Another crazy Repub theory?

[Sugarcoated]

I thought I head all the latest batshit craziness, but there's always more, whackier crap percolating up from the sewer . . . courtesy of my right wing brother. A woman comes into the place where we're having coffee wearing a burka, so he says, 'In a few years we'll all be wearing burkas since Obama's turning the country more and more secular'??? I don't know if I've got it exactly the way he said it, and there was more nonsense that I don't remember, but he's reading and listening to all kinds of wingnut shit. He's relatively new to politics, so more times than not he gets the "facts" a little screwy, but I'm sure there's something new being chain-emailed or fresh Hanutty spewage. Of course, when I ask him where he's getting his info he dodges. Can anyone decipher this one?

[Warpy]

1. It's usually a supermarket line

and it's been debunked at Snopes.

It's just a variation on a lie that's been out there for years.

[Sugarcoated]

2. One of those crazy National Enquirer stories?

Is that what you mean?

[Warpy]

6. No, it's Astroturf email

put out by one right wing stink tank or another and passed around on huge email lists.

Nobody does that crap to me any more, I get nasty when I find my mail box clogged with right wing rubbish.

[Sugarcoated]

7. I looked at Snopes and can't find what it's about

but when I typed burka, secular and Obama into the Google I got several stories having to do with President Obama's Cairo speech where he comments on France's banning of burkas and that he's opposed to it. Is that it?

[Warpy]

11. This is the original old chestnut

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/lapelpin.asp

Creative writing is not the far right's long suit, and they tend to do plodding variations on a hackneyed theme and this is what your friend did.

[Sugarcoated]

13. Thanks

I hadn't read that one, my brothers know better than to send me any of that shit.

I'm not sure that's what this latest kooky idea is from. He's reading some FDR book, the revisionist history one that says Roosevelt didn't actually get us out of the depression, and Hanutty is his man crush, it's likely something he's peddling but I'm not going to listen or watch. We may have to do an intervention on my little bro . . . but seriously, it saddens me the extent these whack jobs have gotten to him. I avoid political discussion, deflect it with a, 'Okaaay, I hadn't heard that one, interesting theory' or 'we'll have to agree to disagree', because, without a factual starting point, it won't get anywhere, and has led to him getting very heated. This latest thing, it was such a bizarre statement I didn't know where to start. I did, of course, point out the glaring contradiction, but he went into some hard to follow explanation, dodged my request for a source. I almost always follow up because I want to know what to say next time, or just curiosity. A little sarcasm and humor laced with common sense may be needed if it does come up again.

[Morning Dew]

3. A serious consequence of becoming more secular -

everyone will have to don religious costumes.

:rofl:

[Sugarcoated]

4. LOL

I know, I know. He must be convoluting something he heard. Is convoluting a word?

Edit to add: I rhyme all the time.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. "conflating"

[Sugarcoated]

12. Ahhhh

there we go. Thanks.

[mwb970]

10. I was trying to figure that one out too.

Obama is making America secular (HTF?) and once everyone is secular we will all be forced to dress like Muslim fundamentalists.

:crazy:

I'm surprised the person pushing this can tie his shoes. Or can he?

[safeinOhio]

5. Read about his pathology here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics


American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.<1>


The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional). <1>

[LeftishBrit]

9. Wearing burkas is secular????