Frank Rich: Only Totalitarians Compare People to Totalitarians


So, just *some* of U.S. synagogues have been attacked?

Of all the asinine sentences in Frank Rich's latest people-who-disagree-with-me-are-neo-Klansmen column, this one jumped out:

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht, you will recall, was a spasm of anti-Jewish-property violence suggested, orchestrated, and largely perpetrated by the leaders and organs of a sitting federal government, run by a guy named Hitler, who had been systematically trampling on Germany's Jewish minority for years. Two hundred synagogues and more than 7,000 other Jewish properties were destroyed, and 91 Jews lost their lives. Tea Party protesters, meanwhile…wait, what?

Eerily similar to 2010 America

This isn't the first time Frank Rich has pivoted from anti-totalitarian-hyperbole to totalitarian accusations in THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE; here he is from five months ago:

Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.

Frank Rich was one of many frightened commentators name-checked in Jesse Walker's classic "Paranoid Center" piece from October.

NEXT: Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey: The Outtake Reel

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think the operative term here is “small scale mimicry”. Rich is not saying that the Teabaggers are committing acts on the same scale as the Nazis but that a similar mob mentality is being put on display.

    1. Go wash your mouth out with soap.

      1. Sorry to pour a bucket of common sense on your morning outrage.

    2. Screw off. Making holocaust comparisons to a bunch of people protesting the government? It’s not a matter of scale. It’s idiocy, pure and simple.

      1. They’re not “protesting the government”, they’re expressing anger that the President is not a white guy.

        1. Drink!

        2. Right; that old gag: if you disagree with Our Dear Leader, the only possible explanation is racism.

          What was the motivating force when some of these same people criticized Bush? Just a different kind of ignorance and racism? I’m sure.

          1. Didn’t they compare him to a monkey? That sounds pretty racist to me.

            1. Who’s “they”?

          2. Stellar punctuation! At the risk of TMI, I’m aroused…

        3. That was quick. Three comments and you bail out and to get to what you REALLY want to say – PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH OBAMA ARE RAAAAAAACISTS!@!!!

          I pity you.

        4. Bullshit, Scotch. If you’re trying to say that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist… double-bullshit.

          Me, it wouldn’t matter if Obama looked like Edgar Winter. But feel free to call me a liar.

          1. I’m not saying that everybody who opposes Obama is a racist…but some people are.

            If these Teabaggers were doing their thing during the years that Bush was expanding government, taking our civil liberties, increasing the debt, etc. that would be one thing.

            1. Better late than never, eh Scock?

            2. Scotch, if you think anyone but a small segment of posters on here were in favor of Bush, you’re a bigger idiot than you make yourself out to be.

              And by small, I mean virtually statistically insignificant.

            3. Many of them were. The original Tea Party rant was based on the TARP bailout which had pretty universal support across the board b/t Bush II, McCain, and Obama.

            4. Some people in the civil rights movement were communists. So, because some people may have additional, ulterior motivations I guess we can dismiss the whole thing as a soviet plot against the US, right?

            5. Preferring Bush to Gore or Kerry does not make you a Bush fan – you may just be going for the lesser of two evils.

        5. I think you’re missing the point about the death threats, violence, spitting on people, etc. That is what he is likening to Nazi intimidation tactics.

          1. Too bad none of that actually happened.

        6. He’s half white, dipshit.

    3. That’s like comparing sticking an M-80 in someone’s mailbox to bombing the Moscow subway.

      1. More like comparing a bunch of citizens expressing their dissatisfaction with their current government by standing around, holding signs and yelling protest slogans, exactly as the First Amendment intends, to a bunch of government-sponsored, government-controlled, armed thugs running around and committing criminal acts of violence, savagery and vandalism against thousands of private citizens.

        Other than that, they’re exactly the same, just “on a smaller scale.”

        1. Kind of like Obama is just like Hitler, except different in nearly every way?

          1. I know, right?

            Where could people have possibly heard such ridiculous comparisons before?


          2. I have never said Obama is like Hitler, and based on what I’ve seen, neither have the majority of the tea partiers.

            Maybe you’ve heard of Godwin’s rule?

          3. What? Aside from the whole “enabling act” thing, he’s more like Mussolini or FDR.

    4. By this standard, just about anything can be cast as a small-scale Kristallnacht. Did you cut someone off in traffic? You committed a baby Kristallnacht. Go to a sporting event and yell at the referee? In a sense, you and 20,000 other fans committed Kristallnacht.

