Don’t call them stupid!

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011 @ 1:05 am | Clueless Conservatives

Mean Chris Matthews, lambasting Michelle Bachmann for saying the Founding Fathers ended slavery and the big Tea Party honcho who can’t help but run cover for her.

Republicans really hate when you call them stupid, and the last thing that matters is whether or not they were actually being stupid. They just run to their friends and talk about how mean liberals are and swear to get revenge at the ballot box. Maybe they can, but the result is rewarding stupidity, and it’s coming from the party that says it’s about personal responsibility. But they say all sorts of stupid things, that turn out not to be true, don’t they? And the supposedly smart ones like this Sal Russo are ever too cowardly to push back against the maroons on their own side.

-hw

18 Responses to “Don’t call them stupid!”

  1. AJKamper Says:

    They don’t hate being called stupid. It just underscores the anti-intellectualism they’re peddling. They have to LOOK like they do, but in fact they think they score points in their base when people who care about, you know, truth keep calling them out on this crap.

  2. mike Says:

    Poor bastard. You could almost feel sorry for the guy.

  3. liberal shark Says:

    Wow, you guys just parrot Matthews’ inaccuracy. Try actually paying attention to the video you posted. Play it again, everything Bachman said is accurate. She did NOT say our Founding Fathers ended slavery, that’s what Matthews said she said, but that’s not accurate. John Quincy Adams, a forebearer (key word), was taught by our Founding Fathers to work tirelessly to bring an end the slave trade. Guess who John Quincy Adamas passed that torch to?

    It’s you liberals that have no concept of history.

  4. Henry Whistler Says:

    She said, “…the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

    No, they didn’t. Many owned slaves, few did more than acknowledge later in life that slavery was wrong. And saying “forebearer” in the sentence after “founder” is really clumsy at best, since “forefather” is a synonym.

    One of them had a kid opposed to slavery. Weak!

  5. liberal shark Says:

    Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society.

    Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery.

    Founding Father John Jay (Liberals don’t talk much about him, gee, WHY is that? Could it be because he is yet ANOTHER Founding Father disproving the bogus liberal notion that all Founding Fathers were rich white slave owners?) he also opposed slavery and helped to found the first African free school of New York City and the New York Manumission Society. As the Governor of New York, he signed into law the statute ending slavery in that state.

    Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Federal Convention (the framing of our Constitution for those of you who live in liberal la-la land), just 12 owned or managed slaves.

    The U.S. Constitution is an anti-slavery document.

    So yes, our Founding Fathers worked tirelessly towards getting rid of the slave trade. They put things in motion for it to happen. They gave that torch to John Quincy Adams and others, who handed that torch off to Abraham Lincoln.

    Bachman accurately gave a brief history lesson. It’s pathetic that liberal talking heads like Matthews want to play semantic games (and then you perpetuate his nonsense by parroting the crap). I guess you fools don’t even realize that Matthews did what he did either because he’s just that ignorant, or he wants the ACCURATE history lesson swept under the rug. You liberals want to ignore the history lesson, as it conflicts with your agenda (The Founding Fathers were all rich white men with slaves).

    Matthews doesn’t care to know his history, and you parroted his bogus complaint thinking you were ‘scoring one’ against conservatives on your liberal blog. But all you really did, was once again demonstrate how you don’t care about reality, you don’t care about history, the truth to you is irrelvant. But hey, don’t get me wrong, you have a right to be stupid I guess!

  6. Henry Whistler Says:

    “The U.S. Constitution is an anti-slavery document.”

    It has been since the Thirteenth Amendment.

    I like how you keep shifting around. They worked tirelessly! Or, they put things in motion…or were opposed to it in principle…or signed a law banning it in New York!

    Bachmann said: “…the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

    No, they didn’t.

  7. liberal shark Says:

    Typical liberal crap, playing games instead of acknowledging with honor, the reality.

    I didn’t shift, Bachman was accurate and you know it. But keep being stupid about it, that’s what you do.

    You haven’t addressed Bachman’s accuracy in telling the history because you’re a coward. You haven’t addressed the history I provided because you’re a coward.

    Yes, the Founding Fathers did indeed work tirelessly, and slavery is no more in the United States. Not thanks to liberals, thanks to Founding Fathers.

  8. liberal shark Says:

    Oh, and hiding behind the 13th amendment is yet MORE evidence you are unfamiliar with this country’s history. The road to ending the slave trade and slavery itself started LONG before that.

    Idiot.

  9. cbmc Says:

    I’m sure you’re a nice guy but wow you’re stupid. Only an extraordinarily stupid person could consider the Constitution “an anti-slavery document.” Its framers did not “work tirelessly to end slavery.” However, I can see how you might think that, if you were very, very stupid. Please read Article 1, Section 2; Article one, section 9, Article 4, section 2; and article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, or have someone read them to you. Inserting a prohibition against ending slavery until 1808 is not making a “road to ending the slave trade.” That road might have begun with prohibiting slavery in the actual document, you extraordinarily stupid person.

  10. Henry Whistler Says:

    He’s gotta defend Lady Bachmann. Have you no honor?

    This is the Republican pathology, protecting dumb and crazy with more dumb and crazy.

