It is just a little tough to get upset about this:
“Liar, Liar..”
When our side is running around with shit like this on their car:
“Liberal Hunting Permit”
And then there is this, from the College Republican Convention:
“There are Americans, and then their are liberals” or ” Happiness is Hillary’s Face on a Milk Carton”
Or the Purple Heart band-aids that were handed out during the 2004 Republican Convention:
Newt Gingrich: “I think it’s funny”
Just saying- little tough to get outraged over the ‘Liar, Liar’ t-shirt at a MoveOn meeting.
Via Direland (via C&L), this may be part of a larger strategery:
From top White House operative Karl Rove to two of the party campaign committees, Republicans have launched a full-scale attack on MoveOn.org, questioning the liberal group’s patriotism and worldview. These attacks appear to have two purposes: One is to put the group and its Democratic allies on the defensive over support for the war on terror. And the second is to drive a wedge between Democratic candidates and the millions of dollars that MoveOn’s supporters have pumped into their campaigns. With MoveOn fast becoming one of the Democratic Party’s most important fundraising sources, the second goal may end up being the more important one.”
Take the case of GOP Senator Rick Santorum, darling of the Christer right. The almost-certain Democratic nominee against Santorum next year is Bob Casey Jr., the Pennsylvania State Treasurer, son of a former Democratic governor, and a noted social conservative who opposes abortion. Despite Casey’s conservative views, MoveOn sent out a major e-mailing soliciting funds for Casey’s campaign as a way of defeating Santorum — and with great success, raising over $150,000 for Casey in the first 24 hours after the fundraising appeal.
“But,” reports Roll Call, the National Republican Senatorial Committee immediately went on the offensive with a release titled, ‘Casey Moves In With MoveOn,’ alleging that the group’s e-mail on behalf of Casey shows how closely he is aligned with the ‘ultra-liberal left.’ John Brabender, Santorum’s media consultant, predicted that if Casey continues to accept MoveOn money, he will have to answer for the group’s controversial policies, which include opposing military intervention in Afghanistan. ‘You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep,’ Brabender said. A group like MoveOn ‘will have a lot of trouble in Pennsylvania, particularly in the middle part of the state. The group will be hung around Bobby Casey’s neck.’ The rhetoric from Brabender and the NRSC is aimed at forcing Casey into a no-win choice: He could pass up a generous source of campaign cash, or he could accept MoveOn’s ample resources, yet face an assault over the group’s issue stances.”
I guess we are now in the conquer stage of ‘divide and conquer:’
“The art of using troops is this:
……When ten to the enemy’s one, surround him;
……When five times his strength, attack him;
……If double his strength, divide him;
……If equally matched you may engage him;
……If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing;
……And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him,
……….for a small force is but booty for one more powerful.”
– Sun Tzu, the Art Of War
Fabulous. More acrimony and villainization. Whatever happened to winning over converts to the cause? I am so tired of this, and that goes for both sides.
Stormy70
Is the second one sponsored by a tax exempt entity trying to pay for commercials regarding the Supreme Court? It seems a little different to me, but this is a country of free speech. I find it telling that they have to tell their members not to wear this stuff because it will make the papers. Tells me I can dismiss anything they say as spin for the media.
John Cole
Wanna talk about “Just Us” Sunday and how only Republicans are people of faith? Wanna talk about the stuff sold at the College Republican Convention? Wanna talk about the purple heart band-aids at the RNC?
Like I said, it is harder and harder to get upset about what they are doing when you keep an eye on what our side is doing…
metalgrid
I give the T-shirt a 5/10 on the humor scale. The hunting stickers get a 7/10.
ppgaz
I agree with the humor assessment. But …
The shirt is simply a statement of fact. All politicians are liars, and this particular one is the current Liar in Chief.
The bumper sticker is malevolent, though. It’s part of a larger campaign to declare war on the half of the country that doesn’t agree with the views of the person who displays it. If anyone wonders why liberals detest these people, that’s it. They think they are entitled to act as if half the country not only is to be disempowered, but is the enemy. Not a political enemy, but an enemy of the country. That’s not just dysfunctional on a grand scale, it’s evil. Especially when people in power don’t just accede to it, they promote it.
Political statement, versus evil campaign. Hardly an equivalency.
Jay
Its all free speech. But I agree, both sides are guilty. How’s the saying go about living in a glass house?
Jay
Its all free speech. But I agree, both sides are guilty. How’s the saying go about living in a glass house?
metalgrid
The bumper sticker is malevolent, though. It’s part of a larger campaign to declare war on the half of the country that doesn’t agree with the views of the person who displays it. If anyone wonders why liberals detest these people, that’s it. They think they are entitled to act as if half the country not only is to be disempowered, but is the enemy. Not a political enemy, but an enemy of the country. That’s not just dysfunctional on a grand scale, it’s evil. Especially when people in power don’t just accede to it, they promote it.