      Men getting women pregnant and then abandoning them? Kristallnacht up!

      It is ridiculous and inflammatory to compare a couple dozen threats of unknown origin to the events of Kristallnacht. If you cannot see that, you are in no position to lecture someone on common sense.

      1. “Kristalnacht up” is a winner.

        1. Das ist mein Vater ist!

      2. I’ve got a bit of a stomach bug – I think I’ll just call it:

        The Holocaust!
        (small scale mimicry home version)

  2. Funny how Rich confuses a popular movement of those outside the power structure with the actions of those who control the State.

    Well, not so much funny, as sad. And disgusting.

    I forget, did Rich issue a denunciation of our President for urging his followers to “hit back twice as hard”? Even when those followers went on to beat a man at a rally?

    1. There’s no reason to think that Rich is making any such confusion. Drawing a comparison between two groups or events does not mean you don’t understand their are differences.

      1. Exactly! This is what I keep telling people when I compare Obama to Charles Manson; but JESUS do these liberals get mad.

        It’s unfortunate, but you have to try and be patient; the masses just aren’t as rationally evolved as us…

      2. If that’s the case Mr. Hamilton – why doesn’t Mr. Rich draw parallels to the original tea party movement. Could it be that the comparison would not fit the meme he wished to advance?

        1. Because the Founding Fathers were racist anarchists, bendover. Just like the tea party movement of today. See how easy it is to think like a liberal?

        2. Perhaps because the original Tea Partiers were protesting taxation without representation, which does not apply to today’s Teabaggers.

          1. Really?

            Why are we supposed to bend over and accept everything the Ds do now that they have all the power to abuse us, Scotch? Why is that any better than bending over for the Bush admin?

            Abuse of power is abuse of power. Overspending is overspending. We’re deeper in hock after eight years of Bush and one year of Dear Leader Version 2.0 than we’ve ever been, but somehow it’s okay because Obama and his gang of thieves took over for Bush and his gang of thieves.


            1. Obama had no choice but to borrow more money to keep us out of a depression. It was the right move, even if nobody is happy that it had to be made.

              1. I say that Scotch is performance art, and boy is it working. Let’s start a pool on who the man behind the curtain really is. Scotch is just a little too perfect on getting these points just right to stir everyone up.

                1. Let’s start a pool on who the man behind the curtain really is.

                  Frank Morgan, of course.

              2. We deserved a depression.

                What Obama did is like punching yourself in the face to distract from the pain of a stubbed toe.

              3. Obama had no choice but to borrow more money to keep us out of a depression. It was the right move, even if nobody is happy that it had to be made.

                That explains last years record deficit. What about this years deficit. Or next years. Or the year after that. Or the year after that. Or th….

          2. Yes, the situation is much closer to Kristallnacht than to the original tea parties. That is a good point, or would be if Kristallnacht were a protest of government control in Germany, and not the beginning of Jewish annihilation. Let me check Wikipedia.

            Oh, it turns out Kristallnacht was more about the latter. Holocaust and all that.

            1. If only Kristallnacht had been a bunch of pissed of Jews throwing stones at Nazi party windows, then you’d have a great comparison.

              FTR – I think anyone making physical threats to elected representatives or vandalizing property is a fucking unsocialized asswipe that deserves prosecution and punishment.

              1. How about throwing eggs… is egging a car ok?

  3. This is definitely going to be the democrats’ pathetic campaign strategy, such as it is, for November: “our opponents are dangerous racists, and could you please pretend that Bush and the republicans are still in power.”

    God knows they certainly can’t run on their crappy accomplishments that most of the country can’t stand.

    1. The Teabaggers are dangerous racists…let’s not forget the last terrorist act committed here was by an angry white male who was rich enough to own an airplane but didn’t like to pay taxes…

      1. Subpar trolling even for an intellectual midget.

      2. Oh was he in a militia or tea party? Citation, douchebag.

        I read his publicized emails. I don’t think you have a brain.

        1. Teabaggers…dangerous racists…angry…

          Repeat till you get the verbal goosestepping down.

        2. Hey, I’m not the one who thinks Frank Rich is saying that the Teabaggers’ rallies are exactly like the Kristallnacht.

          1. When you repeat “teabagger” you expose yourself as having all the imagination of a parrot.

            1. But it’s still funny, and illustrates nicely how clueless these folks are.

              1. Unlike your fully clued-in superior analytical faculties, apparently.

              2. Please lean back a little more. My balls are quite dry and could use a good dunking.

                Also, I haven’t showered in a week so my sack is nice and vinegarry. I figured a douche like you would enjoy that a bit more.

            2. He heard it on Faux News…

              1. I hadn’t heard that that’s what they’re calling MSNBC these days.

      3. Even though that guy never mentioned race in his suicide note, you and I know he hated blacks, Jews, dagos, and Croatians. And if he was suicidal, he must’ve been a TEA Party activist.

        1. He also hated Bush and the IRS and the Catholic Church.

          Yup, real racist right-winger he was.

          1. Everybody knows the “Catholic Church” is a code word for “blacks”.

            1. Fuck, I’ve been using “Canadians” at all my biggest racist parties.

              1. Idiot. “Canadians” is code for “Canadians”. I know what you’re thinking, and don’t worry. They don’t understand English.

      4. >The Teabaggers are dangerous racists

        And what is your evidence that 50%+ of the country are now “dangerous racists” when over 50% in 2008 voted for a black man for President?

        1. There is no way that Teabaggers make up anywhere near 50% of the country. They are more like the fringe 5% I would guess.

          1. Kinda like MooOn.bOrg, in a mirror-image kind of way… eh, Scotch?

          2. Good to know that 16,500,000 people would be a small enough number of your fellow countrymen to write off as “fringe” and not worthy of maintaining their rights.

            1. You got me on that one…the Teabaggers are nowhere near 5% of the country, maybe .5%?

              Anyway, nobody has said anything about denying the Teabaggers the right to protest or speak freely.

              1. No they are just branding them all as dangerous racist Nazis, possibly even terrorists, to scare people away from the movement.

                No need to consider their legitimate points that way. Full steam ahead. Any gathering of 3 or more Obama opponents is a gathering of dangerous racist nazis.

      5. the last terrorist act committed here

        Just to clarify: we’re to the point (in fact, long past it) where even soi-disant Democrats effortlessly classify murders by unhinged individuals as acts of terrorism.

        Bush really seeped into your pores, didn’t he?

      6. Hey stoll licker. He stole the plane.

  4. I saw with my own eyes tea-partiers here in Arizona throwing bricks through windows and stopping and overturning cars right on the main road, and stopping into the ground anyone who protested their actions.

    Well, actually I didn’t.

    1. stomping

      1. The tea partiers can stop and overturn cars? I need to look for that red S and cape peeking through their costumes.

    2. It is funny to read a liberal account of how these groups are unruly, vehemently racist, and violent. Then I’ll go to a rally, or watch a video from a rally and see a bunch of grannies and middle aged people standing around, holding up a sign, sipping on some coffee, see a little toddle being cute, holding up their own sign. For a liberal to take an image of little 3 year old holding up a sign and twist it into their brains as a molotov throwing revolutionary is a farce that is funnier than most fiction I have read.

  5. “Stalinism in full purge mode”

    Wow. This from the newspaper that hid Stalin’s actual atrocities, aided in the duplicity by one Walter Duranty.

    1. Rich, ain’t it?

      1. The Times assumes the world has forgotten.

        1. and for the most part they are right

          1. I mean the Times is right. Sad to say, but it is true.

  6. Frank Rich- a guy who thinks the whirling teacup ride at the county fair is terrifying.

    1. Well in that regard, he’s right. Those things scare the shit out of me. Actually, they make me very dizzy and want to puke. Especially after a couple of those greasy funnel cakes and a beer.

  7. His primary fallacy is assuming that the Tea Party movement is in any way monolithic. I’m not sure there’s any one thing that can be said about the group as a whole, except that they all seem to be disenchanted with at least some government actions.

    1. ” I’m not sure there’s any one thing that can be said about the group as a whole…”

      Two things: they’re all white and they’re all selfish.

      1. Prove it.

      2. Yawn. Begone sub-par, unfunny troll.

      3. Sounds like my old college PIRG chapter.

      4. They’re all* white, true.

        “Selfish” is pretty rich coming a from a group of people that think that other people should be deprived of the things they have earned, or enslaved if necessary, to provide for people who’ve done the world nothing but the impressive favor of simply existing.

        *Except for rifle-toting African Americans and the other nonwhites in the movement.

    2. But do Rich and Olbermann and Maddow and all the others really believe it? Or do they have such a low opinion of their audience that they think they can get away this variant of the Big Lie?

  8. Please Frank.. if Tea Party people were as violent and dangerous as you pretend you’d be the last journalist brave enough to condemn it.

    1. +1

      Yes, these people tend to show you more deference when you have a tendency to make videos of your hooded and masked foot soldiers sawing the heads off of reporters.

    2. +3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510…

  9. The left is sure going out of its way to demonize and label its opposition as terroristic, isn’t it? Just who, exactly, is using force to impose its views on the rest of us?

    1. Words are powerful. There are limits to free speech. Harvey Milk!

    2. Good question, who?

      1. … the Democratic Party? Where the fuck have you been?

        1. The Democratic party is implementing changes because the people elected them to implement changes. That’s the exact opposite of forcing views upon us.

          1. Government legislation is force. Doesn’t matter if it’s force some people supposedly want, it’s still force.

            1. Okay, but in that case doesn’t everybody approve the use of force to impose their views on the rest of us?

              1. I can’t speak for everybody, but I sure don’t. Why should I want to compell people to do things my way?

                1. So you think there should be no laws whatsoever?

                  1. I’m starting a movement to repeal the laws of physics. I reall don’t like them. They’re annoying and prevent me from flying, like Neo in The Matrix, and I really want to do that.

                    1. “I cannot change the laws of physics!”- Scotty

                  2. How an Obamacrat gets from hearing this:

                    “I can’t speak for everybody, but I sure don’t. Why should I want to compell people to do things my way?”

                    …to concluding this:

                    “So you think there should be no laws whatsoever?”

                    …is truly on of the last great mysteries of the universe.

                    1. It’s not that mysterious – every law is designed to force people to act in a certain manner.

                      You guys just want to have it both ways…when it’s a law you don’t like, you’re having somebody else’s views imposed upon you…but when it’s a law you like, then it’s okay.

                    2. Can you please provide me with an example of a “libertarian” law that forces people to do shit they don’t want to do?

                    3. Please stop feeding the douchebag troll.

                    4. Your rant might work if you were in a conservative or republican forum, but you are in a libertarian/ anarchist forum whose philosophy on life is government/laws = force, force = evil so government/laws = evil. We do not want laws or want very, very few of them. We are a live and let live type people who believe in freedom, liberty and lobster girl. Plus, nothing can be for farcical than laws. Government has a god complex in which it believes that is can defy reality with a law. Don’t like poverty, we’ll legislate it away! Don’t like racism and ignorance, we’ll legislate it away! Don’t like gravity, we’ll legislate it away! Anyway, we know that the only way you can change the world is through the freedom, the market place, and through the battlefield of ideas, you can’t use force, you can’t use government, it always will have unintended consequences and is ethically wrong. If anyone on Reason has anything add, please add it, but I think I am done feeding the troll.

                    5. I wondered the same thing. So I’m going to employ the old standard:

                      Shut The Fuck Up Hamilton!

          2. Mandate = unprecedented act of force.

            Motive is irrelevant.

            Whether or not a person is elected has nothing to do with what he or she does while in office. We don’t vote in despots. Or, at least, we’re not supposed to. This is the problem with the conception of government that most people in this country have; they think that we’re electing kings, here. It isn’t the case.

            But are you really a troll? I’m such a goddamn sucker for a troll. Can I blame it on Monday? Jesus Christ? I’m blaming it on Monday.

            1. It’s the old Joe meme: Chavez/Obama/Nixon/William Henry Harrison were all elected. Therefore, it’s all cool.

          3. “The people” elected them to implement changes?

            You mean about half of the people who actually participated in the election bought the hopeychange rainbow puppies unicorns rhetoric, in the hopes of getting free stuff from the gubmint.

            The rest of us are having this shit forced upon us, yes.

            1. But don’t you just want to force your ideas on the rest of us? Unless you’re saying there should be no laws whatsoever.

              1. But don’t you just want to force your ideas on the rest of us?
                The sad thing is, although I don’t believe that Scotch is any more real than the rainbow unicorns I’ve been promised, there are a vast number of folk whose “logic” flows in just this channel.
                I like to tell them, “No, really, I perfectly willing to allow you to sign up to be whatever kind of servant or slave you want. Knock yourself out.
                Just don’t take me and mine with you.”

                1. But he’s so real like! I can’t stop.

                  Damn it.

                  I have a problem…

                2. So if somebody breaks into your house and starts to take your stuff you would not use force (either your own, or the government’s) to stop them?

                  1. There’s no way I’m going to sit here and educate you on the concepts of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, etc. You’re already on the internet. Look it the fuck up.

              2. Are you actually saying that the advocacy for less force is an act of force? That a government that then uses less force, would be forcing us all to accept this? government of less force?


                READ IT.

                1. That sounds like a command.

              3. You erected and demolished that straw man expertly, sir. You made an stupid argument that nobody here made and destroyed it. YOU WIN!

                Nobody ever said “there should be no laws.” Advocates of LIMITED (as in, small) government don’t advocate anarchy. That’s for the Black Bloc anarchist clods who attend the G20 Meetings every year and vandalize the host cities in the name of “social justice.”

                We advocate LIMITS on government power. You advocate totalitarianism. You and Frank Rich deserve each other.

                Keep up.

                1. “You erected and demolished that straw man expertly, sir.”

                  I may have demolished him, but I did not set him up…

                  “You advocate totalitarianism.”

                  Now THERE is a straw man.

              4. Ah, now I’m understanding where you’re coming from better: a complete lack of any observable ability to think analytically. Disagree with Democrats = belief there should be no laws whatsoever.

                So from that, I’m guessing you’re a what, sophomore government studies major, or something? Or at least that’s where your critical and analytical thinking skills appear to have stopped.

              5. So in your world, the only choice besides government intruding in all aspects of our lives is anarchy?

                Stop the rhetorical nonsense, just because we rightly have laws against assault, murder, and robbery (which, I might add, are laws prohibitting other people forcing themselves upon you in some way) doesn’t mean the government should just do anything it damn well pleases.

                1. “So in your world, the only choice besides government intruding in all aspects of our lives is anarchy?”

                  No, but if you’re going to say that government should not use force to impliment the views of the people then you can’t have it both ways…

              6. Saying you don’t want a state is different from saying you don’t want laws. In fact, if you have a state you don’t really have laws, as the state is only bound by the law to the extent to which it chooses to be. The only way law and order can be achieved through an anarchy that upholds private property.

            2. “You mean about half of the people who actually participated in the election bought the hopeychange rainbow puppies unicorns rhetoric, in the hopes of getting free stuff from the gubmint.”

              Oddly enough, Obama’s campaign rhetoric didn’t involve handouts and massive entitlement programs. It involved centrist government, reforms to encourage transparency and participation and honesty and blahblahblah, and rolling back the civil liberties losses of the Bush era, things he has done precisely jack shit on. He might be making his progressive base happy, but for the swing voters that were mainly hoping for Democrats to not suck as hard as Republicans, he and his Congress are more than a little disappointing. Not that I voted for him — see handle.

  10. I think you may have hit that nail on the head. Well done.


    1. These little gems never get old.

  11. Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.

    The Tea Party has been rounding up farmers and killing them?

    1. No, silly. They’re just taking away all their food and livestock.

      1. That would be the libertopians who want to end farm subsidies and STARVE EVERYONE.

    2. No, the Tea Partiers are having generals sign bloodstained confessions of treason and then executing them. I saw it on MSNBC.

      1. Then it must be true, as MSNBC are paragons of virtue.

  12. Whoever is behind Scotch is pretty good.

    1. I’m pretty sure that “Scotch Hamilton” is either Chad or MNG.

      I swear upon my sacred honor, I’ll give Reason a nice little contribution if they’ll implement a modern registration system to help get rid of these D-bag trolls.

      1. Don’t do it, Reason! The trolls can be amusing. (Perhaps some smart staffer should start a little bidding war between Mike M. and me.)

      2. If the do that, I’d have to re-register just to use my handle de jour.

        Fuck that shit.

  13. Trolls are boring.

    1. But at least they’re repetitive.
      Polly want a cracker!

    2. True, but this place does need a punching bag. Besides, this fake troll is doing a pretty good job of impersonating your average Reddit/Fark commenter who thinks he’s very very smart.

      1. Besides, how much fun can an echo chamber really be? I’ve been lurking here long enough to see that basically you guys just agree with each other over and over again. Free minds, indeed.

