What we're up against/The Art of the Link Bomb

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As Rachel Maddow so brilliantly describes in this video clip, trying to have an intelligent two-way, factual conversation with someone who gets all of his information from within the right-wing echo chamber is a serious challenge. You get to the point where s/he will consider any perceived challenge to the illusion in which s/he is a willing participant will cause that person to either shut down or launch into a general ad hominem attack on you. What can you do when you are dealing with somebody unwilling to take facts for an answer? You link bomb their posts.

Link bombing simply means you take rebuttal source links and post them after the article/post in question. You don't discuss the links or continue any conversation you were having with the other person. Let the links do the talking. Even if that person does not read the information, anybody else who reads the post and comments later will read them. By appearing calm and reasonable while the other person rants and attacks, you have created credibility for those new readers.

Our job should be to plant seeds in the minds of the reader. We can't change their minds for them.

Rebuttals to Obamas and Law Licenses

The latest claim from the Birther crowd (from 2008 but making a comeback) is that Barack and Michelle Obama surrendered their law licenses in the state of Illinois "one step ahead of the law", citing misunderstood (perhaps deliberately) entries in the Illinois State Bar database and misrepresenting what Michelle did prior to becoming First Lady.

Here's an article to give some background on the claim: It Starts: Smear Campaign Makes Bogus Claims About Obamas Notice that the "authority" to the claim is anonymous and we're just supposed to take his word for it.

Snopes rebutted this argument back in 2010. snopes.com: Barack and Michelle's Law Licenses If you have somebody claiming Snopes is "pro-Democrat" or that "Soros owns Snopes" or other nonsense, use the links found here.

Rebuttals to Snopes Being Owned by Soros, et al.

About Snopes.com

Q: Is Snopes.com run by "very Democratic" proprietors? Did they lie to discredit a State Farm insurance agent who attacked Obama?

A: A chain e-mail that "exposed" Snopes contains falsehoods. And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. A State Farm spokeswoman confirms what they reported about the Obama-baiting agent.

FactCheck.org: Snopes.com

Rebuttals to President Obama's Vacation Days

Hypocrisy Alert: Boehner Says Obama AWOL, Campaigning Too Much

Rebuttals to Common Anti-Obama Images

Rebuttals to Republican Candidate Mitt Romney (Articles/Images)

Where Romney Outsourced American Jobs and Invested Overseas

Mitt Romney: 99 Facts

What Are Mitt Romney's Qualifications?

What Can We Expect from a Romney Administration?
Norquist: Romney Will Do As Told --David Frum

Rebuttals to Republican Candidate Mitt Romney (Video)

Rebuttals to Attacks on ACA/"Obamacare"

The Republican Party has long embraced the Individual Mandate, including adding it to their alternative health care reform bill in 1993. In fact, they championed it up until the moment President Obama included it in his Affordable Care Act, then it became "unconstitutional".
Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

Rebuttals to "Evil" Iran

"Wiped Off the Map"--The Rumor of the Century

Rebuttals to Birthers

President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate--Official White House Website

Snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

The Barack Obama Long Form Birth Certificate: Response to Zebest Excellent technical analysis of common Birther argument that electronic copy of President Obama's 2011 release of his long form birth certificate was a "forgery" based on the OCR. Shows how Mara Zebest's argument is flawed. This link is also useful for rebutting investigation by Sheriff Arapio's office.

Full Snopes Website Listing for Barack Obama This link has rebuttals to debunk the most common Birther, racist, ABO arguments, email forwards, reposts, etc.

Rebuttals to Evolution "debunked"

Evolution is a fact. We know it happens. It is also a theory, just like gravity and germ-based transmission of disease. In science, "facts" and "theories" aren't different rungs on some certainty ladder. They describe different things. Facts describe measurable, observable bits of data. Theories form an framework to explain how the facts came about. So repeat; evolution is a fact. This is not arguable. The theory part is the explanation of how one species can evolve into another. This can never be a fact, and it never needs to be one. It can be modified as new facts are learned. Another example is gravity. We know that when an apple breaks off a branch, it falls towards the earth. This is a fact. Why does this happen? That part is a theory - for which there is probably 10,000x less evidence and facts to support it than evolution.

Theories also don't "graduate" into scientific laws. This is another common misunderstanding of how science works, often deliberately manipulated by certain groups to add weight to empty arguments. A scientific law is a statement that explains what something does in science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.An example of a scientific law in social sciences is Zipf's law. Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.~Judith Maryse

Butterfly Unlocks Evolution Secret

A Work in Progress

Okay, I've got the links transferred from the original IPP doc and I've added a few more. If you have any suggestions for links or if you believe more sections should be added, please let me know. I am planning on adding a section for Willard Romney in the coming week, as he is the presumptive Republican nominee.

