tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post1778581974796504706..comments2024-01-05T06:18:18.086-05:00Comments on CommentaramaPolitics: The Theater of the Absurd: Gun ControlAndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-30306339472203510232013-01-25T14:11:37.559-05:002013-01-25T14:11:37.559-05:00El Gordo, I don't even think moderating is the...El Gordo, I don't even think moderating is the right word. I'm writing about this next week (have the article already written) -- we need a chance of direction, not a slowdown of speed.<br /><br />I do remember why I supported Romney, but I also understand why these other people didn't vote for him: (1) he made it hard to see what he stood for -- it took me months of sifting through the debates and reading tea leaves to understand why I liked him, and (2) he's tarred by his association with the rest of the party which was advocating all kinds of things he wasn't.<br /><br />As for the foaming at the mouth, I think it goes beyond being just a subset of the base. Conservatives of all stripes struggle to prove their purity. Just suggest that you are a moderate and see how quickly everyone in the party turns on you. This isn't a matter of 1% tarring the rest of us, this is a matter of 99% embracing rhetorical extremism and then acting shocked when the public sees them as extremists.<br /><br />Moreover, it's not about ignoring unpopular truths. There's no truth involve. For example, I may oppose abortion, but I may also find the idea of granting fetuses 14th Amendment rights to be disastrous. Yet, if I don't sign the pledge to push that, suddenly I'm a pro-choice baby murderer. That's the extremist problem. It's not about truth, it's about demanding conformity to extremist dogma.<br /><br />As for Obama repudiating people... he repudiated his pastor by saying "oh, I didn't listen" and then not being seen with him again, he repudiated Van Jones by firing him. He didn't need to repudiate Ayers because he never claimed an association with him -- conservatives tried to create an association and Obama effectively countered that by not taking the bait and not getting to know him.<br /><br />By comparison, look at Akin. He was chosen by the Republican Party and its voters to hold a House seat for years, then to run for Senate. And while many repudiated him after his comments, others defended him and his ideas -- notably Religious Right leaders defended him. Even the other day, we had the idiot in Florida who tried to say Akin was right.<br /><br />So if you're a rational voter, you see Obama acting shocked about his minister and then ignoring him (which brought howls from Wright), you see him dumping Van Jones once the controversy "became known", and you see no link to Ayers except that they knew each other 30 years ago. Basically, you don't see the radical conservatives want you to see. On the other hand, you see a Republican Party that kept sending this clown to be their candidate and you see a good chunk of the party, particularly the religious part, defending him. That's a huge difference.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-20369770652730785342013-01-25T13:38:41.598-05:002013-01-25T13:38:41.598-05:00It´s not that I disagree with you about the need t...It´s not that I disagree with you about the need to appear moderate. I´d advise every conservative to hide his positions (if necessary) just as a Democrat lies about his. That is the political reality. I get that. <br /><br />On the other hand, I´m sure you remember why you supported Romney. They were good reasons. You made a choice like a mature citizen. Others didn´t. <br /><br /><i>"The Republicans, on the other hand, seeth at moderates and foam at the mouth to declare how pure (i.e. fringe) they are."</i><br /><br />A subset of the base does that, but I agree they are much in evidence. I certainly wouldn´t talk like that if I wanted to get elected. <br /><br />On the other hands, there are truths that are unpopular but they are still truths and I´m not going to pretend otherwise. <br /><br />I would not have any problem with a Republican having a reverse Sister Souljah moment - if he doesn´t end up affirming the liberal position.<br /><br />And it is not always true that Dems repudiate their radicals. Obama didn´t HAVE to repudiate Lowery or Ayers or Van Jones or anyone else. You weren´t supposed to mention them. And "Crazy uncle X" is in Congress or a Presidential appointee. Different thing.El Gordonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-60589280712565992902013-01-24T17:55:36.796-05:002013-01-24T17:55:36.796-05:00El Gordo, Nine million fewer people voted for Obam...El Gordo, Nine million fewer people voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. That's a 13% drop. That's significant. <i>Less than 20% of the population voted for this man.</i> There's way to frame that as the public voting him. The public chose none of the above in record numbers.<br /><br />As for polls, Obama has historically low approval ratings and even then, the polls oversample Democrats.<br /><br />And it IS rational to vote against the GOP. First, Romney is not a moderate. He embraced every single kooky right-wing idea the party offered. Social conservatives may have felt he wasn't being truthful, but the fact is that he did embrace them and people noticed.<br /><br />Secondly, even if he is moderate, so what? There were moderate Nazis too, does that mean Jews should have voted for those moderate Nazis and just not support the hard core ones? Hardly. When a party stands for something you despise, you don't vote for its members under any circumstance. To the contrary, you vote for whatever opposition is available.<br /><br />And again, as for blaming the Democrats for their radical members, there is a HUGE difference. When a Democrat spouts off something stupid, the Democrats tell everyone, "oh, that's just crazy uncle X, we don't listen to him... we're really moderates." The Republicans, on the other hand, seeth at moderates and foam at the mouth to declare how pure (i.e. fringe) they are. That makes a huge difference on this issue.<br />AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-34939108354457778282013-01-24T17:35:12.688-05:002013-01-24T17:35:12.688-05:00First, that doesn´t explain Obama´s good approval ...First, that doesn´t explain Obama´s good approval rating. Can´t blame that on Republicans. A lot of people must like him and at this point it calls their judgement and character into question.<br /><br />I can understand why certain voters would see the GOP in that light, but it is not rational. It is a caricature. A caricature has a resemblance but it is not the actual thing. Romney/Ryan did not run on these positions. If they can be smeared as extreme, so can Jindal or Rubio or anyone else. <br /><br />You have not really explained why moderate Republicans are blamed for the excesses of their fringe but radical Democrats are not blamed for the excesses of their friends. Democrats have actual communists in their ranks. "God damn America" and "White people all go to hell" is pretty damn extreme. Alan Grayson is back in Congress. What more does it take? <br /><br />And still these people need a reason to vote for a Republican but no reason at all to vote for a corrupt Democrat. They deserve fourty years of Obama, if only they had their own country.<br /><br />Perhaps you can tell, I don´t trust the public anymore. I know too many members of it. <br /><br />All these stories and analogies from the 1960s and 1970s, I wonder if they mean anything anymyore. <br /><br />I have spent enough time in Europe to see what a declining civilization looks like. Even American birthrates are down.El Gordonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-8705126903672426422013-01-24T13:04:23.633-05:002013-01-24T13:04:23.633-05:00El Gordo, The difference was that while they didn&...El Gordo, The difference was that while they didn't like Obama, they despised Republicans. And it has nothing to do with fashion, it had everything to do with not wanting the country to go in the direction the Republicans were promising.<br /><br />In their eyes, the Republican Party stands for this: (1) we think you're immoral and we will do anything we can to control your sexual behavior and force you to marry, (2) we want to shove gays back into the closet or convert them into heterosexuals, (3) we want to deport your Hispanic friends and force the rest to speak English, (4) we want to wipe out the safety net that will protect you if you get hurt or lose your job because it's your own damn fault if you aren't working, (5) we want to tax you so we can give the money to big companies, (6) we want to wipe out the department of education because we hate education, (7) we want to wipe out the EPA because we want companies to pollute, etc.<br /><br />And honestly, that's not an irrational view of the Republican Party, and that's not media spin. Those are the things the presidential candidates stood for.<br /><br />Would you vote for someone like that?<br /><br />In their eyes, it was safer to vote for Obama, despite his flaws, than it was to turn the country over to people who are obsessed with destroying the government and controlling people's sex lives.<br /><br />Until the party gets a genuine agenda, this image isn't going to change. Fortunately, I think people like Bobby Jindal are on the right track. He seems to get that we need a new direction, and I hope he succeeds.<br /><br />And in that regard, I totally think a rational agenda is the key. I don't think a legitimate agenda can be smeared by the media, not effectively. They'll try, but the public sees through it. The public is much more rational than conservatives want to believe. But we actually need the agenda for it to work.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-75229565185194101612013-01-24T10:50:20.879-05:002013-01-24T10:50:20.879-05:00"The public simply sees no reason to vote for...<i>"The public simply sees no reason to vote for the Republicans because we aren't offering anything except anger."</i><br /><br />There is truth in that. Of course, it is hard for the GOP to offer something when we are now at a point where any realistic solution involves drastic reform of Social Security and higher taxes on the middle class, aka screwing a generation or two. There is no easy way out anymore. Obama made that inevitable, but why and how should the GOP do the dirty work? (For it will be dirty and not be rewarded)<br /><br />Nonetheless a professional politican should take your advice to heart; it can only do him good. You hear the same thing from good guys like Mitch Daniels or Bobby Jindal. <br /><br />I´m not in that business and I believe in the end we may be back to square one because what is "extreme" has become relative. In parts of Europe, being against windmills or for "austerity" is now an extreme right wing position. <br /><br />I say we have now proof that a candidate can be destroyed without regard to any actual position he or she holds. I´m no longer convinced a completely rational position cannot be painted as extreme either. That must not stop us from holding said position, even if it costs us. <br />Where do you draw the line?<br /><br />And yes, voters are the problem. We have exactly the politicians they deserve. <br /><br />The women you wrote about a few posts back - why can they vote for Democrats they don´t like, but not for Republicans they don´t like? Why was Romney saddled with his more extreme allies, but Obama is not? Because of gays? Romney would not have nominated an anti-gay sec def such as Hagel. Obama did. So what happens? Nothing. Democrats have insulted and vilified far larger groups of voters - including Andrew Price - and I´m not just talking about bloggers and talk show hosts but elected officials. So what happens? Nothing. So what is this REALLY about? It´s about fashion. El Gordonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-83626269470247899402013-01-23T14:01:43.640-05:002013-01-23T14:01:43.640-05:00El Gordo, The important point that conservatives a...El Gordo, The important point that conservatives are not getting is that you don't need to appeal to liberals. The vast majority of the public is apolitical. They are largely conservative in nature with some liberal beliefs and an overall sense of moderation in all things. <br /><br />Conservatives are losing now because they have lost the middle, not because society turned liberal. Conservatives are losing because all they offer is extremism -- they offer an extreme position on abortion, an extreme position on gays, and basically nothing else. That's the problem.<br /><br />And right now, conservatives are throwing a tantrum and trying to blame the public for not voting for them, and they throw up their hands and whine "well, the public wants to be bought." That's just not true. The public simply sees no reason to vote for the Republicans because we aren't offering anything except anger.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-30084148989055539092013-01-23T04:15:01.930-05:002013-01-23T04:15:01.930-05:00Of course conservatives being surprised is a logic...Of course conservatives being surprised is a logical result of being conservative, i.e. defensive of your culture and by temperament ill equipped to understand revolutionaries. <br /><br />What a true conservative <i>does</i> understand is that some things have real consequences and can never be undone. Hence the current gloom. What motivates him is the fear of permanent loss. And that to me is a great wisdom that conservatives of all stripes are sharing. <br /><br />The so-called liberal is an instinctive revolutionary. He takes all the good that society gave him for granted and despises the rest. By temperament he always takes the side of "them" against "us". He is not interested in building a good alternative but he knows what he hates, and how to tear it down and take it away. The eyes are always fixed on the horizon. Move on to the next issue, next, next. Whether something "works" is irrelevant to them. And that is why you must understand that changing our language and public image, while good advice for politicians, will not make a real difference. If you take gay marriage or abortion off the table, they will replace it. All revolutionaries (and terrorists) demand the impossible. That´s how they keep things at a boil. <br /><br />They are demonizing moderate fiscal conservatism just as easily as social conservatism. They already called you - yes, you - unpatriotic, heartless, even a fiscal terrorist. And this from elected officials, not radio hosts or bloggers. Yet they pay no price for that. <br /><br />Ultimately they MUST attack the constitution itself, and all its institutions. Obama said so from the beginning. <br /><br />And will it work? Well, the people who enable them today, who are giving Obama his current 52% approval rating, are followers of fashion. People who vote on bullshit feelgood issues (such as gay marriage) are not mature thinkers who think in terms of priorities and real world outcomes. Their reality is formed by the media and their social circle and aspirations. They are not citizens, they are a herd and can be herded. Even if it´s over a cliff. <br /><br />I know the sort. I talk to them every day. A politician must somehow work with them. I´m not a politican though. I despise the lot of them. They deserve a third and fourth term of Obama even if we don´t. El Gordonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-87476491550627342472013-01-22T22:25:48.419-05:002013-01-22T22:25:48.419-05:00Why doesn't Obama pass a law stating that peop...Why doesn't Obama pass a law stating that people have to aim their guns before firing them? I meam if you really want better gun control this is the best way.....Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-66881654692489734542013-01-22T19:39:28.739-05:002013-01-22T19:39:28.739-05:00El Gordo, I think in a general sense you are right...El Gordo, I think in a general sense you are right, but I'm not sure those control either party quite frankly. If they did, I would have expected more progress at some point.<br /><br />You are right about conservatives, they always act surprised when the obvious happens, and when the public doesn't turn against liberals.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-10015580178184725642013-01-22T18:13:08.389-05:002013-01-22T18:13:08.389-05:00Andrew, that is probably correct for the time bein...Andrew, that is probably correct for the time being. In the long run, they do want their ideas to become law: they turn them into laws whenever it is safe to do so. And then conservatives always act very surprised. <br /> <br />Obamacare has yet to destroy them. El Gordonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-41469449184430252232013-01-22T17:01:19.522-05:002013-01-22T17:01:19.522-05:00El Gordo, I think the slippery slope argument is a...El Gordo, I think the slippery slope argument is a valid one in most cases, and it definitely is in terms of guns. And you're right, that this is all part of a bigger issue to get people used to being controlled.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />What strikes me here is that once again, the Democrats have shown that they simply don't want to their ideas to become law. And I think the reason is that they know it will destroy them, so they are just using this as a fund raiser.<br />AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-88778304081928465532013-01-22T16:54:47.111-05:002013-01-22T16:54:47.111-05:00I think the slippery slope argument regarding gun ...I think the slippery slope argument regarding gun control is very plausible. Liberals want to establish a pattern where every time "something happens", we "do something", i.e. impose more and more controls which sound ever more plausible to more and more people. <br /><br />Who cares if it "works" in practical terms? Since when did that matter? Do trillion dollar deficits "work"? Well, Obama has a 52% approval rating, so the answer must be yes. <br /><br />Do you still not understand how these fanatics operate? It is about shifting the Overton window. Reaching tipping points. Demoralizing and criminalizing their enemies. <br /><br />How did Europeans get talked into accepting lower standards of living, higher taxes and prices, pervasive surveillance, their wealth confiscated to pay for utopian schemes? I´m sure it would have sounded outrageous to them even a few years ago. <br /><br />Sooner or later, another round of measures will really bite. Tocqueville´s timid and industrious animals don´t need guns. They don´t even want them. El Gordonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-27814090619506305642013-01-22T12:47:11.589-05:002013-01-22T12:47:11.589-05:00Tryanmax,
Apologies, my sarcasm detector was off....Tryanmax,<br /><br />Apologies, my sarcasm detector was off.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16124128949343301445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-82400863450079608912013-01-22T11:31:05.538-05:002013-01-22T11:31:05.538-05:00Anthony, That's probably true. I know that Ru...Anthony, That's probably true. I know that Rush's audience has gotten big on name calling lately, which is too bad.<br /><br />Of course guns are the most effective way to kill, and my response to tryanmax was a bit tongue in cheek. If I had to be murdered, I'd rather they did it with a gun than say a team of killer turtles or a baseball bat.<br /><br />As for the number of murders, the majority are indeed by guns.<br /><br />Agreed about gun control. It has no practical effect. It's about political power, that's all.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-7374886999840007722013-01-22T10:20:35.490-05:002013-01-22T10:20:35.490-05:00Anthony, I'm merely parroting something I hear...Anthony, I'm merely parroting something I heard, and I may well have discarded the context. I'm not embarrassed, however, as I believe the thrust of my satire withstands the evidence, even if loses some of its bite. The air in the room, on the other hand, you have effectively sucked out. Cheers. tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-88271206247612217472013-01-22T06:41:09.249-05:002013-01-22T06:41:09.249-05:00AndrewPrice said...
If you're gonna get murde...AndrewPrice said... <br />If you're gonna get murdered, a gun is the best way to go. It's much better than any number of nasty methods I can think of.<br /><br />But then, gun control isn't about stopping murders, it's about controlling the public.<br />------<br />Guns are the most effective means to kill someone (its why we don't send out soldiers into combat with baseball bats and knives). They are so effective they can kill by accident (nobody kills anyone with a bat by accident, lots of people have been killed by stray or accidentally fired bullets). <br /><br />2nd Amendment aside, gun control is pointless because prohibiting something which is widely available and popular has no practical impact.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16124128949343301445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-46067839288412409272013-01-22T06:34:46.488-05:002013-01-22T06:34:46.488-05:00tryanmax said...
It's funny, I often note how...tryanmax said... <br />It's funny, I often note how well liberalism stacks up against ancient cult religions, too! LOL! So I guess the answer to your question is, "for a long, long time." <br /><br />Shifting gears: I was also thinking about how, in this last round of gun talk, it came to light that the most commonly used murder weapon is a baseball bat.<br />-------<br />Are you talking about globally? That's certainly not the case in the US (firearms are responsible for 67.5% of homicides).<br /><br />http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xlsAnthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16124128949343301445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-16413438541009688862013-01-22T06:06:39.678-05:002013-01-22T06:06:39.678-05:00AndrewPrice said...
Anthony, I can't speak to...AndrewPrice said... <br />Anthony, I can't speak to Rush's base at the moment. But when he started, I never got the sense that his audience was into any sort of baiting (race or otherwise) or that they were zombies, as they were portrayed. To the contrary, the people I met who were Rush fans were well informed, good-natured, asked intelligent questions, had open minds, and took most of his stuff with humor and a grain of salt.<br /><br />I cannot say the same for the rest of talk radio, but at least with Rush that was true in the past. <br />------<br />I doubt Rush and his base are racist, but like many intensely partisan types on both sides of the aisle, they are happy to race bait the other side. In recent years I've heard Rush use the terms oreo, halfrican and magical negro in reference to Obama and by all accounts he was happy to tell black callers (liberals, I'm sure) to get the bones out of their noses and suchlike.<br /><br />*Shrugs* I'm sure he has had nothing but good to say about the likes of Thomas or West. As I've observed before, if you want to get a political party to show its ass, put a woman or a minority in a position of high visibility.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16124128949343301445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-62420676949152757382013-01-21T23:58:59.065-05:002013-01-21T23:58:59.065-05:00Speaking of George Orwell, I wonder if prior ages ...Speaking of George Orwell, I wonder if prior ages were as cynical as the current one? It almost doesn't seem possible, except that we seem to be repeating the Gilded Age right now.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-40482811461676716962013-01-21T23:55:58.020-05:002013-01-21T23:55:58.020-05:00Tell me about it! Tell me about it! George Orwellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-27408077971752986112013-01-21T23:29:58.095-05:002013-01-21T23:29:58.095-05:00If you're gonna get murdered, a gun is the bes...If you're gonna get murdered, a gun is the best way to go. It's much better than any number of nasty methods I can think of.<br /><br />But then, gun control isn't about stopping murders, it's about controlling the public.<br /><br />I'm amazed at how cult-like liberalism becomes in all of its facets. It really is like a religious belief imposed by a divine leader. What really amazed me (or actually freaks me out) is how liberals can in unison literally change their most "fundamental principles" overnight and seemingly without even getting a memo from the top. It's like they're all hooked up to some transmitters. Even creepier is how many then forget that even a day or two before they believed the opposite.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-2867347780126522382013-01-21T23:23:57.723-05:002013-01-21T23:23:57.723-05:00It's funny, I often note how well liberalism s...It's funny, I often note how well liberalism stacks up against ancient cult religions, too! LOL! So I guess the answer to your question is, "for a long, long time." <br /><br />Shifting gears: I was also thinking about how, in this last round of gun talk, it came to light that the most commonly used murder weapon is a baseball bat. Personally, I think blunt-force trauma has to be about the worst way to go. And I don't think too highly of being stabbed, either. Which makes me think there needs to be a campaign to get more guns <b>into</b> the hands of criminals. If someone is going to murder <b>me</b> I want it to be as quick and clean as possible. <br /><br />"Make homicide humane--demand softer gun laws."<br /><i>Message paid for by The Committee for the Revival of the Wild, Wild West, The Gunslinger Project, and Ted Nugent.</i>tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-72116790357182334212013-01-21T22:48:07.626-05:002013-01-21T22:48:07.626-05:00Yeah, that's a pretty sick thought. Welcome t...Yeah, that's a pretty sick thought. Welcome to liberalism. What I find more bizarre is the need to dress like these people and to find out things like what Obama eats on his pizza. It reminds me of some ancient cult and it makes me wonder how long liberals have been messing up the world?AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6251675227852122352.post-32047976038883656802013-01-21T21:52:01.340-05:002013-01-21T21:52:01.340-05:00Algore is bad enough. Excuse me while I rinse my b...Algore is bad enough. Excuse me while I rinse my brain out. tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com