        1. Drink?

          1. Close enough for government work.

            1. You gotta admit it’s an ironic slogan considering the ideological purity demanded around here.

              1. Gee, Scotch. Irony? I never considered the possibility. Thanks for schooling me.

                1. But I don’t think Reason Magazine uses the slogan ironically. Or maybe they do.

                  1. Sorry. I was just outmaneuvered by a troll. I thought Scotch was referring to “close enough for government work” but he was referring to “reason” or “free minds”. Which means he knows our drinking game. (Which confirms he’s a troll.)
                    In any case, I’ll be hanging my head in shame.
                    You boys carry on.

                    1. Although he apparently doesn’t know how to use threaded comments correctly. But then, I’ll cop to the same failing.

                    2. I will confess to having trolled here before, but it was a while back under a different name.

                    3. joe, I can take. But please, for the love of God and all that’s holy, don’t let it be neu mejican!

                    4. Neither, although I do remember Joe…

                    5. It’s not joe, unless he’s doing a really good job of altering his tone.

                    6. He is not joe. joe put up an even occasionally good defense of liberalism. Scotch is fucktarded to the extreme.

                    7. “I will confess to having trolled here before, but it was a while back under a different name.”

                      Just keep repeating “No one gives a fuck. No one gives a fuck.”

              2. My god, you’re right. Requiring a valid email for commenters, CAPTCHA, and automatic hold for moderation? It’s a totalitarian’s wet dream.

              3. Scock, Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, remember?

                1. I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration. Unless it’s a Democratic administration.

                  1. It’s not the Obama Whitehouse. It’s the PEOPLE’S Whitehouse.

                  2. Whats funny is a barely ever heard that while Bush was in power, although the left constantly said his administration questioned every dissenter’s patriotism, but now I constantly hear the patriotism and racial tolerance of anyone disagreeing w obama questioned.

          2. Drink!

            1. Excellent! I knew Frank Rich was good for something.

        2. Based on that last comment, you haven’t really been hanging around here that long. I’ve seen plenty of disagreement. Hell, from what I’ve seen here, libertarians don’t agree with anyone, except other people who also don’t agree with anyone.

          1. Fuck you, WTF. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

            1. There are slightly more versions of libertarianism than there are libertarians. Herding cats is much easier than getting us to agree on anything.

            2. You’re right; I don’t.

              I mean – wait, uh…

        3. Scotch, when you hang around with your own kind… is there an echo chamber effect?

          I thought so.

          1. No, I’m a Democrat which really is a party of people who can’t agree on much of anything. Which is why we end up with a half-assed healthcare bill instead of single-payer or at least the public option.

            1. Nor can Democrats agree on the War on Drugs, free speech, the Patriot Act, military interventionism, corporate welfare, protectionism.
              So they are just as worthless as the Republicans, no?

              1. The Democrats are not nearly as progressive as I’d like on a lot of issues but we are still the good guys.

                I used to think that the Dems and Pubs were pretty much the same but eight years of Dubya cured me of that notion.

                1. “Not progressive enough”, eh? Would a reincarnated Stalin be sufficient?

                  Not that Obama is anywhere near Stalin’s “progressive” level, but give him time… he’s only been in office a year.

                  You liberals are no better than social conservatives, Scotch. The sooner the masses stop listening to either wing, the better.

                2. How the fuck can you possibly come to the conclusion that Dems are “the good guys”? As between the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson types and maybe some of the “blue dog” Dems, maybe, but on the whole?

                  What the fuck have the current Dems ever done that supports the conclusion they’re the “good guys”?

                  I suppose, though, that really depends on what your definition of “good” is – i.e., what’s your metric?

                3. “The Democrats are not nearly as progressive as I’d like on a lot of issues”

                  Have you considered relocating to Venezuela? They got single-payer, I think.

                4. If by “good guys” you mean “the guys handing out the free blow”.

            2. Good Lord

        4. “I’ve been lurking here long enough to see that basically you guys just agree with each other over and over again.”

          Really? From my perspective it looks like the regulars disagree every time they’re left to themselves. There’s an almost palpable undertone of contempt and grudging tolerance for the idiocy of everyone else. Of course seldom are they left to themselves, but are rather invaded by even greater idiocy to which they turn their attention.

          On a serious note, do any of the regulars occasionally post under alternate pro big government personas (personae?) in an attempt to clarify common pathologies of reasoning? I’ve toyed with the idea, and my alter sounds disturbingly like Scotch.

          1. There used to be a true artist named Cesar. His character Neil was a perfect GO AMERCUH Team R moron. I’ve been hoping for a long time that he’d come back with a new character, although there has been some suggestion that Tony is that character.

            1. Warty, I enjoyed your performance

          2. Actually, I’m semi doing it now with the name thing to underline the absurdity of Rich.

            I’ve trolled occasionally as a party line liberal when I get so pissed at regulars for feeding the trolls, I find an angle to feed in those particular regulars buttons to get back at them. I’ve always given a solid warning not to feed the troll before taking off in a liberal troll guise though. Rarely have my intended victims not fallen for this tactic.

            The most amazing thing I have found, and I was surprised though I should have expected it. You know how liberal commentators like to accuse libertarians of living in their parent’s basements, having no girlfriends and being disconnected with reality? The times I have posed as a liberal girl troll, they all come out of the woodwork, hit on me, and ask me to e-mail them.

            I have always known that they are fueled by projection of their worse traits on others so it should not have been a surprise to me.

            1. I took a shit in Dachau once.

            2. Dachau Tea Fellows,
              Mary Mallon|3.21.10 @ 11:28PM|#
              Oops, I mean, damn reactionairies!

              It’s late, beddy bye time. Now, where did I put that nightie? I simply will have nothing to wear without it . . .

    3. It’s not only boring, it’s stupid. We all hear this crap from most people every day. We have to hear someone among us faking it, too? Yawn.

  14. Who knew there were Tea Partiers back in 1964 when volunteers would be greeted every morning with fresh swastikas painted on Goldwater headquarters.

    1. I look forward to Obamanacht.

        1. Your papers, please.

  15. What are you people talking about? I was just happily searching “teabagger” on the interwebs, and I have to read all this crap to find out you ain’t talking about Sasha Gray? I need to do more image searches. PS, get a sex life!

    1. PPS
      Too late for me. I’m married.

      1. That didn’t stop your wife.

          1. ahhh, no men allowed;-)

  16. Someone send that man The Road to Serfdom and lets see how many parallels he can spotdispute.

    This isn’t to say that Obama is Hitler or to engage in some retarded hyperbolic shit throwing comparison. It’s just interesting the context in which the book was written and how it applies to the last 20 years in the US. Especially the analogies and examples of national socialism and the run up to it.

    1. The Road to Serfdom

      (the executive summary)

  17. But if we are becoming surfs it would mostly be thanks to the Reagan/Bush era policies that favored the top 5% at the expense of the rest of us…it’s the libertarian catch-22, you want people to be able to accumulate power and then act surprised when they use it.

    1. Oh, whew. For a minute, I thought you typed smurfs there. Made me think that the LHC really was bad news.

    2. Charlie don’t surf!

      1. Charlie doesn’t smurf, either!

    3. “Rich people suck” is not a productive fiscal policy, Scotch.

    4. Please explain how Reagan’s and Bush’s policies favored the top 5% at the expense of the rest of us.

      it’s the libertarian catch-22, you want people to be able to accumulate power and then act surprised when they use it.

      Yep, that’s us. Always agitating for more government power. Meanwhile, you who wants the government to compel people to purchase health insurance…

    5. you want people to be able to accumulate power and then act surprised when they use it

      To WTF are you referring?

    6. at the expense of the rest of us

      So your argument is that things have not gotten better for the majority of society since “the Reagan/Bush era”. Only the top 5% have seen an increase in wealth; the “rest of us” have all gotten poorer, because the wealthy got that way “at our expense.”


    7. I’m middle class. I saw my income go up more than 100% under Bush. You are teh stoopid.

    8. I am working on a book called “The Road to Surfdom” about rising sea levels.

  18. thanks to the Reagan/Bush era policies that favored the top 5% at the expense of the rest of us


  19. The guy won’t even look up “libertarianism” on Wikipedia. You think he’s going to read a whole book?

    1. Gah, that was in response to hmm.

  20. you want people to be able to accumulate power and then act surprised when they use it.
    Aha. Gotcha. This is a really, really familiar-sounding idiocy.
    Name that troll —

    1. I’m pretty sure it’s Tony, because of this:

      But if we are becoming surfs it would mostly be thanks to the Reagan/Bush era policies that favored the top 5% at the expense of the rest of us

  21. To all bothering to engage the twit Scotch Hamilton, why are you wasting your time?

    You couyld be better using it by installing the Indisputably Non-Coercive Idiot Filter for Hit & Run and adding Scotch Hamilton to it.