I think that has more to do with the whole liberal inclination to have government protect you, rather than going and getting yourself a gun and protecting yourself. If something like this needs to happen in order for liberals to become pro-gun, anti-gun-control, I’ll volunteer to hand out these stickers myself.
Cyrus
For that matter, is the first one sponsored by a tax-exempt entity? I couldn’t find out one way or the other. Do you have any evidence it is?
Wow, they must have really screwed up if you’ll dismiss anything they say as spin. I’ll bet they’re trying to figure out ways they could have avoided that even now.
But geez, seeing these t-shirts makes me feel a lot less guilty about the “Republicans for Voldemort” t-shirt I’m wearing at the moment.
Demdude
I grew up in a household where my father was a Republican and my mother was a Democrat. There were 5 kids and we are all over the place on the idealogical scale. Believe me, we have had heated discussions over many topics. Whenever anyone crossed the line, everyone in the family jumped on them. “YOU LOSE” was the comment. If you can’t make your point without insults or name calling, the group took you out.
The name calling and childish behavior that passes for political discussion is amazing. Some of us would like to have an adult discussion. I think the proper way to end a debate is “we agree to disagree”. We don’t have to agree on everything nor should we.
Either shirt pictured demands a “YOU LOSE”.
Sojourner
Substitute Christian for liberal and imagine the uproar.
ppgaz is right. I wonder if these yahoos understand just how much they continue to demonstrate the president’s lack of leadership. An effective leader unifies, not divides.
Stormy70
I just find it telling that they have to control the free speech of the crazies for the liberal Washington Post. I actually think both things are funny. Like the Kos “purge”, it’s only happening because it is hurting their political cause. I come down on the side of more free speech, not less. By all means, get it all out there. I beleive the majority of Americans can sort the wheat from the chaff, and decide accordingly. I don’t always agree with the majority and what they decide, but then I just bitch about in a loud manner. Free speech rules!
Stormy70
An effective leader unifies, not divides.
Ok – name me one leader who unified this country. None. That’s politics. There will always be people who disagree with the current President. Or did all you guys love Reagan, and consider him a unifier? He did win 49 out of 50 states in 1984. He was a great leader, but the country was hardly unified. That is a pipe dream.
Nathan Lanier
Well, he’s controlling free speech on his site, and to me it makes perfect sense. If people want to spew whacko theories there are plenty of other places to do it.
Kos is an activist, and he will readily admit that he filters out good news about say, the economy, because it doesn’t help or serve his agenda. If he thinks its better for the lefties to moderate a bit in order to win elections, it makes perfect sense to silence the crazies. (Well, the extremely crazy crazies)
I commend him for it. I mean, the place is an echo chamber as it is, and if he expects to have senators continue to write diaries and such, he’s going to have to tone it down a bit.
Sojourner
The country was unified after 9/11. But Bush couldn’t even maintain that for very long.
Darrell
Uh John, that was 1 church, and was denounced by other Christian groups. It seems you have to bend very far to create an illusion of equivalent bad behavior on both sides. In other words, you have to search for random bumper stickers and statements coming out of a single church to counter the systematic widespread smears coming from the left. The bad behavior is not equivalent on both sides. Not in volume nor in substance
Darrell
You have 1 side in which large numbers carried protest signs saying “Bush = Hitler”, and “Amerikka is the real terrorist nation” screaming “chickenhawk” and claiming terrorist headchoppers are “minutemen.. and on the other side you have.. well, you have a handful of guys handing out bandaids at the RNC convention
neil
Darrell: You have one side where prominent Republican leaders at their week-long annual convention openly mocked a war veteran for being wounded in service of his country, screaming “traitor” and claiming that torture is a “fraternity prank”, and on the other side you have… a bunch of nameless hippies carrying cardboard signs on the street and getting a 2-minute bit on the evening news.
See, two can play at that game.
Darrell
Neil, name for me the ‘prominent Republican leader’ who ever called Kerry or any other Dem a “traitor”. Because I know that you lefties are so honorable that you would never make up a lie like this and spread it without evidence, right? that is right, isn’t it neil?
ppgaz
Metal, I’m a liberal who is pro-gun and pro-gun-control.
Gun control does not mean confiscation or proscription. It just means having some control over the flow of weapons and ammunition. It’s common sense, and opposition to it is dishonest and manipulative.
I have no issue with responsible and law-abiding gun ownership or use.
ppgaz
Dareell, starting your daily dose of useless argument and churn?
Good luck.
JPS
That t-shirt is ho-hum stuff: too silly to take seriously, too old to be funny or shocking. The bumper sticker is infuriating and disgusting.
Sojourner:
“The country was unified after 9/11. But Bush couldn’t even maintain that for very long.”
Look: 90% of the country was on the same page when it comes to preventing the last attack from happening again. Where we split seriously, and get into screaming matches, is on how to prevent the next, much bigger one.
Basically half the country thinks we should have knocked off the Taliban, then focused on playing a better defensive game, improving Homeland Security and Intelligence. In this view, by acting as we have, we’ve alienated allies, misallocated our defenses, and given the Islamists a wonderful way to recruit against us.
Roughly the other half thinks that even if you turn this country into a garrison state, it will inevitably have vulnerabilities which the enemy will find a way to exploit, and that unless you go out on the offensive and overturn the whole rotten order in the Middle East that produced these attacks (and was on its way to producing something much worse), you guarantee yourself a war in the future that makes this one look like a minor measure.
That’s a pretty fundamental difference of opinion. It was going to come up sooner or later. Blame Bush for it if you will (and I know you do), but the only way to avoid it would have been to just punt the issue down the road. It would have come up again eventually.
Rick
John,
I might have missed it, but who was stated as having knickers in a twist over the depicted T-shirt. Pretty tame stuff, and perfectly acceptable in a tit-for-tat way.
Seems the Moveon party host wished to conceal the shirt. So who is expressing outrage. Not Drudge.
Cordially…
metalgrid
Metal, I’m a liberal who is pro-gun and pro-gun-control.
..
I have no issue with responsible and law-abiding gun ownership or use.
Posted by ppgaz at July 11, 2005 12:17 PM
Apparently you’re not the typical liberal/democrat. Otherwise it would be pretty hard to reconcile that with the highly restrictive and authoritarian gun-control measures present in heavily liberal/democrat dominated states.
Christie S.
JPS, nice summation of our current ideological positions. Now, my question to the populace at large:
Is there some way to achieve both goals concurrently with the least amount of loss in lives, money and world position?
Rick
There is no substitute for victory. Certainly not summitry, appeasement and denial.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Stormy, the Uniter-not-Divider theme is around entirely and only because GWB the Liar in Chief made it an issue.
It’s his pattern. Say A, but do Z. Of course, to his base, this doesn’t matter. It’s only what you say that counts. Reality, or what you do, never gets points taken off.
Bush is the most divisive figure in American politics since Nixon. And for the same reasons. He has decided to rally his base by painting the opposition as the enemy. The only difference between Spud George and Tricky Dick is that Nixon was at least upfront about it … he was not above spreading the enmity himself, whereas Bush has surrogates do it for him. Nixon was rotten, but he was standup rotten. Bush is a coward.
Asked by Frost why he did certain rotten things in a congressional campaign, Nixon did not flinch: “Well, you have to win.” In your face. No bullshit. Gotta respect that.
bg
Hi Metal. Meet another liberal who doesn’t give a damn about gun control as a political issue. Two is a coincidence. Is there another pro-gun liberal here? Maybe we can make a pattern.
Darrell
I agree with Christie that JPS did a great job of summing up the ideological camps on the WOT. Kudos JPS. However, I don’t see that there are different goals (“both goals” as Christie said), just different approaches to the same problem.. protecting the US from terrorist attacks.
Also, I note that Christie, along with most leftists, share what I consider to be an extreme concern with US “world position” without acknowledging that much ‘world opinion’ is corrupt and hateful. As we did with the Balkans war, the US is now leading the fight again, but this time against terrorism.
My problem with the left’s position, the honest left that is, is that they seem to believe that the fight against terrorism should have been limited to Afghanistan and the capture of OBL. As if the capture of OBL would have solved the terrorist problem.
Overturning the “whole rotten order in the Middle East” deals with the problem now, rather than kicking it down the road.. which is what would have happened had we limited the fight to Afghanistan
Decided Fencesitter
*Chuckle* My membership with the NRA and the ACLU come due on the same day.
Rick
Gosh, some of the anti-Bush commentary here looks cribbed from FreeRepublic back in the Bubba Day. About as accurate, too. Nearly as accurate, that is.
Cordially…
Brian
That she-beast with the hilarious purple heart bandaid looks like a shaved scrotum with dentures and a hat. Or maybe Jabba the Hutt? That’s my contribution to this thread.
Jimmy Jazz
The contrast in this particular example is telling about the difference:
Liberals attack Bush.
Conservatives attack liberals.
Threats of violence are not “funny” or “harmless”. They are threats. Period.
over it
I may be somewhere in the middle Darrell. I do not believe that we should have limited the fight Afghanistan….but I do believe we should have finished before we started another. There was no need to rush into Iraq. I do agree that the removal of Saddam and the attempt to bring some form of democracy to the Middle East is/was needed…but I do not believe that we did it at the right time.
Had we held of until…say….now, we most likely would have had Afghanistan pretty tightly wrapped up and, since there were no WMD’s, Iraq would pretty much be sitting in the same position. If we had waited until the completion of our stay in Afghanistan before attacking Iraq I believe that BOTH endeavours would have been/would be far more successfull.
At least IM(not so)HO.
Rick
That she-beast with the hilarious purple heart bandaid looks like a shaved scrotum with dentures and a hat.
Truthfully, she could pass for Barbara Mikulski. That’s favoring Barb some, in the looks department.
Cordially…
gratefulcub
Not pro gun, but not really pro gun control at this point. We are at a point that there is no way to keep the guns off the street. When the argument is made that ‘gun control only keeps guns from responsible gun owners because a criminal can get one off the street in 10 minutes’, I can’t really disagree.
