Sometimes I Don’t Hate Being Right

Me in June:

[L]ord, what a tough spot for Republicans. At its heart the GOP has two basic camps [note: oversimplification for the sake of argument] – business conservatives who bankroll the party and the social conservatives/theocons who staff it. In that light one could say the towering achievement of Bush’s term as POTUS was that he defied the centrifugal forces of majority power and held the GOP’s unlikely coalition together as firmly and as long as he did. If so, his towering failure will undoubtedly be his adamant support of this immigration bill.

I have tried for days to think of something that could wedge the social cons apart from the business cons than immigration but I just can’t do it. The Chamber of Commerce loves our current system because one can pay illegals practically nothing and they will thank you for it. In their view any fix to the current system has to keep bringing in large numbers of people with poor language skills (can’t have them reading those OSHA flyers on the wall) and a weak bargaining position, e.g. guest workers. Otherwise Americans had better get ready to start paying more for hotel beds, restaurant meals and packed meats.

The key problem is that the thing that the business cons need more than anything is exactly what the social cons desperately want to end.

The business con – social con split won’t go away because the fundamentals have not changed since June. The Chamber of Commerce still desperately needs immigrants of the legal and illegal variety, and the social cons will go on demanding that their candidates make the immigrants go away. The neocon vs. paleocon rift and the intramural theocon cage match aren’t going away either. Every faction of the old coalition has their own candidate, and for whatever reason (imminent defeat maybe) they’re going at each other like thieves in the third reel of a crime movie.

If you don’t think that the ’08 RNC convention will be a meltdown for the history books then you’re not paying attention.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






131 replies
  1. 1
    r€nato says:

    Tancredo is going to announce soon the end of his back-of-the-pack presidential campaign… I guess bedwetting over illegal immigration didn’t play so well after all, even among the GOP faithful.

  2. 2
    r€nato says:

    oh shit you already posted about this. D’oh!

  3. 3
    Doug H. says:

    Oh, I’m pretty sure the RNC will manage to cobble together a Frankenstein’s monster of a candidate duo (Mitt/Huck or Huck/Mitt) to get everybody back on the greater message: Beating the Great White Hitlery and/or HUSSEIN Barack HUSSEIN Obama HUSSEIN. (Did we say HUSSEIN? HUSSEIN.) Even if it means the theocons, neocons, and/or paleocons holding their noses through the convention.

  4. 4
    myiq2xu says:

    Too bad the GOP can’t go back to their old system of passing draconian anti-immigrant legislation and then cut funding for the INS to prevent enforcement.

  5. 5
    jcricket says:

    The reality is that people like Tancredo don’t exist to get what they want in the short run. The legitimize previously extreme positions by taking even more extreme positions. This is how evangelics and paleo-cons have moved the party of “individual liberty” (always a lie, but let’s pretend) completely to the right over 30 years.

    If the left could learn anything it would be that it needs to copy that sort of long-term strategy to move the Democrats to the left. It’s not enough just to have a Kucinich or McDermott in Congress, you have to use them as the lightning rods on the left so that your “center” is actually to the left of where it was before.

    BTW, as an example of how stupid the Republican party is, and how non-committed to “state’s rights”, look at this attempt to deny a waiver to CA for tougher emissions standards. Even the EPAs own lawyers and technical staff say the EPA has no legal standing to deny the waiver, and will lose in court. But the Bush-appointed officials at the top don’t care. Government agencies only exist in their world to enact the far-right Republican agenda.

  6. 6
    Bill H says:

    You almost make me want to watch the convention. Oh, but then I’d have to listen to the speeches. No way I can stomach that. Maybe with the sound off.

  7. 7
    Psycheout says:

    If the GOP had actually done something for social conservatives other than pandering for votes and then pulling a bait and switch once they got their elite candidates into power, there wouldn’t be the danger of a split in the coalition.

    Lots of “conservatives” have said that they will not vote for Huckabee if he gets the nomination (perhaps even voting Democrat) and that social conservatives should just sit down and shut up and support Romney or Giuliani. They are welcome to have a seat at the table if they simply shut up and vote for the establishment candidate.

    They can only pull this nonsense for so long. Social conservatives are expected to settle for lousy candidates from their point of view for party loyalty, but those who don’t care so much about socon issues refuse to reciprocate.

    It is they who are tearing the party apart. Socons have been loyal. It’s high time they actually got something out of the deal other than empty promises.

  8. 8
    myiq2xu says:

    You almost make me want to watch the convention. Oh, but then I’d have to listen to the speeches. No way I can stomach that. Maybe with the sound off.

    If you watch the GOP Klan meeting convention, compare the difference between the people on the podium and in the crowd. All the minorities will be on the podium and the crowd will look like a Pillsbury Doughboy family reunion.

  9. 9
    jcricket says:

    And what Doug H said is right. Unlike the Dems, who get all disappointed and don’t vote if their favorite candidates/positions aren’t represented in the run for the WH, the right will find a way to suddenly embrace the mormon or the evangelical with some coded appeals to the business base (or vice versa) come election time.

    Over time I think Tim F. is right, that the coalition is simply more fragile than the collection of groups that make up the Democratic party. The business support for the Republicans is more pragmatic (at least they think of it that way), and when it’s obvious that Dems are the party that support business interests (immigration, reasonable tax breaks, healthcare reform) expect the money to dry up except from the wingnut welfare and church groups.

  10. 10
    Cassidy says:

    If the left could learn anything it would be that it needs to copy that sort of long-term strategy to move the Democrats to the left. It’s not enough just to have a Kucinich or McDermott in Congress, you have to use them as the lightning rods on the left so that your “center” is actually to the left of where it was before.

    BS. If the left should learn anything it’s that pandering to authoritarian busybodies, leads to them deciding they want to steer the ship. Moving farther to the left will only alienate them from the American citizen.

  11. 11
    Jay says:

    They legitimize previously extreme positions by taking even more extreme positions. This is how evangelics and paleo-cons have moved the party of “individual liberty” (always a lie, but let’s pretend) completely to the right over 30 years.

    They moved it by understanding what unafflicted, comfortable people are willing and not willing to argue about.

  12. 12
    Cassidy says:

    They legitimize previously extreme positions by taking even more extreme positions. This is how evangelics and paleo-cons have moved the party of “individual liberty” (always a lie, but let’s pretend) completely to the right over 30 years.

    The same could be said for the liberal movement. Progressive reform has shifted from civil rights, labor, and other like-minded progressive ideas to authoritarian social measures. This isn’t as simple as a “delusional conservative”. It’s the politics of power. Both sides are so damn sure that they are right, that they actually refuse to listen to anything that falls outside their narrow rhetoric.

  13. 13
    Jen says:

    Cassidy, I’m going to suggest that the type of folks who think it’s the height of government intrusiveness to not being able to buy shitty lightbulbs five years from now are not representative of people’s everyday problems. You might be interested in this polling, cited a while back in the WaPo.

    For more than a decade, the Democratic polling firm Hart Research and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies have read two propositions to Americans: “Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people” and “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.”

    In December 1995, at the height of the Republican Revolution, a less-intrusive government won out, 62 percent to 32 percent. This month, a more activist government won out, 55 percent to 38 percent. Independent voters sided with government activism, 52 percent to 39 percent.

    What I find interesting about that is that the numbers are nearly inverse after less than 12 years. I think that reflects ordinary Americans’ difficulties keeping their health insurance, keeping their jobs, staying out of bankruptcy, even paying their heating bills. That tired old line about how Democrats are authoritarian because they want to help you get a doctor just isn’t playing like it used to.

  14. 14
    Cassidy says:

    I’m going to suggest that the type of folks who think it’s the height of government intrusiveness to not being able to buy shitty lightbulbs five years from now are not representative of people’s everyday problems.

    And you still miss the point. It is not the job of our gov’t to decide which products you can and cannot buy. I use the more efficient lights. I like them. If someone else wants to make a poor decision, that is their right. Grown adults don’t need “Momma Gov’t” telling them what to buy and not buy.

    I think that reflects ordinary Americans’ difficulties keeping their health insurance, keeping their jobs, staying out of bankruptcy, even paying their heating bills. That tired old line about how Democrats are authoritarian because they want to help you get a doctor just isn’t playing like it used to.

    I think it reflects the growing apathy of “someone will fix it for me. AAMOF, I am entitled to having someone else fix my problem.”

    It isn’t a tired old line. The role of our representatives is to reflect the will of the people, not to impose their will upon the people. We might as well go to a dictatorship of some kind, if that’s the case. At least it would be a more efficient gov’t.

  15. 15
    Psycheout says:

    OT: Proof that Mittens is the “Say Anything” candidate.

    Mitt has bragged a number of times how his daddy marched with MLK. Now that people are questioning this “fact” and finding no supporting evidence, the campaign offered up this laughable turd

    “He was speaking figuratively, not literally,” Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate.

    I hope Mitt has a wonderful figurative Presidency. What a douche.

    I also hope that the question mark in the url doesn’t screw up this comment. It’s all messed up in the preview.

  16. 16
    myiq2xu says:

    And you still miss the point. It is not the job of our gov’t to decide which products you can and cannot buy.

    Including products like meth, heroin, or cocaine?

  17. 17
    Jen says:

    It is not the job of our gov’t to decide which products you can and cannot buy

    I want to buy the Adobe, the car from SNL made out of clay. D’oh, damn government safety regulations!

    Look, if you want to be a extremist libertarian all the way down the lightbulbs, knock yourself out. There’s even a candidate for you. He has a pretty kick-ass blimp.

    I’m a pretty big liberal. But I realize that I do not represent Middle America, and I don’t pretend to. For example, I think civil unions are a variation on separate but equal and, ideologically speaking, would love to see Democrats say so. Let Steve marry Steve, it isn’t any of your damn business. (See, libertarian about something that people actually care about.) But do I want the candidates out there on the stump making gay marriage a big part of their platform? No, because we have bigger issues at hand, and to address them we need to win, and to win we need to spend our time on those consensus issues, the issues that people will elect us to work on because they trust us more. In time, attitudes about gay marriage will evolve, and the whole debate will be Loving v. Virginia part 2. It’s just not its time yet.

    So if you want to pretend that the typical American, your average guy on the street, is incensed about lightbulb regulation and is going to vote accordingly, fine. I just don’t want you to be surprised next year.

  18. 18
    Cassidy says:

    Including products like meth, heroin, or cocaine?

    If people want an early death, more power to them. It removes them from the gene pool.

  19. 19
    Faux News says:

    Good Lord, I actually agree with Psycheout regarding Mittens (or Multiple Choice Mitt). This calls for an adult beverage for lunch.

    That said, in response to Tim’s post, of course 9/11 changed everything. Just ask 911ulliani. So the 4 types of Republicans (paleocons, socons, theocon, and of course neocons) easily united behind the president. As many Dems did at first as well. 7 years later all bets are off. Grab the popcorn this is gonna be interesting and fun to watch.

  20. 20
    Cassidy says:

    I think civil unions are a variation on separate but equal and, ideologically speaking, would love to see Democrats say so. Let Steve marry Steve,…

    As long as they get the same legal rights as everyone else, who cares what it’s called. Seriously?

  21. 21
    Jen says:

    I think it reflects the growing apathy of “someone will fix it for me. AAMOF, I am entitled to having someone else fix my problem.”

    Let’s assume that’s true. Let’s assume that, folks are doing just hunky-dory, but for some reason they are just fundamentally lazier than they used to be. Is that going to change how they vote on the subject?

  22. 22
    Cassidy says:

    Let’s assume that’s true. Let’s assume that, folks are doing just hunky-dory, but for some reason they are just fundamentally lazier than they used to be. Is that going to change how they vote on the subject?

    We’ve already seen that. They simply don’t vote, unless it involves a song and dance and Ryan Seacrest. The apathy of the constituency, though, doesn’t relieve the obligation our representatives have of upholding the ideals of our republic. Even if it means flying back home every week and doing town halls, then that’s what it takes. No one shows up. Then fine, I can accept a representative making an informed decision. The first priority, though, is to represent the will of your constituency.

  23. 23
    Jen says:

    As long as blacks get the same education as everyone else, who cares that it’s in another school?

    Look, civil unions are a hell of a lot better than nothing. They are a lot better than what’s available to nearly everyone. And they’re probably going to be the first step, because for reasons that don’t make any sense to me, people just prefer that teh gheys have their own thing with their own name. But eventually, it’s going to fall by the wayside. If an arrangement actually does carry exactly the same legal rights as something else, it shouldn’t have a separate name with lesser status.

  24. 24
    Jen says:

    This month, a more activist government won out,

    They simply don’t vote

    I just think you can’t quite square that circle. If you want better government, you have to vote. When things are going crappy, as they are now, more people vote.

  25. 25
    Jen says:

    who cares what it’s called. Seriously?

    For an example closer to Wingnuttia’s heart, suggest changing the “under God” in the pledge to “under Yahweh” or “under Allah”. It’s the same God, right?

  26. 26
    Cassidy says:

    As long as blacks get the same education as everyone else, who cares that it’s in another school?

    As long as it’s the same quality, the goal is achieved. Is it ideal, definitely not, but ideal rarely exists. In the end, you have to be realistic.

    Look, civil unions are a hell of a lot better than nothing. They are a lot better than what’s available to nearly everyone. And they’re probably going to be the first step, because for reasons that don’t make any sense to me, people just prefer that teh gheys have their own thing with their own name. But eventually, it’s going to fall by the wayside. If an arrangement actually does carry exactly the same legal rights as something else, it shouldn’t have a separate name with lesser status.

    You can call it marriage, civil unions, two yucky guys humping with a ring…I don’t care. My only concern is that my fellow American Citizens have the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Should, shouldn’t…whatever. You strive for the meat of what you want and file for a name change later.

  27. 27
    Cassidy says:

    For an example closer to Wingnuttia’s heart, suggest changing the “under God” in the pledge to “under Yahweh” or “under Allah”. It’s the same God, right?

    I really have no opinion on that, personally. I’m not a religious person. Pragmatically, if you don’t want to say it, then don’t. If you want to fall to your knees, arms outstretched, everytime you get to the end, get some knee pads.

  28. 28
    Jen says:

    As long as it’s the same quality, the goal is achieved.

    Wow. You don’t often see disagreements with unanimous 1954 civil rights decisions in this day and age. Truly, you represent the future of your party.

  29. 29
    Jen says:

    I really have no opinion on that, personally.

    I wasn’t asking for your opinion. I was asking what you think the reaction would be, amongst the general population of the United States, if you suggested that change. Words matter.

  30. 30
    Cassidy says:

    I don’t see you speaking of civil rights. Gov’t forced segregation, with lower quality goods and services to the legal minority is wrong. a HS filled with black kids (from the same neighborhood), getting the same quality of education as the white school in the suburbs, is not a problem to me. As long as the quality is equal and the opportunities to excel are equal, what’s the problem?

  31. 31
    Cassidy says:

    Truly, you represent the future of your party.

    I’m a registered Democrat.

  32. 32
    fouro says:

    Tim, screw the GOP specifics, that’s one fine description of where we are as a country. Plenty of “progressive” business people I work with have no problem abandoning principle when it comes to Cost of Goods Sold. And, on the other hand, plenty can also get all Ghengis on you when you suggest that nothing happens for no reason–that this immigrant labor force is baked into the cake. Hobson’s Choices all around.

  33. 33
    Jen says:

    Good heavens, Cass, I’m not going to read Brown v. Board of Education to you. I mean, I am a sucker for some argument, but I ain’t that kind of sucker. And you haven’t made a moronic girl-bait all thread, are you off your game or something?

  34. 34
    Jen says:

    Then you need to re-register, because you checked the wrong box. Probably a damn butterfly registration form…

  35. 35
    Zifnab says:

    As long as they get the same legal rights as everyone else, who cares what it’s called. Seriously?

    It was a stupid debate from the start. Marriage is a legal contract. The idea that a man and a woman can make a legal contract that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can’t make is absurd.

    If you want to make life easier for families with kids, tie benefits to kids. If you want to make life easier for couples, tie benefits to couples. But tying benefits to a couple composed of two people of the opposite gender has never been more than a feel-good twist on a system that would work with anybody.

    If I can incorporate myself as a business I don’t see why I can’t make a legally binding contract with another guy to share wealth.

  36. 36
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    I think civil unions are a variation on separate but equal and, ideologically speaking, would love to see Democrats say so. Let Steve marry Steve,…

    As long as they get the same legal rights as everyone else, who cares what it’s called. Seriously?

    Because the government has made marriage into a secular, civil institution with many benefits and perks. If they term it civil unions then they should do so for all marriages granted by the states and recognized by the government. If you are married in a church then it’s biblical marriage, as far as the state is concerned it’s a civil union.

    As soon as the government made tax laws and other decisions that institutionalized marriage both at the state and federal level and gave benefits to those in marriage they removed the right to deny the name, and benefits to anyone as it does become a matter of equal treatment under the law for all people.

    Don’t like it? Start a campaign to have marriage laws and tax breaks as well as every other right guaranteed by the government to married persons repealed. After all if the government has no role in it, then the uppity gays wouldn’t have a right to bitch now would they?*

  37. 37
    Cassidy says:

    Jen, you don’t need to. I’m quite familiar with the Civil Rights Movement. But you and I are having two different conversations. You’re speaking in regards to segregation, apartheid type scenarios. I’m talking about the current public education system set up of people going to neighborhood schools. If a neighborhood school has 90% black students, but are still receiving the same quality of education that every other school in that district is getting, then I have no problem. If said school, is also plagued with a lower quality of education and opportunities for its students, then I do see a problem, that while maybe not racially motivated, is still having a racial consequence.

    Once again, you’re reading into things that aren’t there.

    Then you need to re-register, because you checked the wrong box.

    I was still under the impression that the Democratic Party was still pro-civil rights, pro-choice, and pro-union. Heh.

    It was a stupid debate from the start.

    Exactly.

  38. 38
    Cassidy says:

    Dreggas, as I said, I could care less what you call it. My only concern on the issue is that all American citizens have the same rights and privileges as others. It’s that simple to me. What goes on in someone’s home is not my business.

  39. 39
    Cassidy says:

    Personally, I’d reserve the whole marriage thing only for hot lesbians and they have to set up webcams.

    /joke

  40. 40
    Jen says:

    As long as blacks get the same education as everyone else, who cares that it’s in another school?

    That is what I said. That is also the absolute essence of the argument in Brown.

    For simplicity’s sake when you’re explaining your distinction, you can use “de jure” and “de facto” segregation. They are, every once in a while, used in discussions of the civil rights movement, with which you are familiar.

  41. 41
    demimondian says:

    It’s always wonderful to see the modern CPUSA in action. The gLibertarians are all about liberty, until one of the Little People asks for it, too.

  42. 42
    Cassidy says:

    All it takes is to ask, instead of assuming I’m a pro-segregation, klansmen type. I’m always happy to give further explanation if I’m not clear.

  43. 43
    demimondian says:

    All it takes is to ask, instead of assuming I’m a pro-segregation, klansmen type. I’m always happy to give further explanation if I’m not clear.

    Why? You’d lie about that, too.

  44. 44
    Cassidy says:

    Show me where I have lied. It’s isn’t very smart to make accusations that you can’t back up.

  45. 45
    cleek says:

    mmm. smell the troll.

  46. 46
    tBone says:

    It is not the job of our gov’t to decide which products you can and cannot buy. I use the more efficient lights. I like them. If someone else wants to make a poor decision, that is their right. Grown adults don’t need “Momma Gov’t” telling them what to buy and not buy.

    Yesterday you said this:

    Tell you what, you show me the poll/ petition/ etc. that says the majority of America wants this, then I’ll go with it. A gov’t of the people listens to it’s people. Not just the select few who think they know better for all of us.

    OK – 62% of Americans agree that we need more laws to enforce energy efficiency.

    So I guess you’re onboard with the lightbulb mandate, then. Glad that’s settled.

  47. 47
    grumpy realist says:

    Cassidy, you’re coming off as a 17-year old Randoid with absolutely no knowledge of history or horse sense about how people interact with each other.

    “Separate but equal”? Before you try slinging around that again just PLEASE, pretty PLEASE look at how that worked out historically in the US and you might just start to get a tiny bit of understanding as to why the average american has a certain knee-jerk reaction about it. And why we never want to see anything like that again.

    Pound this into your head: logic doesn’t supercede what people feel due to historical legacy.

    (And for his next performance, Cassidy will demonstrate how a certain symbol is “only a cross with bent arms” and no one should get upset about seeing it scrawled on their walls because it’s just a geometric figure.)

  48. 48
    demimondian says:

    Oh, I’m sorry — you didn’t lie.

    You creatively repackaged the truth.

  49. 49
    Kirk Spencer says:

    John, it’s a three-way split (simplified), not two. What you called the business conservatives, I call the corporatists – and in them you’ve got it. The others, though, are the reason you’re hyphenating.

    Dominionists. NeoTheocrats aka theocons. They aren’t the largest slice of the party, but for a number of reasons they carry slightly more weight than either of the other two legs.

    And then the one you missed – the Nativists. Nationalists. Isolationists. The ones torn between desiring to be the Home of the American Empire and locking the borders against All them Furriners, but willing and able to back their desire with armed might. In sum, Exclusivists who believe others Want to Be them. Yes, Tancredo fed that base, but so does Giuliani — and to some extent most of the rest.

    While there are people who belong to more than one leg, the three legs are basically distrustful of the other two – united only in that while the other legs aren’t perfectly aligned, the Democratic party is (or at least has been presented as) directly opposed to at least one core concept of each leg. Tax-happy, secular, and inclusive, at a minimum.

    On the two-cent page, the separation of the corporatists from the other two legs has been pending for a long time. Democrats aren’t antibusiness, it’s just they don’t usually think the solution to all ills is to allow bidness free reign. (Though there are some who do, as long as it’s THEIR bidness…) But corporatists are, at heart, secular and inclusive — money is money, and the beliefs and origins of the hand holding it is immaterial.

  50. 50
    Ed Drone says:

    “Oh, I’m pretty sure the RNC will manage to cobble together a Frankenstein’s monster of a candidate duo…”

    I still say, if Romney is either half of the candidate pair, they should automatically be dubbed, “Mitt and Jeff.” That is a given.

    Ed

  51. 51
    Punchy says:

    and for whatever reason (imminent defeat maybe) they’re going at each other like thieves in the third reel of a crime movie.

    No offense, but what the hell does this expression mean? 3rd reel? Really? Wha?

  52. 52
    demimondian says:

    [W]hat the hell does this expression mean? 3rd reel? Really? Wha?

    Punchy really *is* young, isn’t he?

  53. 53
    pharniel says:

    demimondian Says:

    [W]hat the hell does this expression mean? 3rd reel? Really? Wha?
    Punchy really is young, isn’t he

    ?

    I’m turning 30 in about 15 days and I still had to think about that for a sec.

  54. 54
    demimondian says:

    I’m turning 30 in about 15 days and I still had to think about that for a sec

    Like I said…really young.

  55. 55
    myiq2xu says:

    I’m turning 30 in about 15 days and I still had to think about that for a sec.

    When did they start letting children in here?

  56. 56
    Cassidy says:

    So I guess you’re onboard with the lightbulb mandate, then. Glad that’s settled.

    If the American people want it, then sure. I’ve consistently said that our gov’t is about the will of the people.

    Project much GR? I really can’t stand Nazi’s. I also can’t stand cowards. If you feel the way you do, deplorable as it is, go join a skinhead movement.

    You creatively repackaged the truth.