  11. Henry Whistler Says:

    What gets me is that absolutely everything is up for debate with these guys. They’ve become so practiced at spinning this alternative universe in their bubble that the narrative has taken over. There can be no more real facts. If Michele Bachmann says the Founding Fathers didn’t rest until slavery was over, even though slavery wasn’t over until 600K Americans died over the matter in the Civil War, then Mike Thayer (liberal shark being this week’s handle) will be there to defend that. You know nothing. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
    HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF JOHN JAY? Like clockwork.

    At the same time, they love to carp about moral relativism, elbowing liberals yet using it as carte blanche to just do whatever the hell they feel like doing, and say whatever it takes to fight them evil libruls.

  12. Henry Whistler Says:

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mary-matalin-prefers-victim-card-fact-chec

    When all else fails, more of the Cruel Yankee Men insulting the Fair Southern Lady.

    On a side note, how on earth James Carville and Mary Matalin can go home and get it on after they trash talk each other on air is either inspiring or depressingly cynical, or both at the same time. Are they each other’s beards or what?

  13. cbmc Says:

    That is actually my favorite thing about these dudes. Two weeks ago, if you’d have said to them “the founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery,” the smarter ones among them would have said “what are you, stupid? half of them were slaveowners!” but once they get told what to think, they prove the most obedient lapdogs in the history of politics

  14. AJKamper Says:

    An HONEST description of the Founding Fathers would be, “Though they all voted to keep Africans in chains in order to facilitate the birth of this nation, some of them worked tirelessly to end slavery. Though those who opposed slavery died before they would see it, eventually those who came after ended this stain on our history.”

    Anyone listening to Bachmann would think that the Founders ended slavery. Which is untrue.

    The question of whether the Constitution is “anti-slavery” is interesting, and I don’t think it falls neatly into tidy categories. In one sense, it clearly evinces repulsion for the idea, refusing to mention the name. At the same time, there’s no doubt that not only did it explicitly allow the slave trade to continue for a period, but it even granted the South additional power based on its ownership of slaves (the 3/5 rule). Abolitionists of the pre-War period were divided on this; some wanted to rewrite the Constitution entirely, others (like Frederick Douglass) found that the moral values the Constitution was founded on contradicted slavery at its core.

    My view is that it’s certainly not anti-slavery in the naive sense that LS is propounding here, but that like so much in the document, it’s a compromise. It holds both anti- and pro-slavery aspects at the same time.

  15. liberal shark Says:

    Liberals can’t deal with the truth.

    A bonehead liberal who needs to look in the mirror wrote: “”what are you, stupid? half of them were slaveowners!” but once they get told what to think, they prove the most obedient lapdogs in the history of politics.”

    Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Federal Convention (the framing of our Constitution for those of you who live in liberal la-la land), just 12 owned or managed slaves.

    And the liberal take of the 3/5 rule has sadly become the standard brainwashing.

    Frederick Douglass, the escaped former slave, self-taught author and editor, and leading abolitionist orator didn’t think the Constitution protected the right to own human property. That’s a liberal notion. “Take the Constitution according to its plain reading,” Douglass challenged the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York. “I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it.” In fact, Douglass told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

    “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” outlines the fight against slavery in the text of the Constitution, it challenged the standard interpretation of the document, particularly the “three-fifths” clause. Using the Constitution, Douglass demanded that white America fully honor the Constitution’s guarantee of natural rights. Abraham Lincoln embraced that.

    I’ll take the wisdom of Frederick Douglass over the ignorance of liberal parrots. Are you liberals brave enough to check out Frederick Douglass and “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”

    And cmbc, conservative Republicans don’t respond the way you WISH them too because we’re left brain thinkers, not right brain. We’re smart enought not to be in a liberal circle of willful ignorance.

  16. Henry Whistler Says:

    What did any of that have to do with what Bachmann actually said?

  17. AJKamper Says:

    I was actually echoing the suggestions of the guy who wrote my Constitutional Law textbook, who’s a radical libertarian and one of the leading voices on the unconstitutionality of the health care mandate.

    But I’m pretty used to people thinking that anyone who disagrees with them must be on the Other Side. Ever occur to you that Douglass (whose vision of the Constitution is certainly inspiring) may just possibly have had a RHETORICAL reason for arguing the way he did, not one based in the Founders’ intent?

    Indeed, Douglass changed his mind–he had originally argued that the Constitution intended and protected slavery (the “disunionist” theory). There were lots of abolitionists in both camps.

    But you know what impresses me most, LS? The way you don’t look at the plain meaning of the slavery language, but try to find anti-slavery meanings in the penumbras and emanations of the text. You know, exactly the kind of reading that your ilk claim liberals use to find unenumerated rights. I’m really proud of the nuance you’ve shown here, and can’t wait for you to eagerly embrace the right to personal privacy, birth control, and same-sex marriage. Good work.

  18. Henry Whistler Says:

    “And cmbc, conservative Republicans don’t respond the way you WISH them too because we’re left brain thinkers, not right brain. We’re smart enought not to be in a liberal circle of willful ignorance.”

    Damn God for screwing up 50% of the brain, then?