Frank Talk

19
Posted August 19, 2009 by Jimmy Fowler in Blotch

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, you’re my hero. My fat, gay, speech-impeded, fearless, brilliant, and dedicated hero. Check out last night’s tasty exchange at a Dartmouth, MA health care forum between Frank and a mentally challenged woman who demanded to know why he supported “a Nazi policy.” We desperately need a return to truth-telling in national politics, and Frank’s the one to lead it.


19 Comments


  1.  
    The DOC

    Jimmy,
    You wouldn’t know truth if it bit you. Barney Frank is a joke that helped get us into the mortgage mess. Why don’t you read some of Ezekiel Emanuel’s papers and some of John P. Holdren’s books from the 1970′s. Then, maybe you would have a clue about where this administration is coming from. Barney Frank is your hero–ha ha. What a joke.




  2.  
    Obama's Seat

    “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

    “These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,”

    Franks is a moron and a little Napolean in the worst congress ever.




  3.  
    Kristian

    Notice how desperate the last two posters have been to make Rep. Frank the issue instead of the town-hall idiot who opened her mouth and compared the leader of the free world to a Nazi. It’s as if she never existed at all! Magical!




  4.  
    The DOC

    OK Kristian. Read Emanuel and Holdren. If you dare. This is very Nazi. Desperate? I think not. Obama and the Dems are overstepping their constitutional bounds, and the people are calling them out on it. The only way this bill or anything like it will pass is if the Dem congress ramrods it without the consent of the people they supposedly represent. They are going to have to use parliamentary gymnastics to get this bill through.

    You are right about Frank. He isn’t the issue. He is a joke.




  5.  
    chineseboomerang

    Of course none of this matters because the woman in question was a Democrat anyway. So you have one crazy Congressmen calling a Democrat crazy for calling him a Nazi. Democrats callng their represenative Nazis …. Wow, that’s progress!

    But seriously Jimmy F. you call Che a “Freedom Fighter.” What’s the difference between Che and Hitler, Lennin, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot? Only that we plugged Che before he could wreak the same kind of havoc on the world as those others did.

    As for Frank, the congressional report from a few months ago clearly demonstrates what consevatives had already known.That it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that gave us the mortgage meltdown and hence our current economic shambles.

    http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50680

    That means that your “hero” Barney Frank is the man most singularly responsible for the the economic calamity of the fall of ’08 along with Franklin Raines, Christopher Dodd, Maxine Waters et al. The Democrats controlled congress for the last two years of the Bush presidency and were absolutely uninterested in averting the coming crisis. Go ahead, take a look -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtuNt3AKCg

    And now Obama has made it worse and wants to make it worse still with his health care debacle.

    You have strange heros Jimmy F.




  6.  
    Kristian

    You haven’t referred to anything specific that Rahm Emanuel has said (he’s not a writer, after all) that brings his policies or personal beliefs in line with the Nazis’. Do you have examples? I think that, as a Jew, he’d be even more offended than I am at your comparison.

    As for John Holdren, he’s the White House science advisor, a position that has nothing to do with health care. His areas of expertise are aerospace and climate change, so he shouldn’t be anywhere near the health care legislation. You’re referring to a 1977 book that he co-authored in which he summarized various methods of population control. Some of them would have met the Nazis’ seal of approval. He was careful to state that he didn’t approve of these methods. Of course, Fox News left that part out when they were reporting on his confirmation hearings recently. This is typical of the lies and half-truths that are floating around about health care and ensnaring gullible voters. Let’s keep them coming. We need to debunk every last one.




  7.  
    TxHeeler

    If certain people are so concerned about supposed constitutional violations, where were their complaints during the Bush administration? No no. You don’t get to suddenly claim to be a constitutional scholar. Nobody’s buying it.

    And I wish more people were calling these hysterical nuts out like Barney did. Good job!




  8.  
    Obama's Seat

    “Notice how desperate the last two posters have been to make Rep. Frank the issue instead of the town-hall idiot who opened her mouth and compared the leader of the free world to a Nazi.”

    You’re joking, right?

    After 8 years of “BushHitler”, etc, one little old lady does it to Obama’s policy and the left becomes unglued.

    Notice how desperate the left is to make this about some obscure citizen, and not about a career politician at the heart of the mortgage meltdown.




  9.  
    Obama's Seat

    “If certain people are so concerned about supposed constitutional violations, where were their complaints during the Bush administration? ”

    Did you see the polls and the results of the last election? Either 53 – 75% of the country turned “Progressive” over the course of the last few years, or conservatives, republicans and independents expressed their dissatisfaction with Bush and he republican congress.

    Which do you think it was?




  10.  
    Obama's Seat

    As I recall, both Reagan and Bush were pilloried and ridiculed by the left for using the word “evil”. Evil empire, evil-doers. Ha ha, what simplistic dolts, right?

    Now we have Harry Reid using the term “evil-mongers”.

    In the first two cases, the term was directed at sworn enemies of America.

    In the latter instance, the term was directed at AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    There is a top-down effort to demonize a very large part of the US population, which has resulted in physical attacks – not from the unruly “dissenters”, but from people acting on behalf of the State.

    If the left wasn’t in such desperate denial of their ideological past, they might realize their shirts are starting to turn brown.

    Liberal Fascism, it’s real, it’s here. It’s in charge.




