PDA

View Full Version : Multiple O-bots - "Whats wrong with Obama EATING CHILDREN?"




Catatonic
03-26-2010, 02:54 PM
I just wanted to share a little batch of crazy with you all:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=123342361

A discussion about judicial review (one of my favorite subjects because it always brings out the crazy side of authoritarians) turned into this.

Three hardcore, koolaid drinking Obama bots literally saying "If the supreme court says its constitutional to eat children, then whats wrong with it?"

If 3 people are willing to say it, how many people think it? This country is in real trouble my friends.

jmdrake
03-26-2010, 03:12 PM
Well that's like John Yoo saying president Bush had the right to sexually torture children in order to stop terrorists. Alex Jones would sometimes joke that Bush supporters (and now Obama supporters) would supporter "their man" even if he was barbecuing children on the Whitehouse lawn. It's all a (sad) part of groupthink.

Catatonic
03-26-2010, 07:17 PM
Well that's like John Yoo saying president Bush had the right to sexually torture children in order to stop terrorists. Alex Jones would sometimes joke that Bush supporters (and now Obama supporters) would supporter "their man" even if he was barbecuing children on the Whitehouse lawn. It's all a (sad) part of groupthink.

I think its more ignorance than group think. I keep hearing that the 'slippery slope' argument is a fallacy, but people don't consider the end of the road they're taking.

Anti Federalist
03-26-2010, 10:03 PM
I think its more ignorance than group think. I keep hearing that the 'slippery slope' argument is a fallacy, but people don't consider the end of the road they're taking.

Oh, my aching ass, and here's a first hand anecdote to illustrate it.

I was living in NJ at the time NJ became the first state to mandate seat belt usage back in the 1980s.

I recall the head poobah of the NJ State Police, who lobbied hard for passage, saying, swearing to the people of the state that he would never, ever be in favor of "primary enforcement" of seat belt laws (meaning that you could only get fined after being stopped for another offense, and could not be stopped and fined for not wearing a seat belt by itself.)

Of course, it was a lie, two years later he was back, lobbying for primary enforcement, and of course it passed.

But the larger point is the nuts, (me and people like me) yelled and hollered as loud as we could that this was a "slippery slope" that before long there would not only be primary enforcement but arrests and points charged against your license and roadblock enforcement.

Of course we we shouted down as conspiracy loons and paranoid.

Twenty five years later and everything that we warned about has come to pass, just on that issue alone.

jake
03-26-2010, 10:20 PM
AF, the scary thing is, as a 25 year old, I don't even think of seatbelt laws as unreasonable , because I do not know a time without it as law. and i'm a staunch libertarian : this is what is happening today.. in 25 years will all people under 25 think it's normal for the next big liberty crushing big government police state law?

Anti Federalist
03-26-2010, 10:26 PM
AF, the scary thing is, as a 25 year old, I don't even think of seatbelt laws as unreasonable , because I do not know a time without it as law. and i'm a staunch libertarian : this is what is happening today.. in 25 years will all people under 25 think it's normal for the next big liberty crushing big government police state law?

The short answer is yes.

In 25 years it will seem "reasonable" that you are forced to buy a lousy insurance product under pain of government fines.

Just as it will seem reasonable to have a DHS and TSA and get stripped at airports and checked at roadblocks, and all the rest.

After just a short period of time it becomes a fait accompli.

The only (moderate) success that has been had is in the realm of firearms freedom, compared to 25 years ago.

Anti Federalist
03-27-2010, 06:25 PM
///