drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

Obama Unmasks Herbert Hoover as Communist Overlord!

Well we just all learned:
The economy is collapsing. The Omnibus bill is flailing in the Senate. The Treasury Department still needs a workable approach to the banks. Why is the New York Times wasting Obama's day -- and their 35 minutes of interview time -- with these gotchas? Did they really think he would slip and admit that his stimulus plan was cadged from a footnote in Das Kapital?
[ cf This Week in Journamalism ( emphasis mine ) ]
Well, I think that is clear enough proof that obama is a communist.

Which of course clearly supports the well known position:
This part of Shlaes's argument has generated enormous enthusiasm on the right. At last the cultural baggage of Roosevelt's predecessor--Hoovervilles, Hoover flags, and the like--has been lifted off the shoulders of conservatism and onto the real culprit, which is liberalism. Senator Kyl proclaimed on the Senate floor last fall that "in the excellent history of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man, we are reminded that Herbert Hoover was an interventionist, a protectionist, and a strong critic of markets."... There is indeed a revisionist scholarship that recasts Hoover as an energetic quasi-progressive rather than a stubborn reactionary.
[ cf Jonathan Chait on New Deal-Denialism ]
Which we all know is secret liberal code phrasing:
Herbert Hoover was a COMMUNIST
And thus we have come to the clear and compelling position, with geometrical logical reductions from first principles:
Obama has outted Hoover as a Kommunist
and thus Obama is bad.

( hey it could be worse, we could be doing the icelandic schuffle. )
Tags: republican_pron
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments