer – whoops, sorry, I mean the New York Observer – Rep. Hayes vociferously denied having used these words.

Later, when this story was repeated in Politico’s The Crypt, the blogger followed up with other reporters who were there, and sure enough, they said they heard it, too. Hayes’s spokesperson denounced the blog as irresponsible journalism.

Alas, Hayes apparently never heard about this newfangled invention called AUDIO. (You can hear it in the link in the above paragraph; scroll down to the little audio controls at the bottom of the post.)

Confronted by irrefutable evidence, Hayes now admits that he said it, but claims he doesn’t remember saying it, and he was just trying to pump up the crowd.

I must say that this is a good defense. Republicans are great at pumping up crowds these days! Whipping up hatred and racism and even violence is just an unfortunate side effect, I guess.

Is there any doubt that this is an intentional part of the narrative that the Republicans are trying to sell us: Small town good, big city/liberals bad? South/Midwest good, Northeast bad? Class warfare bad, geographical/ideological/religious warfare good? Palin apologized for her crap, but I’m sure Republicans will continue their hate-flinging, divisive ugliness, because that’s pretty much all they’ve got left.

Well, Der Trihs hates Americans who believe in God. Does that count?


Politician says something stupid to appeal to their supporters. Nothing new here. Ask Obama about “spreading the wealth around” and “making the rich pay their fair share.”

Hmmm? Poly looks at résumé, assorted Bibles and other religious readings

Wait a minute! You mean, I’m not eligible to be a liberal? Why don’t people tell me these things?

I’m sorry, Rand, you seem to have confused ‘stupid’ with ‘divisive and hateful’. Here, let me get you a new dictionary.

Its OK, you can still be a radical. The Boss was.

I do not think that asking for payback from a group that is benefiting more with the bailout is the same as asking for hatred to liberals, liberals that include people that are also rich BTW.

I don’t even know why I’m bothering with the AynBot, but let’s take a stab at it…

How can you seriously equate “spreading the wealth around” with crap like “Liberals hate real Americans” who “believe in God”? There’s ‘stupid’ (arguable to call Obama’s words that, but whatever) and there’s divisive bullshit intended to foster hatred, bigotry and emnity towards half the country just because they don’t believe the same things Republicans do.

If you don’t see a difference you’re even scarier than your posting history here has led me to believe.

The two statements from Obama I posted most definitely qualify as divisive and hateful. Also, people who make over $250k per year are a much larger group than those that do not believe in god, so Obama’s statements arguably bring the hate on more people.

As some people love to point out, not everything I think or say comes from Ayn.

Well, guess I’m a proverbial shithouse rat then. Obama hates rich people. Many of his supporters do too. What’s even worse is that he’s running for a position with the power to enforce his ideas. Palin can’t make anyone act like a “real American” or believe in a god.

The bottom line is that the speech is just bullshit that would of course be offensive to people that prefer a different brand of bullshit. To me, saying"we need to spread the wealth around" is as offensive as someone calling Obama a nigger.

Even granting your (dubious) point, those who make $250K a year are most certainly not a larger group than liberals, who are the group being maligned here. So, no, sorry, Hayes and Palin and Bachmann are attacking a way bigger group. (As if it fucking matters; your definition of “hateful” and “divisive” is hilariously wrongheaded anyway.)

Well, it’s official. You’re batshit insane and a frightening individual.

Ah. OK. Makes sense. I retract my earlier statement.

OK, whatever. How much of Ayn’s stuff have you read?

Republicans are obviously kind only to those who have duly earned the right to kindness. It’s not something you’re born deserving, it’s something you have to work for. That’s what were coming to.

I beg to differ. We hate the homeless, apparently.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Households with a pre-tax income of over $250K constitute nearly the top 5% of all American households. Atheists, agnostics and others with no theistic religious beliefs constitute about 14% of the US population.

So even if you’re comparing only the numbers of the super-rich and the non-theists, as opposed to the super-rich and liberals in general, it is still flat-out wrong to say that the super-rich are “a much larger group”.

And the idea that proposing to raise taxes on the small percentage of taxpayers who qualify as super-rich is the same thing as “hating” them is simply ludicrous. The super-rich have seen their incomes increase immensely over the past few decades, while the incomes of the non-wealthy have stayed steady or declined. In an economic crisis like the present one where more tax revenue is desperately needed to keep us from bleeding ever more of our resources into servicing our ballooning debt, a small tax increase for the super-rich is the most practical and least painful way to start getting our finances in order again.

And I don’t hate rich people and don’t want them to suffer. I support a moderate tax increase on their incomes precisely because I don’t think it will cause them to suffer. As Warren Buffett himself points out, he can afford to pay a little more in taxes, and so can the other top-bracket taxpayers; it won’t hurt them. If I thought Obama’s plan would do something that would genuinely hurt the super-rich, I wouldn’t support it.

That’s completely false. He thinks that they should do more financially to support the country.

Really. A populist slogan is as offensive as a racial epithet with a horrible history in this country.

Okay, so how would a person express that idea using language that you’d find inoffensive?

:rolleyes: Then you are crazier than a shithouse rat. A reasoned proposal to make the federal tax system a little more redistributive, based on reasonable arguments about the benefits of widespread prosperity that are endorsed by most mainstream economists, is not remotely comparable in offensiveness to attacking somebody with a derogatory racial epithet.

This is just another example of how far some right-wingers, particularly of the libertarian-extremist variety, have become divorced from the world of reality. Talk about the alleged “offensensitivity” and “victimhood” propensities of liberals! These posturing loonbots like Rand Rover who consider it appropriate to respond to a tax policy proposal that they happen to disagree with as though it were a filthy racist slur are the shrillest, prissiest offenderati of them all.

So you’re saying poor people don’t deserve any help? I hope you end up on the street, and we’ll see how you feel about it then.