  11.  
    Obama's Seat

    And while I’m on a roll, how about Barney’s threat to subpoena the names of AIG execs who received bonuses, and release them to the public? The man is a contemptible, arrogant little toad.

    And how about Jack Murtha, declaring US Marines guilty of heinous crimes before the investigation was even complete? Imagine that, denouncing our military in the middle of a war, using language straight from Jihadi propaganda central.

    And when they were found innocent? No apology. When one Marine tried to sue for defamation, old fat Jack was protected because he slandered from the podium.

    And here we have democrats who practically own government blaming the right for their failure to pass legislation.

    Simply pathetic.




  12.  
    The DOC

    Kristian,

    I wasn’t talking about Rahm, genious. I was talking about his brother, Ezekiel. And as for Holdren, anyone advocating for trees to be able to have representation in court belongs in padded room. Holden also advocated placing a sterilant in drinking water to control population growth.

    This type of thinking puts certain provisions of the health bill in context. These people advise the president.




  13.  
    Kristian

    Was the misspelling of “genius” some sort of ironic gesture? Like I already stated, Holdren hasn’t advocated any such thing, and in any event, he doesn’t advise the president on health care.




  14.  
    The DOC

    Kristian,

    I was typing on my phone earlier. I know how to spell genius. You obviously can’t put 2 and 2 together, though. Do you actually think that one of Obama’s “czars” would not put his two cents in regarding healthcare?

    Holdren has co-authored and co-edited around 20 books and reports on topics such as energy, the environment, and arms control.

    In Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (1973) Holdren et al., viewing capitalism as a threat to the environment, stated:

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.”
    In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977) Holdren, et al., summarize their anti-capitalism/pro-environment philosophy with a mathematical equation:

    I = PAT,

    where a negative impact on the environment (I) is a product of unwanted factors of Population growth (P), Affluence (A) and Technology (T). Therefore increase P, A or T and you have really pissed these guys off. Here is their solution, requiring:

    “organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government.”

    In the same book, Holdren et al., pose the following “solutions” for population control:

    “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

    and,

    “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”




  15.  
    Johnny Marabá

    I’m no fan of Barney Frank… (Didn’t he let his boyfriend run a homosexual prostitution ring from his basement?)
    But at least he has the squirenuts to meet with his voters. He’s not like our pathetic champion of corruption in the Texas 17th… aka Chet Edwards.
    Edwards has been playing hide and seek with his voters for the past several weeks. Only today did he muster the courage to set up a few townhalls. He knows he’s got a lot of questions to answer and unfortunately for him much of it doesn’t have to do with healthcare.

    http://www.politicalevidence.com/2009/08/chet-edwards-takes-dirty-money.html




  16.  
    Kristian

    Ah, so because Holdren is in the White House’s employ, he must be advising on health care. Interesting! What else do you think he’s doing over there, DOC? Developing Iran policy? Running Cash for Clunkers? Babysitting Malia and Sasha? Tending the plants in the Rose Garden? Since you know so much about the organizational chain in the White House, why don’t you tell us all how he’s influencing the legislation? Which parts is he responsible for?

    By the way, your Holdren quotes only reinforce what I said earlier. He was describing methods of population control and how they could be put into action. Nowhere does he say that those methods should be enacted. This is how academics write. They parse their prose very carefully, and their writing sometimes needs a fair bit of parsing by the reader, but there it is.

    Also, you mentioned Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Apparently, you’ve got nothing on him, either. Here’s the verdict on the controversy, delivered by a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to vetting such allegations:

    http://factcheck.org/2009/08/when-philosophy-meets-politics/

    The thing is, I found this after less than a minute of Internet searching. Why didn’t you do that? You might want to consider doing some fact checking of your own before posting the next time. That way, you won’t get burned. We’ll all take you a little more seriously when you have your facts straight.




  17.  
    Johnny Marabá

    you trust factcheck.org? I thought fweekly reports were anti-establishment… when it’s convenient I suppose… much like everything else in life

    … as far as philosophical musings go… you certainly give Dr. Holdren alot of wiggle room… Would you do the same for a conservative scholar?… say Robert Bork for example…




  18.  
    The DOC

    Kristian Lin = Stinkin Liar (see top blotch)

    How appropriate.

    You obviously did not read Emanuel’s papers. Instead, you looked at factcheck.org. Telling. Very telling. Emanuel advocated the complete lives system. Why don’t you look that up. Why don’t you listen to the head of the Canadian Health System when she says that their socialist system is imploding? What about Britain? 6 months’ wait for some treatments that the Gov decides you should or should not have. You libs better think this through and quit worshiping at the feet of

    This is your idea of “burning someone?” Did you even bother reading Emanuel’s own writings or just the biased cliffs-notes version on fact-check? I don’t consider factcheck.org an authority, and certainly not capable of providing any “verdict.”

    By the way, Obama used to work for the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. The Annenburg Foundation runs Factcheck.org. Bill Ayers (the terrorist and Obama’s friend) was a key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

    Maybe factcheck.org might not be the most objective arbiter of truth on the current administration. Why don’t you read the papers and tell us what the “complete lives” system entails? Do some real reporting.

    The point about Holdren is that Obama choosing him as a czar gives us a little insight into how Obama himself leans. He wouldn’t pick someone to be a czar who he didn’t agree with.





Leave a Response

(required)


two − = 1