    Back it up.

  57. 57
    Cassidy says:

    “Separate but equal”?

    People living in a neighborhood, by choice, and going to their neighborhood school is not “separate but equal”. Good god, I swear some of you people see racism in everything. You’ve actually tarnished the meaning of the term and watered it down to mean nothing.

    “AHHHH…my breaks squeak…the mechanic was racist!”
    “AHHHH…white bread…my grocer is racist!”
    “AHHHH…the dry erase board is white, replacing the good ol’ blackboard…racist!?

    You’re starting to remind me of that SNL skit with Chris Rock.

  58. 58
    Pb says:

    I really have no opinion on that, personally. I’m not a religious person. Pragmatically, if you don’t want to say it, then don’t.

    How do you feel about Congress adding it in there in the first place, 53 years ago, thanks to The Knights of Columbus?

  59. 59
    Tsulagi says:

    If the GOP had actually done something for social conservatives other than pandering for votes and then pulling a bait and switch once they got their elite candidates into power, there wouldn’t be the danger of a split in the coalition.

    You know, if SoCons are so certain they have a pipeline to God, you would think maybe Jesus long ago might have yelled back down the tube “You’re being played for chumps, you dumb asses!”

    Long before the Second Coming of Bush it was obvious Republican leadership wasn’t going to deliver to the Bible humpers. No federal ban on abortion or the gay. Would crack dealers cure their addicts? No way. You just give them a taste to keep them coming back, wanting it, but never satisfied, and tell them it’s the evil other guys preventing them from getting a fix. Chumps.

    Looks like some Jesus warriors have finally figured out they’ve been played. They’re a little slow. The addicts are pissed now so they’re thinking of controlling the means of production. They notice Huckabee, promising to deliver FMA and HLA. Hallelujah! They could get their fix.

    Good ole boy Huck. A Christian’s Christian. But wonder how many of them noticed the Huckster fairly quietly changed his immigration policy stand a few weeks ago from Christian based to Tancredo lite?

    Nope, it’s not about the potential for power. As one RedStater for Huck wrote, he didn’t flip-flop, he merely “retooled” his immigration message. No nuance there. Once a chump, always a chump.

  60. 60
    Cassidy says:

    How do you feel about Congress adding it in there in the first place, 53 years ago, thanks to The Knights of Columbus?

    If I had been around then, I’d have been against it. Religion, of any kind, doesn’t belong in politics. At this point, I think it’s harmless. While I understand people’s aversion and challenges to it, I think it’s really a waste of time.

  61. 61

    There’s another possibility–if Huckabee wins Iowa, look for Bloomberg to make the split wide open.

  62. 62
    John S. says:

    Wow, just one day after claiming that gun ownership doesn’t have any correlation with deaths, it’s nice to see Cassidy back in full swing getting his stupid on.

    Keep up the good work, champ.

  63. 63
    Tim F. says:

    If the American people want it, then sure. I’ve consistently said that our gov’t is about the will of the people.

    No, it’s not. That would be a direct democracy. We have a Republic. Two-year House terms were meant to make that body more or less directly responsive to public opinion, whereas six year Senate terms free members of that body to weigh longer term issues that may briefly offend public opinion. Lifetime SCOTUS appointments serve exactly that purpose and framers originally debated making the presidential term much longer specifically to reduce the pressure of public opinion. Find a copy of Alexis Tocqueville’s excellent book (at least part 1 of 2) and get back to me.

  64. 64
    MNPundit says:

    The only thing that kept them the republicans together was their hatred of us.

    First of the entrenched lefty structure (in Congress) and then after they got control, they could unite in Clinton-hatred. Then they had all the power. It’s like in Fatherland where the Nazi regime doesn’t have anyone to blame anymore (cuz they killed all the Jews) and so their society is starting to experience unrest.

    I would not have believed that their hate for each other could eclipse their hate of us, especially after the vicotry in 2006, but they took the wrong lessons from it and so it has.

  65. 65
    Dreggas says:

    myiq2xu Says:

    I’m turning 30 in about 15 days and I still had to think about that for a sec.

    When did they start letting children in here?

    I’m 28…far from being a child tho you age-ist!

  66. 66
    Cain says:

    All it takes is to ask, instead of assuming I’m a pro-segregation, klansmen type. I’m always happy to give further explanation if I’m not clear.

    That’s not what the purpose was. It wasn’t to accuse you of being anything. The idea was that if you consider that if you had that mindset; desegregation would never happen. Once you have a seperate but equal institution it won’t work. You can’t maintain seperate but equal because of the inherit prejudice built into it. Why is it seperate but equal in the first place? Because people weren’t comfortable making it as part of the whole. And who exactly decided to make it seperate but equal? The majority party. That’s how it was for blacks, right? Same with gays. Because it was born out of prejudice it will have prejudice built into it. It will never be equal.

