Evidence that “conservative” “bloggers” don’t do research

That wingnut bloggers are credulous tools who propagate lies throughout the Web as if this gives them orgasms is no secret. But on the heels of pointing out that Sarah Palin knows that her base is one huge, thrumming hive of intellectual desolation, it’s worth wasting the short time needed to point out the one guy who consistently embodies every trait of “conservative” “bloggers” out there.

So I again refer to Gribbit, who, in just the first paragraph of this post, commits an improbable number of errors in addition to resorting to insults and slurs that would embarrass a sentient person. He writes:

Democrats who were holding out against SanFran Nan’s 1900+ page, $1 Trillion+ government takeover of health care got a key concession from the Speaker and her band of uber-leftists in the House when it was permitted for an amendment to the Death Care bill to be offered. The amendment addressed a key point of contention between pro-life Democrats and the leftists who are currently running the Party’s Caucus in the House. The Stupak Amendment, named for Rep. Bart Stupak of the Democratic People’s Republic of Michigan, removed federal funding of abortions from the Death Care bill gaining Pelosi the much needed 25 votes necessary for the bill to pass.

So in order, there’s an unsupported assumption (i.e., that the number of Democrats who changed their minds a a result of the added language was critical), a shitty nickname (“SanFran Nan”), a lie (that the bill is somehow owned by Pelosi), a lie and a gratuitous capital letter wrapped into one (“$1 Trillion+”), breathless hyperbole (“government takeover of health care”), another uncreative label (“the Speaker and her band of uber-leftists”), a rejection of the political process (“an amendment was allowed to be added”), unabashed ignorance of what the bill contains “Death Care bill”), a false dichotomy (“pro-lfe” =/= “leftist”), another silly label (“People’s Republic of Michigan”), an outright lie (see below), and finally, an obvious falsehood (that the bill would not have passed without the added language and that 25 Democrats switched sides owing to its inclusion; perhaps other Dems upset by the amendment went the other way).

The bill never contained anything about “federal funding of abortions.” Pro-lifers have claimed all along that it allowed for the possibility, but that was a creative interpretation of the passages in question, and one could have just as easily claimed (and still can) that it allows for the possibility of eight-graders performing neurosurgery, because it does not say outright that they cannot. The “concession” Gribbit mentions was nothing more than a “sigh, okay, dipshits, we’ll say it flat out if it’ll shut you up.” Gribbit is too much of a blinkered coward to address this directly and instead hides behind his comments-only-for-wingnuts policies and his failed IP bans, but he invariably sees the things I write about him and the comments people make about him, and at some dim level understands that he has nothing accurate or useful to say.

The amendment passed 240-194. There weere 64 Democrats among those 240, leaving 176 Republicans. There are presently 177 Republicans in the House. so, since one member was absent, the reponse to the amendment among Democrats was overwhelmingly negative–either 193-64 or 194-64. Ironically, then, the amendment may actually help Republicans gain enough votes to tip the scales in their favor once this bill hits the Senate floor.

%d bloggers like this: