Then comes the sheer arrogance of leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Patrick (blasphemer of my name) Leahey, who dismiss questions about the Constitutionality of their plans, rather than falling back on arguments I can blow out of the water in my sleep (naked, preferably).
But the capstone was something I heard Friday in Rush's first hour (and the source below should tell you where this is going):
Let me put this quote in print so you can reread it, because the words stirred a fire in me when I heard them (thus the need to post):
"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
So I researched this to get the original source. I found some links, I found the story Rush referenced. Then I found the original post. I didn't find the source the post used though, because there wasn't one: The original post was a fake.
Fuck. I have to scrap my post. But as I will kick a man when he is down despite respect for him otherwise:
Rush now gets to join the ranks of President Obama as a 2-time AOTW (and one of those times for Obama was one he shares with every POTUS). For failing to do a fucking Google search for the source, he deserves it.
His source dropped an apology and retraction at the time Rush was reading the original post.
I Googled the alleged source, and he denied it in the first link I checked.
And the idiots at Media Mutilators were posting links to the audio, and finding RACISM!!!!!! to boot (because they're idiots and race-baiting cock blockers). I hate giving credit where credit is due, but they are due on this one for spotting it first.
In his third hour, Rush did the half-correction though:
Here's the full transcript of those parts of his show. So despite confirming it was satire in the end, he sticks to the argument that this is what Obama thinks.
This highlights two things. First, when a story is plausible (and I really thought it was) it can get traction really damned fast. And it can change the discussion in all kinds of ways.
However, that's where the second thing comes in. One principle I always go with when it's something that is clearly polarizing is that I hunt down the source to quote, rather than relying on others' research. Because even the best can get facts wrong. And on the Internet, which contains hard facts, opinions of every stripe, and absolute pointless and/or worthless shit of no consequence (the reason I started my other blog), as well as enough titties and perversions to give me Popeye-arms, you gotta do your damned research!
Those who don't become asshats.