    So your argument that it doesn’t matter as long as you have the same right makes some wrong assumptions at it’s core about how people act and behave. The ony fair method is to combine them into a single group with no one indistinguishable by the other.

    cain

  67. 67
    Cassidy says:

    John S., getting his man crush on. Good work champ. Although it’s kinda creepy. I won’t move to Vermont with you.

  68. 68
    Cassidy says:

    Cain, I do understand that point. What I’m getting at is that self-imposed segregation (moving into a neighborhood of like-skinned people) is not akin to institutional racism. If, the state imposes separate but equal mandates on a minority class, I agree that is wrong. But, if “social segregation” occurs due to no gov’t action, then I’m not gonna get upset. Now, as it pertains to education, in the above scenario, I expect the city/ county gov’t to provide equal funds and opportunity to all its students regardless of race, religion, color, etc. If that kind of policy is in place and all students are afforded equal means to be successful, then I am content that the system is working as it should.

    As for homosexual marriage. I’m not a religious type. I don’t care what it’s called. What I want is for all American citizens to be afforded the same rights and privileges, under the law. Does it suck to not have your union legitimized as a marriage? To some people sure. But I believe the majority of gay couples would be quite happy with being able to perform all the legal functions as a hetero couple, regardless of its name. I understand the aversion, but I think in realistic terms, homosexuals should take what they can and worry about the semantics later. The most important part is to be able to legal, binding unions that are held to the same legal status as a marriage.

  69. 69
    Cassidy says:

    So your argument that it doesn’t matter as long as you have the same right makes some wrong assumptions at it’s core about how people act and behave.

    In the end, does it really matter what some fundie thinks of your union? All they can do is say mean things, but once the union is codified into law, screw ’em.

  70. 70
    John S. says:

    John S., getting his man crush on. Good work champ.

    Hey, quit cribbing my shit.

    nice to see Cassidy back in full swing getting his stupid on.

    Keep up the good work, champ.

  71. 71
    Cassidy says:

    Well, it’s impossible to engage in a civil discussion with you over anything. You can’t restrain yourself from firing off insults and whatnot, but obviously you desire some sort of response. So, I’ll give you a response to satisfy your jones, but you just need to understand that you’re not my type.

  72. 72
    John S. says:

    You can’t restrain yourself from firing off insults and whatnot, but obviously you desire some sort of response.

    That’s hysterical coming from you. Again, irony escapes you. I love how you like to posture as being above it all, while simultaneously descending to the level you are decrying. Hillarious.

    You are by far the most amusing poster since Darrell. The whole sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you” while crying for mommy gets old pretty fast, though.

    If you can’t take my swipes at you, then don’t respond. Or post stuff that doesn’t warrant being mocked. The choice is yours. It isn’t like I’m holding a gun to your head, forcing you into action, though your insinuation otherwise is funny.

  73. 73
    John S. says:

    Oh, just to recap the kind of nonsense you spew:

    I’d really like to see those “studies” that correlate death with gun ownership.

    If a person is killed by a firearm, how does that occur without a gun?

    The CDC says:

    Death due to injuries from firearms is an increasingly important public health problem. As a group, injuries from firearms were the ninth leading cause of death overall in 1994 and the fourth leading cause of years of potential life lost before age 65 (NCIPC, unpublished data). During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994. If present trends continue, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

    So how do these deaths occur without gun ownership? In what magical fantasyland do firearm casualties happen without the firearms?

    Of course, I can’t imagine what possible response you can to this besides “You’re being mean to me!”, but that is what we have all come to expect of you.

  74. 74
    Cassidy says:

    It’s very simple, you proposed that you could correlate a rise in deaths to gun ownership. I realize that you may have missed the subtleties, but I cannot be blamed for your poor genetics.

  75. 75
    Cassidy says:

    John S….the epitome of talking out your ass, without actually reading for content. You remind me of Rush Limbaugh in that regard: loud, obnoxious, dishonest, lots of words, but no meaning.

  76. 76
    Cain says:

    Cain, I do understand that point. What I’m getting at is that self-imposed segregation (moving into a neighborhood of like-skinned people) is not akin to institutional racism.
    If, the state imposes separate but equal mandates on a minority class, I agree that is wrong.

    I think that’s all the point was being made about your initial claim about seperate but equal. Maybe there are situations where seperate and equal works. I don’t know. There is no hard and fast rule about that. It’s all soft. But for racism, I think definitively we know this doesn’t work. We can write several books why it doesn’t work now but we’ll leave that to some other time.