So, put me down as a liberal that doesn’t believe in gun control as a political issue, and doesn’t see any realistic solutions to the gun problem.
And, by gun problem, I mean that any criminal can get one on the street in 10 minutes.
metalgrid
The contrast in this particular example is telling about the difference:
Liberals attack Bush.
Conservatives attack liberals.
The erroneous part is that not some Liberals attack Bush, and even some conservatives attack Bush and they both get branded a liberal or a lefty, thereby doing a very good job of marginalizing many moderates or multiple and diverse issue oriented voters.
gratefulcub
OverIt,
If we had limited the fight to Afghanistan, the ever popular flypaper stategy would have made sense. We could have pulled on the jihadis into the mountains of Afghanistan and fought them there, instead of in the streets of Baghdad where many more innocents were bound to die.
Then we could have rationally discussed the best way to deal with SH.
Stormy70
This is a country of free speech, and the more the merrier.
Are you mad because the “surrogates” messages worked, and the vast majority of Americans don’t trust liberals in times of a National Security Crisis. Why would they? First the Dems screw up Vietnam, then soldiers come home to be spit on by liberal anti-war protesters (one of which was Kerry), then Carter lets our embassy get taken over with no retaliation, then Clinton criminalizing an act of war (1st trade center bombing), then after 9/11, liberal anti-war groups start ramping up, then after the Dems authorize action against Iraq, they start backtracking once the going gets tough.
Sure, the Dems will be trusted to see a war through, one that will be fought for decades. They are already waffling in any stiff breeze that blows. Dems are seen as weak, and they are seen as looking down at large swaths of the country. It’s not surprising when large swaths of citizens exercise their rights of free speech in an election. The right could care less that Bush is not a unifier, they would rather he came out swinging against the Democrats. This is the game of politics, and you guys are pissed because people are not listening or caring what you say.
Darrell
In WWI and WWII, we did not wait for conquered territories to become nirvana before moving on. And define “finished” in Afghanistan, as everything I read says there will be a decade or more before that country is stable. I don’t believe you have thought through your position very well
No need to rush into Iraq? That assumes knowledge that neither you or I have. Saddam was a threat, he was sponsoring terrorism, and would have stopped at nothing to hurt us. He had manufactured and used WMD’s. That much we know. The UN oil for food scam demonstrates clearly that Saddam was using these massive funds at his own discretion for palaces and weapons
I think anytime you give an enemy more time to prepare for battle.. the more time you give, the more chance the operation will be unsuccessful. And giving Saddam more time is precisely what you suggested that we should have done
Jimmy Jazz
Huh?
metalgrid
Hi Metal. Meet another liberal who doesn’t give a damn about gun control as a political issue. Two is a coincidence. Is there another pro-gun liberal here? Maybe we can make a pattern.
Posted by bg at July 11, 2005 01:16 PM
*Chuckle* My membership with the NRA and the ACLU come due on the same day.
Posted by Decided Fencesitter at July 11, 2005 01:18 PM
Not pro gun, but not really pro gun control at this point. We are at a point that there is no way to keep the guns off the street.
Posted by gratefulcub at July 11, 2005 01:28 PM
So do any of you guys have an explanation as to why when you superimpose a map of the US with restrictive gun laws on the books with a map of a red/blue state US, there’s a startling correlation to the blue states on that map?
Second, it is interesting that Republicans pay some lip service to the second amendment – specifically, note the sticker: “The Second Amendment: The Original Homeland Security” Any idea how they co-opted the pro-gun message, thus leaving the Democrats as the heavily gun-control party? Do you think it’s unreasonable then, that for many people for whome guns are important who would otherwise side with democrats on civil liberties issues, it could drive them away?
Darrell
gcub completely overlooks the importance of overturning the whole rotten order in the middle east and also assumes without basis that jihadis would have been drawn to the Afghan mountains.. Afghanistan is not considered ‘arab’. What really riles so many of these jihadi terrorists is having infidel boots on “arab land”. So gcub doesn’t seem to have much a point here
Demdude
I am also a Liberal not having a huge issue with guns. I grew up in Michigan where driving down the road with a deer tied on the car fender was a common site.
Most of our neighbors had shotguns and I know they didn’t have them to hurt others. Most of them rarely used them. I think they had them just because their Daddy’s did and it was considered a right of passage.
Having said all of that, there is no way in hell anyone can convince me that armor piercing ammo, automatic weapons, “street sweepers”, etc, available to the general public is a good idea.
ppgaz
I’ve already stated my views on these subtopics, Storm. The reason why I am “mad” has been articulated numerous times. The same basic viewpoint has been expressed by others on these pages, many times.
One either gets it, or one doesn’t.
Churn is useless.
metalgrid
Huh?
Posted by Jimmy Jazz at July 11, 2005 01:40 PM
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-cpb1jul01,1,7653165,print.story
Many interview subjects — including Republicans — were classified as liberal because they questioned White House policies….
In one report, [Mann] labeled former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as opposed to the administration for his criticism that the Patriot Act violated civil liberties. Radio host and former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock was listed as “anti-Bush” for saying the military was underpaid. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was tagged “liberal” for an interview with Smiley in which he criticized White House policy in Iraq….
Half a dozen reporters drew scrutiny as well. Associated Press President Tom Curley was listed in a chart as “liberal/Democrat” and under “oppose administration” for discussing whether there was a need for more government openness…
Darrell
that’s a commonly cited myth, a lie spread by gun control extremists. Automatic weapons are not permitted unless you have a damn good reason and get special permission from local law enforcement authorities. I think the same holds true for armor piercing ammo. So your point is..?
JPS
Christie S., and Darrell: Thanks.
Christie S.:
“Is there some way to achieve both goals concurrently with the least amount of loss in lives, money and world position?”
It’s the key question, isn’t it? I think that’s where a lot of the hostility gets generated. People of good will want just that, but we’re bound to get heated over what combination of approaches will work–I didn’t mean to frame my alternatives as mutually exclusive–and which alternatives are disastrously misguided.
ppgaz: Disagree on Bush (of course). May as well let that pass. But I can’t resist telling a story I love about Nixon (of whom btw I strongly disapprove). It appeared in a very conservative news magazine many years ago, so I’ll go out on a limb and guess you might not have seen it.
Late campaign season, 1980. Nixon and a conservative journalist are riding in a limousine through DC, listening on the radio as Reagan savages Carter for his feckless response to the Iranian hostage-takers, and promises to confront the barbarians more aggressively. (I know. Let it go.)
Nixon remarks that Reagan is wrong. The journalist, not quite believing it, says, “Well, Mr. President…what would you do?”
Nixon looks out at the Potomac for a moment, turns back, and says quietly, “You cut a deal.”
“And then you screw ’em!”
gratefulcub
Darrell,
They flocked to Afghanistan last time it was invaded. If they supported UBL, they would probably flock to Afghanistan to defend him.
BinkyBoy
Stormy, that was some great reframing.
Libs screwed up Vietnam? You mean the Vietnam that American’s were lied into? (Gulf of Tonkin) Hard to screw up a war that had no plan, no general strategy and no real achievable goal. You can spin it so that Vietnam was the Crusade against the Red Scourge, but you’re not going to be able to in this educated crowd.
Spitting on the soldiers has been decried by both sides. Liberals don’t have a wall of spitters to be honored. It was a mistake and has been demonized, move on already.
Carter tried to negotiate, while Reagan stacked the deck. Great rewrite of history again.
What was wrong with what Clinton did? The people responsible were arrested and are in prison.
Anti-war/pro-peace. So what? They have a different opinion, one that can be valid, and in a mixed society is a valid counter-point.
The Dem’s voted to give Bush the capability to use military force, believing that they would have a voice in how that military force would be applied. They didn’t expect such a gross mishandling, and are trying to reign in the damage. Good for them, they can change and adapt to the situation.
Waffling in a stiff breeze? I’d say the polls disagree with you, looks like the breeze is blowing a stench over the Prez.
You can keep spinning, though, I’m sure its good for your hair.
Demdude
The point is that there should be limits on what can be sold on the open market. This would be considered “gun control”.
BinkyBoy
Oh, another blue liberal with multiple guns and a carry permit. I’m a hunter, but I have self-defense weaponry as well.
Anti-gun-control crowds such as the NRA have said they would rather there be no control over guns. They want to have fully-automatic weaponry and access to any kind of ammunition. After all, those deer are all wearing the state of the art bulletproofing.
metalgrid
Oh, another blue liberal with multiple guns and a carry permit. I’m a hunter, but I have self-defense weaponry as well.
Again, could one of you liberals answer that second question I asked. After all, if the democractic party is teeming over with liberals for gun possession, it seems kind of strange that all the states that democrats are in control of have the harshest gun laws.
Anti-gun-control crowds such as the NRA have said they would rather there be no control over guns. They want to have fully-automatic weaponry and access to any kind of ammunition. After all, those deer are all wearing the state of the art bulletproofing.
Posted by BinkyBoy at July 11, 2005 01:59 PM
You know, and I know, that the whole ‘hunting’ pretext is just to get the foot in the door. Just like ‘medical marijuana’ is to get the foot in the door for drug legalization. For myself – it has more to do with protecting myself and my property, whether it be from common criminals or err, other entities, rather than hunting.
Demdude
Please define a harsh gun law. Also, please name a few of the states and the applicable law(s).
Thanks.
bg
Never having lived in a blue state myself (I grew up in Louisiana, went to college in Mississippi and now live in New Mexico), I recuse myself from the question.
mac Buckets
I don’t think I want the Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan. It seems hard to find the cavedwellers there. I’d rather have them in Iraq, from a mission standpoint.
SeesthroughIt
Well, I’m a middle-of-the-road guy who gets called a liberal (or, more accurately, a “goddamn lib”) by far-right nutcases, and while I agree with the right to bear arms, I cannot fathom any earthly reason why a private citizen needs an AK-47 with armor-piercing rounds. Does that help at all?
Oh yeah, the T-shirts and bumper stickers. What the hell is “Fahrenheit This!” supposed to mean? I mean, if you’re going to take a shot at Michael Moore and/or Hollywood, is it too much to ask that you at least be creative or make some sort of sense?
gratefulcub
Blue states are full of Blue voters, Blue voters tend to want more gun control.
Blue states are often more Urban, NYC needs more gun control than Alabama.
Dems are ‘more’ for gun control than the GOP, granted. But, it isn’t one of our issues at this point. Very few Dems campaign on the issue, and even fewer are willing to stake their political reputation and capital on it. The GOP runs on anti-gun control. If a dem says that we should not have assault rifles, they are demonized as being gun-control, anti-gun candidates. In reality, we gave up. We lost that one, and we have moved on.
The mantra now is states-rights. Federal pols are willing to let Vermont have guns, and NY have gun control. Isn’t that how it should be?
Decided Fencesitter
Seesthroughit: My reasoning in that I have the right to overthrow the government, and if necessary use force to do so. They also have the right to stop me, and if needed via force, as well.
The correct one will be the victor.
stupidquestion
Again, could one of you liberals answer that second question I asked. After all, if the democractic [sic] party is teeming over with liberals for gun possession, it seems kind of strange that all the states that democrats are in control of have the harshest gun laws.
Urban v. rural. It’s as simple as that. Most of the state you’ll point out as being heavily Democratic have their population concentrated in large urban centers where people die as a result of gun violence, and the “self-defense” or “hunting” or “just fuck you, i love my guns” arguments are weaker because people don’t see guns used except to kill others (not that guns are all that often successfully used for self defense — that’s largely anecdotal evidence and Marion Morrison wanna-be swagger). There’s also a lot less sentimental and cultural attachment to the gun in the urban northeast in particular, unlike in the South (which includes Texas), where the honor culture and the associated justification of violence seems to have prevailed. (cf. heavily armed Iraq, Afghanistan. the tribal areas of Pakistan, Somalia.)
Of course, it doesn’t matter, because without federal gun regulation, there’s no way to prevent cross-border gun transportation from largely unregulated gun shows or sellers in the pro-gun states. Gun regulation is basically a lost cause, and the national Dems have largely abandoned the idea, but it’s still used as part of the Guns, Gays, God trio of fearmonger campaigning by the Republican party.
metalgrid
Of course, it doesn’t matter, because without federal gun regulation, there’s no way to prevent cross-border gun transportation from largely unregulated gun shows or sellers in the pro-gun states. Gun regulation is basically a lost cause, and the national Dems have largely abandoned the idea, but it’s still used as part of the Guns, Gays, God trio of fearmonger campaigning by the Republican party.
Posted by stupidquestion at July 11, 2005 02:37 PM
Thanks for the answer. Very well put. The reason it is a problem for me – having been mugged and stabbed, having thieves break into my house, having gang wars starting in the parks in my suburban neighborhood in Massachusetts, having police that don’t turn up when such gang activities are called into 911, the issue has become rather important to me.
The whole gay demonization by the Republicans doesn’t sit well with me. Neither does the whole God thing – being the atheist that I am. Unfortunately, even most of the local Republicans here are for gun control. So that just leaves me with a rather sour taste in my mouth after supporting certain Republicans locally. All that remains is to support them nationally in the hopes that it doesn’t spread or that we don’t get even more draconian laws enacted at the federal level. The problem with supporting Democrats is that once they get into power, they end up ressurting their failed policies – gun control being one of them.
The mantra now is states-rights. Federal pols are willing to let Vermont have guns, and NY have gun control. Isn’t that how it should be?
Posted by gratefulcub at July 11, 2005 02:28 PM
Whichever party is in power at the federal level is decidedly anti-states-rights. Why compromise with states-rights when you can shove your agenda down everyone else’s throats? I think history has taught us that much. There’s just no motivation to go about supporting dems at the federal level when you know they can just revive their gun-control policies since it’s largely ignored when they run as opposed to having a clearly pro-gun stance staked out.
Democritus
Darrell –
“you have to search for [stuff] to counter the systematic widespread smears coming from the left.” On the other hand, you don’t have to search for anything to counter the systematic widespread smears coming from the right. They are countered by their own vitriolic falsity.
gratefulcub
Metalgirl
Even if Dems control everything, they aren
SLE
Lots of hubris associated with the “turning over the old order in the Middle East”. I’d like to see someone describe how we plan to do that, timeframes and strategies, please.
metalgrid
Even if Dems control everything, they aren
cburke
Metalgrid- it is a bit disingenuous to claim the actions of one police commissioner as representative of the liberal viewpoint. Most liberals I know are in favor of gun control, but not banning. Of course, I am in Texas, which is a firearm-happy state if there ever was one.
I am in favor of gun control, especially in cities. That doesn’t mean banning. For example, in a crowded urban area, I find limits on high-caliber weapons to be perfectly reasonable. If someone in an apartment fires a desert eagle, that bullet could hit who knows how many people before stopping. That isn’t so much on an issue in a low-population area.
wayne stamos
“Whichever party is in power at the federal level is decidedly anti-states-rights.”
so true. the whole federal power vs. state power is not a liberal vs. conservative debate. conservatives made that argument when they had little federal power and liberals used that power to enact programs like the new deal and federal civil rights legislation. it gave the illusion that liberals are pro-federal government and conservatives are pro-states rights. it had much more to do with the balance of power than with ideaology.
now with the tables turned, we have seen conservatives just as likely to embrace federal power to enact their ideaology as were liberals.
as i have lived through the bush jr. administration for a term +, i have made a re-evalution regarding my support for federal powers. i think giving control to local communities to govern their life is a wiser move than using the federal government as a tool to enforce idealogy.
that being said i am struggling with something, without the power of the federal government an institution like slavery may have continued on well into the future. not to mention without federal oversight enviromental laws are toothless. i am having trouble reconciling these quandries.
a states rights liberal? who would have thunk it…
if conservatives maintain power in the next election cycle, we see may be a push to federalize anti-abortion laws. then we will have seen the complete transfiguration of politics in america:
conservatives wielding the fed and liberals being backed into the states rights corner.
JPS
SLE:
Well, since I think you’re semi-quoting me, it isn’t hubris. Believe me, I’d much rather leave well enough alone. I would advocate that if I thought it would work. To my great regret, I believe that if we did so (or do so from here), we would sooner or later suffer an attack so catastrophic that we would respond with nukes.
From my point of view, then, a strategy that amounts to “leave that damn hornets’ nest alone” is guaranteed to make that nightmare come true. If you don’t accept my premise, or can’t at least be persuaded that I’ve come by it honestly, then I’m this horrible warmonger who thinks it’s cool to start wars, or that the U.S. should run the world.
How we plan to do that, strategies, and why we’re going about it this way? Try den Beste. I’ve seen him dismissed in an ad hominem way, mere blogger and all that, but this is as good a guess as I’ve seen. (And of course it is that; we don’t and shouldn’t tell our enemies how we officially plan to take them on.) Some specifics have been overtaken by events; the big-picture view, in my opinion, has not.
Ripclawe
I think the humor comes not from the shirt, but from the fact the poor guy is reminding people coming not to look and act like raving moonbats.
“Let’s look like they do.
wayne stamos
metalgrid-
“Ok, I don’t know if you’re representative of all the other liberals out there, but that is not what happened here in Massachusetts.”
where do you live in mass? that may have some bearing on your ability to obtain a LTC. i am from a small rural town south of boston. if i remember correctly, a few years ago a friend of mine applied to the local chief of police for a LTC permit and was granted it readily. it may have more to do with the local situation rather than a state-wide phenomenon.
you are probaly already familiar with this but in case you aren’t:
http://massgunlaw.com/
p.lukasiak
That’s a pretty fundamental difference of opinion. It was going to come up sooner or later. Blame Bush for it if you will (and I know you do), but the only way to avoid it would have been to just punt the issue down the road. It would have come up again eventually.
Sorry, but the reason for the split is Bush himself. Had Bush followed the more rational and sensible path advocated by “the other half” of the country, most Republicans would have gone along with it — and what we would be dealing with is a fringe on the far right that wanted to “kill all the muslims and let got sort it out” and a small bunch of lefties (and I’d probably be one of them) on the other side wringing their hands.
The real division in this nation is now between those who know that “Bush lied”, and those that still can’t face that fact. The bottom line is that Americans expect a President to act as their surrogate, and to make sure that before we put our troops in harms way, that doing so is absolutely necessary. It doesn’t matter if Bush believed that Saddam had WMDs — what matters is that Bush ignored all the contrary evidence, rushed us to war when it wasn’t necessary, and “scared” America into thinking there was some link between Iraq and 9-11.
metalgrid
Posted by wayne stamos at July 11, 2005 03:59 PM
Thanks for that info. I live right on the outskirts of boston. I will have to look into the portability and using my address on the cape to apply for the LTC and see if the chief of police in that town approves it more readily. Anything to not have to hire a lawyer for this.
Rick
The real division in this nation is now between those who know that “Bush lied”, and those that still can’t face that fact.
No; it’s between those who know that the TANG memos were crude, amateurish phonies, and those that still can’t face that fact.
A fundamental human distinction, I tell you.
Cordially…
BinkyBoy
So Rick, you have a link that proves the TANG reports were fraudulent? Why isn’t anyone going to jail on that?
Bush lied. If not him, it was his Administration that forced the intelligence to meet a prerequired philosophy.
Based upon Hans Blix, the world was pretty sure he was massivly disarmed and had no active programs. The Bush Administration poo-pood anyone saying such and surged on ahead, spreading it on thick with “the weapons are North, south eash and west of Kirkuk” or “they can send drones to the US carrying biological weapons”.
And you continue to be lied to. Electricity, jobs, utilities in Iraq are rare. The air in Baghdad is so thick with smog from generators that its a breathing hazard for the elderly. Yet you continue to warmly accept whatever BS is fed to you from a Republican while trying your hardest to ignore the noises from the rest of the country.
JPS
p. lukasiak:
No, I’m sorry, but you’re stealing a base here. You seem to know as a matter of factual certainty that I’m wrong: that if we hadn’t gone out on the offensive, everything would be fine. (I should say, would be more likely to be OK in the end, since the way I see it any course of action was a steep gamble.)
I’d like to agree with you, except that (a) I don’t know that, (b) I don’t see how you can know it, and (c) I think you’re probably wrong. Plus you don’t seem to recognize that people of good will can honestly differ.
So there we are. Impasse. Now give us an impossibly wise and suave leader, a whole lot more people who think like me, and a whole lot more who think like you. Guess what: We are still going to be heatedly split.
Fledermaus
You know if you replaced “Bush” with “Liberals” on that sticker you’d probably get a visit from the Secret Service. But no as long as it’s just liberals who cares, right?
Marc
Yeah, another liberal here who doesn’t give a crap about your hunting rifle or handgun in the bedside table. I’m starting to think we’re the typical liberal/Democrat.
Apparently you’re not the typical liberal/democrat. Otherwise it would be pretty hard to reconcile that with the highly restrictive and authoritarian gun-control measures present in heavily liberal/democrat dominated states.
Well, those heavily-liberal, Democrat-dominated states are generally the ones with the largest metropolitan areas, the ones where for most voters, the word “guns” doesn’t call to mind hunting bucks with Grandpa, but gangs shooting it out with semis in the streets.
If Wayne LaPierre stopped trying to convince NRA members that all gun control is unconstitutional, maybe the cities and the hunters and suburban gun owners could work out a nice compromise here. But I’m sure he’d agree with Heston: “From my cold, dead hand…”
Sojourner
Let’s start with a leader who tells the truth, doesn’t distort facts to suit his case, doesn’t show his middle finger to everyone who disagrees with him, and doesn’t send his attack dogs to smear those who publicly challenge him.
We are so far away from requiring “an impossibly wise and suave leader” that it is positively laughable.
Stormy70
Concerning politics, that is a smart move by Santorum. The Dems would make the same move if he was getting money from some Free Republic-like outfit on the right. Politics has always been nasty, and it always will be.
Marc
About the commissioner turning down your request for a carry permit — I don’t think that’s a liberal or blue-state thing, I think it’s a cop thing.
I have several relatives who are in law enforcement, and their attitude is generally one that would like to see fewer guns on the streets, period. Doesn’t matter that you’re a law-abiding citizen. From their perspective, it’s one more gun that’s either going to be out in your unknown hands when the patrol cars arrive or, worse, get taken from you in a scuffle and used.
Jess
Metalgrid,
You seem like a thoughtful person, willing to accept new information. Since gun control is such an important voting issue for you, may I suggest that you do more research to find out if the GOP caracature of the Dem position on gun control is really accurate to the point that you need to be seriously worried? And while you’re at it, you might want to compare the records (not just the rhetoric) of the two parties on other civil liberties as well.
I’m another pro-gun Dem (moderate), but some controls are just common sense (like trigger-locks for households with children). It’s unfortunate that in the current political climate, it’s impossible to discuss what kinds of controls do or don’t make sense because the NRA and their supporters are so focused on the slippery-slope argument and can’t bear even the thought of compromising. The funny thing is many of the same people (not all!) also can’t bear the thought of marijuana being used for medical purposes, like it was somehow more deadly than opiate-derived medications, not to mention guns! We need more common sense and less ideology.
Rick
Well, Binky, where do your “truths” come from?
Cordially…
Krusty Krab
The bandaid was funny as hell. Or if it wasn’t funny, it was because it hit too close to the truth.
Are you aware of any of Kerry’s purple hearts that required more extensive treatment than a bandaid? Just curious.
The use of tweezers to pull the rice out of his butt skin from his “unintentional self-inflicted injury” doesn’t count, sorry…
Sojourner
Krusty:
Do you make a habit of belittling those who served their country? Personally, I prefer to support the vets. What a shame that you don’t.
Rick
Sojourner,
Well, thanks. But the band-aids and embedded rice *are* funny. C’mon, have a sense of humor, and Kerry’s ridiculousness.
Cordially…
Rick
So Rick, you have a link that proves the TANG reports were fraudulent?
Delayed-reaction guffaw! My point is proved and the “two kinds of people.” Boy, is eye grateful!
Cordially…
Sojourner
Sorry but I don’t see anything funny about belittling a guy who actually served while supporting the chicken shit who didn’t. And you are the same guys screaming “Support the troops!” whenever our presence in Iraq is challenged. That kind of hypocrisy gets old pretty quick.
booty
Found this link while searching Google, thanks