*According to the Harry Reid School of logic and reasoning. (Stop laughing!)
Image courtesy of John Cox
"We're not going to bow to tea-party anarchists who deny the mere fact that Obamacare is the law. We will not bow to tea-party anarchists who refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional."
Which is funny, on the face of it, since Obama is the one known for bowing to petty tyrants and monarchs around the globe. But, lets take an honest look at his dishonest use of the word "anarchists". A dictionary definition to start?
an·ar·chist [an-er-kist] noun 1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism. 2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. 3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
Definition one: Does the tea party, organized or otherwise believe in or advocate anarchy? Of course not! In order to believe that, you'd have to be delusional enough to believe that Harry Reid is competent, or that Obamacare would lower the insurance premium of a family of four by $2,500 a year, instead of increasing it $7,500.
Definition two: Why would Senator Cruz seek to filibuster the Senate, if the tea party "seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government". Can Senator Dimbulb Reid point to any instance of the tea party seeking to overturn by violence ALL constituted forms and institutions of society and government? That sounds more like his friends in the Occupy movement. The tea party seeks to re-establish the preeminence of the Constitution and the return to a true Constitutional Republic, which, the last time I looked, was an institution of society and government. Maybe Harry should stick to things he knows about, like government subsidies for cowboy poetry.
Definition three comes closest to a fig leaf for poor Harry, if you used "promotes disorder or excites revolt" very, very loosely. And one could argue that Obamacare is an "established" law, even though the Executive branch picks and chooses which parts of the law to implement and enforce and which parts of the law it chooses to ignore. Hmm. Wonder what the definition of "people who ignore laws" is?
But, even if by tortuous definition one were to equate the opposition of one law with the opposition of all law and order, may we look at the consistency of Mr. Harry Pencilneck Geek Reid?
Throughout the history of our nation, there have been those who opposed slavery. Slavery was the established law of the land for the first century of our nation's founding. Were those who opposed slavery "anarchists", Mr. Reid?
"Jim Crow" laws were established in the South, Mr. Reid. Were those who opposed Jim Crow "anarchists", Mr. Reid?
The law of the land denied women's suffrage. (That means they couldn't vote, Harry.) Were those people who advocated women's suffrage "anarchists", Mr. Reid?
How about gay marriage? Child labor?? Roe v. Wade??? In the dim recesses of whatever passes for your mind, is everyone who has ever advocated for a law to be changed, an "anarchist"????
Why the people of Nevada consistently return such a dim witted fool such as yourself to public office is a bit of a mystery and more than a little bit an American tragedy. The fact that you are the leader of the Senate which your party controls speaks volumes as to how low their standards actually are.
I am willing to admit that I might be wrong in my assessment. Your feet may not stink at all. Your record as a "public servant", however, does.
Cross posted at Proof Positive