    1. Thanks. I’ve recently realized that to argue with somebody that firmly believes that my time and wealth should be placed at the disposal of the collective, and that I am evil for daring to protest the proposition, is to credit them with too much humanity.

  22. Obama isn’t a Hitler. He is a Napoleon. Instead of a little man wanting to be big man, he is a skinny man wanting to be a normal fit looking guy (skeletal with sinewy elongated muscles like a gray alien on anyone the media wasn’t lovestruck with would get an ‘eww! put your shirt back on!’ from them), but his beard wont let him eat anything worth putting in your mouth. But for the occasional pizza and beer that made Clinton a usually tolerable president, the rest of us have to suffer for his lack of satiation.

  23. If Frank Rich is as alarmed as he expresses here about the Tea Party, what is he doing wasting his time writing a column? Shouldn’t he be on the phone to 911? He has no time for this. The country is being assaulted by Neo-Nazis taking over the nation’s capitol, what is he doing writing a mere opinion column?

    1. Plus the recording of the 911 call would be priceless.

  24. The difference between Scotch and everyone else here:

    He only cares about civil liberties when they are compromised by someone with an R after their name; we care no matter who it is.

  25. Hey Scotchie! Scotchie!

    Philadelphia Man Charged for Death Threat Against Cantor
    A 33-year-old Philadelphia man was charged Monday with threatening to kill House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his family after posting a YouTube video in which he said, among other things, “You receive my bullets,” according to the Department of Justice.

  26. Brick smashes GOP office window in Howell

    A brick hurled through the window of the Michigan Republican Party’s office in Howell has the words “Long Live the USA” and “God Bless the USA” scrawled on it, according to Livingston County Sheriff’s investigators.

    Make of it what you will. Don’t expect to see it on the CBS evening news or brought up in a NYT op-ed.


      Which leads to the obvious question, Harry Reid has supporters? How the fuck did someone that anticharismatic make it in politics? To buy enough votes to make up for his fugly (inside and out) deficit, he would have to spend a shit load of tax payer money.

      Oh wait, that answers the question of why there are thugs going to the mat for him.

  27. I for one am tired of all these Barry Soetoro / Barry Obambi = Hitler comparisons.

    They simply aren’t true.

    Hitler was able to get the Olympics and was able to promote building & infrastructure projects that put people back to work (taking 18+% unemployment down into the low single digits rather than Obambi’s opposite trend). Hitler also worked for a living before getting into politics and had honorably served his adopted country’s military. Adolf was also able to present a birth certificate and proof of citizenship when he ran for office.

    As much as it pains me to say it, Barry is no Hitler

    1. “Hitler was able to get the Olympics”

      I salute your brilliance!

    2. I’d like to see who you would compare the Pope, Mother Theresa or Oprah with. Weekly post?

      1. Jesus died for our sins.
        Obama hasn’t. Yet.

  28. Well played, Mark, well played.

    1. When H&R finally gets voting someday, we’ll have to open it up for this thread, so Mark E can win all our internets.

  29. Whats funny is a barely ever heard that while Bush was in power, although the left constantly said his administration questioned every dissenter’s patriotism, but now I constantly hear the patriotism and racial tolerance of anyone disagreeing w obama questioned.

    pretty sure “Why do you hate america?” arose during the Bush II era to quash dissenters as nonpatriotic.

    Good try though, thanks for playing.

  30. Rich seems thrilled that minorities will outnumber white births in the next year or so. Has he considered how the US will continue supporting Israel if its economic fortunes follow those of California? Or if the new demographic will even want to?…..=112167023

  31. Right wing hate speech has always preceded right wing violence in the United States, this time is no different.

  32. Saw Nick Gillepie at PBSNewsHours today and was quite dissapointed about how simplistic he thinks the anti islam rhetoric is in this country. He blamed President Obama for not showing leadership on delivering a clear message about the issue. I do agree with Gillespie about the Mosque Center in Manhattan (not that I can not be built there) and how Obama after backing it, retracted the next day. But today at his press conference Obama did talk clear and eloquently about the Anti Islam rhetoric. Thats even Obama had been labeled a Muslim (whats wrong with that?). They can not call him a black man becuase that would be too obvious, so they call him a Muslim. So Nick I dont think Obama can do more. Maybe you should try with Newt Gringrich and that cultural icon Sarah Pelin.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.