For Reference

Republican Dictionary

Wingnut Debate Dictionary

Kossary

Butterfly Unlocks Evolution Secret

Project Vote Smart A good source for finding your rep's voting record

Progressive Information Project: Online Progressive Radio and Video A good list of multimedia links for Progressives, including internet radio stations

Thinking about what you are saying

Five words and phrases Democrats should never say again

Rebuttals to Voter ID Laws and Voter Fraud

Voter Suppression 101





Diebold: The Face of Modern Ballot Tampering

Electronic Voting: Arguments in Favor

Electronic Voting: Arguments Against

The BRAD BLOG: GOP Voter Registration Firm Turns in Thousands of "Invalid" Registration Forms in California This one is good for rebutting standard anti-ACORN arguments by ideologues because it shows true voter registration fraud.

Rebuttals to Bush Family and Connections

Truth or Hustle: The Bush Record

Rebuttals to U.S. Being a Christian Theocracy

Treaty of Tripoli
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Does the 1796-97 Treat of Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?

Joel Barlow and the Treaty with Tripoli

Our Godless Constitution

Little-Known Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government is Secular

U.S. Constitution, No Religious Test Clause
"The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

Rebuttals to Citizens United

Six Pathetic Right-Wing Attempts to Defend the Indefensible Citizens United (Debunked)

The Hard Truth About Citizens United

Supreme Court to Re-Examine its Citizens United Ruling

Rebuttals to Reagan Hagiographies

Remember Reagan (conclusion): Reaganomics

The GOP Myth About Small Government, Shattered with One Simple Chart

Rebuttals to Taxed Enough Already

From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

WSJ Ignored Effective Tax Rate in Claiming U.S. Corporate Tax Rate "than in all in Europe"

Rick Perry: Middle Income Americans Don't Pay Enough Income Taxes

Ten Charts that Prove the United States is a Low-Tax Country

Quick: Who Wrote This?

The Numbers: What are the Federal Government's Sources of Revenue? Tax Policy Center charts and graphs

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

The Self-Made Myth: Debunking Conservatives' Favorite--And Most Dangerous--Fiction

Paul Krugman Obliterates the Myth that Low Business Taxes Create Jobs

Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts

Rebuttals to President Obama's Use of Teleprompter

Obama's Teleprompter, Ridiculously, has Become a Republican Campaign Issue

Obama's Teleprompter: The GOP's Dumbest Attack

"It Should Be Illegal to Read off a Teleprompter"

The War Against Teleprompters!

Rebuttals to What has President Obama done?

Obama Administration Accomplishments

Top 50 Things Accomplished by President Barack Obama

The 244 Accomplishments of President Obama As of 2010

100 Accomplishments of President Barack Obama As of 2010

Obama Administration Record for Women and Girls PDF

Obama Administration Achievements (Thus Far) (Crowd-Sourced with links)

President Obama DID NOT Control Congress for Two Years! Rebuttal for common Republican false equivalency between former President Bush's first SIX years and President Obama's first two years.

WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE SAYING ABOUT OUR PRESIDENT

Rebuttals to Tax-Dodging Corporations

The "Dirty 30" are the Top U.S. Companies that Manage to Pay No Taxes

Rebuttals to Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients

FLORIDA
Florida's Welfare Drug Testing Halted by Federal Judge

96% of Florida Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test, Discredit Tea Party Governor

Welfare Drug Testing Yields 2% Positive Results

GEORGIA
Georgia Welfare Drug Testing Bill Signed Into Law

INDIANA
As GOP Pushes to Drug Test for Government Benefits, Only 1 Percent Fail Tests in Indiana

1 Percent Fail Indiana Job Training Drug Test

IOWA
Iowa Republican State Senator Proposes Drug Testing Child Support Recipients

Rebuttals to ALEC

ALEC Exposed

ALEC Politicians

Rebuttals to Deregulation

Stealth Deregulation: The Untold Story

Rebuttals to USPS Problems

Postal Service "Crisis" Comes Entirely From Pre-Funding Mandate



Do You Know Where Your Legislators Stand?

Rebuttals to GOP War on Women

Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance

A Quick Guide to the GOP's War on Women

Days 6 and 7: I've Got a Serious Case of "...That's It?!"

The Way it Was

The War on Women: A Progressive Man's View

The Ten Scariest Places to Have Ladyparts in America

Debunking Romney's Claim that it's Obama's War on Women (Graphs)

Foul Play: War on Women is Real

R. WARREN: Well certainly the Bible says we are to care about the poor. There's over 2,000 verses in the Bible about the poor. And God says that those who care about the poor, God will care about them and God will bless them. But there's a fundamental question on the meaning of "fairness." Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money? Or does fairness mean everybody gets the opportunity to make the same amount of money? I do not believe in wealth redistribution, I believe in wealth creation.

