False Equivalency Or True Hypocrisy? Mick Zano, The Hipocritic Oaf

HYPOCRISY_METERMick Zano argues that Democrats are not nearly as moronic, harmful, and sociopathic as Republicans. As an example he sites a scenario wherein a high percentage of polled Democrats would allow refugees from a non-existent country to enter the U.S.  He feels this is a far less reprehensible position than having a similarly high percentage of polled Republicans favor the bombing of this same fictional country. This example shows the disturbing flaws in the psychological make up of many of both Republicans and Democrats alike. When confronted with perceived threats both sides tend to instinctively react without reflection, but their irrational reactions are different. When Ricky Republican feels threatened he looks to blow up the first thing that moves, while Denny Democrat would rather open up his front door, raise his hands in the air and channel Neville Chamberlain. “Come into my house. Take anything you want, just please don’t hurt me! I’m a pluralist for fuck’s sake!”

Zano then goes on to give all kinds of examples of how Democrats are far more savvy than Republicans. He starts with Climate Change, and he tells us how 97% of climate scientists believe that the climate is changing. Of course, Zano implies these 97% of climate scientists believe that human activity is causing the change. Oh, and the Republicans are just to ignorant to deny what is staring right at them, like thermometers. I claim that 97% of all of the statistics that Mick Zano uses are bullshit. Who are these climate scientists? From what I can see, this “97%” figure came from the percentage of papers published in the field that took a “yes” or “no” position on the question of human based climate change. If I recall approximately 30% of the papers took no position whatsoever. So should we conclude that 30% of climate scientists don’t know what causes climate change? What I do know is this figure of 97% is used by politicians NOT scientists. I claim that 97% of objective political scientists believe that any carbon emissions regulations imposed by the federal government will do jack shit to help the environment.

Zano then retrieves even more dubious stats showing that “an estimated 24,000 lives were saved by Obamacare.” And healthcare costs were leveled. These “facts” were given to Zano by the same “experts” who said that the average family would save $2,500 from Obamacare. Zano and his “experts” aren’t focusing on how the Administration fell a scant 800 billion dollars short of that promise, so now they’re talking about immeasurable estimates and the “lowering of average premium increases” as a “leveling.”

A Zano article would not be complete without reminiscing about George Bush Jr. Oh, how Zano misses the Bush man. You two should get a Blue Room. Zano reminds us of how Bush lied to get us into Iraq, and now the Republicans are making Bengazi into a “false equivalency” of the Iraq atrocity. Perhaps Zano is correct on this point. The Iraq lie/blunder cost the United States dearly, and the Bengazi lie/blunder does not compare. But the issue of Benghazi shows the Democrats deep hypocrysy or Mickpocrysy as I like to call it. Barack Obama was elected President largely for his consistent resistance to the “unconstitutional” war in Iraq. But before Bush sent troops to Iraq, he at least gained congressional approval (something President Obama never did when he attacked Libya). Libya’s destabilization led to Benghazi. Zano has referred to Benghazi hearings as a witch hunt from the beginning, yet it was these hearings that led us to the understanding of Mrs. Clinton’s private email account.

I will say that its a “false equivalency” to compare Donald Trump’s legal issues with those of Hillary Clinton. You see, Donald Trump’s lawsuit is a civil case. Mrs. Clinton is currently under criminal investigation for knowingly setting up a private email account to be used for government related information. After hiring a person to destroy her server, she claimed that the emails were all of a private nature, involving letters to Chelsea and her Yoga teacher. When emails were found that contradicted this claim, Mrs. Clinton said that their were no classified emails sent. When emails were found contradicting this claim, she said that no emails were sent that were marked “classified” at the time they were sent. And Zano remained silent, which is actually the state I prefer him. So I encourage more of this behavior, Mick, and I look forward to your non-response.

So Zano, do you think there’s a chance that our nation’s adversaries received information sensitive to our national security from Mrs. Clinton’s emails? What percent chance do your experts give Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran of having gained such information? 5%? 10%? 43%? Real stats matter!

97% of objective experts say that Hillary Clinton’s server has been personally compromised to our nation’s enemies and is therefore unfit to be President of the United States.
(Visited 133 times, 1 visits today)