In response, here's my Open Letter to Rick Warren:

Dear Rick,

Seriously? Do the Bibles at Saddleback Church not have the 20th chapter of Matthew in them? And if so, then what do you do with the parable of the workers -- the one where those who worked for only an hour were paid the same as those who worked all day... and when the all-day-workers grumbled that it "wasn't fair" (stay with me now) ... Jesus' response " are you envious because I am generous?" ... and then (famously said) "for the first shall be last and the last shall be first."

It seems that the WWJD answer to your "Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money?" would be "Yes." (See also: Isaiah 55:8 "My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord.")

And what about Matthew 25 -- the chapter with what my seminary professor called "The Final Final Exam?" You must know that one -- when Jesus comes to judge on the last day and the answer that gets you into the sheep fold rather than the goat line is not "inasmuch as you were fundamentally fair" -- it was "inasmuch as you fed the hungry, clothed the naked and gave water to the thirsty." And it was most certainly not "inasmuch as you "created wealth" -- it was "inasmuch as you did it unto the least of these."

Finally, Rick -- while I've got you -- can we talk contraception... just for a minute? When you told Jake Tanner "the issue here is not about women's health" you were well -- in a word -- wrong.

It is about women's health. It is totally about women's health and a woman's access to healthcare not being held hostage by the theology of her employer. There is a greater principle at stake here - but it is not the one you named: "the right to decide what your faith practices." That one is already protected by the First Amendment. Rather the principle at stake is the freedom of women to make health choices independent of their employer's faith practice that is on the line here.

And that brings me back to a couple of purpose driven things. First there's the purpose of God's preferential option for the poor made manifest in the work and witness of Jesus of Nazareth. And then there's the purpose of liberty and justice for all meant to protect not just freedom of religion for those who choose to practice it but freedom from religion for those who just want equal access to health care. The former would be in the Bible and the latter in the Bill of Rights.

If you need to brush up on either we've got them both here at All Saints Church in Pasadena. Drop on by -- the door is always open!

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell All Saints Church, Pasadena CA

The Big Problem The GOP Just Created For Themselves

Rebuttals to Koch Brothers

Koch Brothers Exposed

Why the Kochs Matter

Rebuttals to Myth of the "Liberal Media" and Fox News Bias

The popular meme when defending whatever Fox News happens to be saying is that the "media is liberal" and, therefore, they are trying to be "fair and balanced" in order to rationalize a position that is objectively skewed to the right.



FOX NEWS INSIDER: "Stuff is Just Made Up"

Fox News Shamelessly Smears Group That Exposed Network's Sordid History

News Corp Admits: Fox News is "Opinionated News"

The Case for Nightly Broadcast News--And What's Wrong with Cable News

Rebuttals for Gas Prices

What determines gas prices at pump?/Why can't President Obama fix it?/Why are prices so high?

How Gas Prices Are Determined

Good link to use to explain what percentage of the price of a gallon of gas goes to what. How Fox News Reported Gas Prices When a Republican was President

The Contango Game: How Koch Industries Manipulates Oil Market for Profit

Oil Prices are Rising Despite Lowest Demand Since 1997

Blame Oil Speculators, Not Obama, for Rising Oil Prices

Why the GOP is Trying to Pin High Gas Prices on Obama (and Gullible Americans are Falling for it)

Gas Prices Inspire War of Words: Obama, Dems Take on GOP

U.S. was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949

Fox News pumps fear over gas prices

Speculation Explains More About Oil Prices Than Anything Else

Are Gas Prices the 2012 Sleeper Issue?

Oil Speculators: The Damage is Real

STUDY: Media Missing the Mark on Gas Prices

U.S. drilling has little effect on gas prices

Murdoch's Wall Street Journal and Koch-Fueled Cato Agree: "It's Not Obama's Fault That Crude Oil Prices Have Increased"

Obama Pushes to Rein in Oil Speculators

S.O.S. Now--Stop Oil Speculation Now

Welcome to my IPP Rebuttal File

My name is Jim and I am co-admin of the group Intellectually Promiscuous Progressives on Facebook. I put together a document whose purpose was to give direct rebuttal information to counter the most common erroneous arguments heard on the Internet on the Republican side. With the 2012 presidential elections approaching in a little less than seven months and with the Republican Party not having a single candidate that can defeat President Obama, desperation will make them say outlandish things that MUST be rebutted before they are repeated often enough to take on an air of truthfulness. That is the purpose of this list.