    But, if “social segregation” occurs due to no gov’t action, then I’m notgonna get upset. Now, as it pertains to

    Right. I agree there. Although keep in mind that social segregation is tied to land values. They might congregate there naturally because that’s all they can afford. Once you’re living in a depressed area the social problems it brings creates it’s own segreation that is hard to break out of. On that note though it’s up to the individual to get themselves out of there either with help some volunteer programs, churches, or even a govt funded approach that has proven to work for that neighborhood. By all means, hand out the fishing rods. :-)

    education, in the above scenario, I expect the city/ county gov’t to provide equal funds and opportunity to all its students regardless of race, religion, color, etc. If that kind of policy is in place and all students are afforded equal means to be successful, then I am content that the system is working as it should.

    In a perfect world that would happen. But we are prejudiced people. Only our intellect provides us a way to override our instincts. That’s why I don’t agree with libertarians all the time. Because it’s completely based on how well we can override those instincts and makes no fail-safes if we don’t manage to do that.

  77. 77
    tBone says:

    Another slap fight between John S and Cassidy? Get a room, already.

  78. 78
    Punchy says:

    I understand the aversion, but I think in realistic terms, homosexuals should take what they can and worry about the semantics later. The most important part is to be able to legal, binding unions that are held to the same legal status as a marriage.

    I think the very fact that it’s called something different is quite offensive to gays. As in, “we’re mature enough to do what’s right vis-a-vis marriage rights, taxes, bennies, ect., but we’ll stoop to 3rd Grade Petty Bullshit and not call it what the dictionary defines it as, cuz a bunch of Jesus Freaks threatened to call us politicans ‘fag-lovers’ at the next church fish fry”….

  79. 79
    Cassidy says:

    Although keep in mind that social segregation is tied to land values.

    I understand this kind of thing completely. Personally, I don’t believe that racism is the core of urban problems anymore. I think it’s grown beyond that. I do believe that it started at the root with racist policies.

    I think that’s all the point was being made about your initial claim about seperate but equal. Maybe there are situations where seperate and equal works.

    Like I said, I don’t consider it a “separate but equal” situation if it’s self imposed. Once gov’t policy is enacted to perpetuate that status, regardless of an individual’s willingness to leave it, then we have a problem.

    On that note though it’s up to the individual to get themselves out of there either with help some volunteer programs, churches, or even a govt funded approach that has proven to work for that neighborhood.

    This is why I’m a proponent of community and state initiatives. I no longer believe that the Federal gov’t will work in the best interest of its constituency. It is large, bloated and ineffective. It has taken on powers and responsibilities that it shouldn’t have. By doing so, it has allowed communities to relinquish their obligation to take care of its less fortunate. We’ve gotten away from taking care of each other, to expecting the gov’t to do it for us.

    Only our intellect provides us a way to override our instincts.

    Well, if we, as people, would pull all the emotional rhetoric out of our positions, and approach things form a logical standpoint, we’d probably fare a lot better. This is why I don’t like the left/ right-wing mindset.

    Another slap fight between John S and Cassidy? Get a room, already.

    He gets off on it. What would you like me to do?

  80. 80
    Cassidy says:

    I think the very fact that it’s called something different is quite offensive to gays. As in, “we’re mature enough to do what’s right vis-a-vis marriage rights, taxes, bennies, ect., but we’ll stoop to 3rd Grade Petty Bullshit and not call it what the dictionary defines it as, cuz a bunch of Jesus Freaks threatened to call us politicans ‘fag-lovers’ at the next church fish fry”….

    Maybe so, but I bet the same people would be willing to be offended for a minute or two to get the rights and privileges they already should have. Is it wrong, yeah. But fuck the semantics and accomplish the goal.

  81. 81
    Cain says:

    In the end, does it really matter what some fundie thinks of your union? All they can do is say mean things, but once the union is codified into law, screw ‘em.

    It doesn’t matter. By their own rhetoric they really can’t fight civil marriages and thus maybe that is the right first step so that at least children and the financial futures of people are protected. Evangelicals are screwed anyways, gays with each passing generation is becoming an acceptable social norm. This problem will fix itself eventually but we should continue to work towards giving gay parents equal rights.

    Civil unions aren’t in law yet and thus the debate continues . But eventually though all marriages should be considered civil unions. I liked the idea that Dreggas had and it makes the most sense. Recognize them all and let [God(ess*)(e|es)] sort it out. I hope my regular expression worked.

  82. 82
    Face says:

    It’s very simple, you proposed that you could correlate a rise in deaths to gun ownership. I realize that you may have missed the subtleties, but I cannot be blamed for your poor genetics

    I, too, missed the subtleties. Are you strictly defining gun ownership as only those individuals who register their gun, or anyone that actually has possession of one? Because I’m quite certain there’s a lot more crime/death coming from the later, enormously larger group….

  83. 83
    Punchy says:

    Is it wrong, yeah. But fuck the semantics and accomplish the goal.

    I’m not gay, so I’m only guessin here, but I believe their fear is that if they don’t start the movement demanding the term “marriage”, that they’ll never get it. It’ll become the norm for it to have a “union” tag, and this semantic diff (in their minds, perhaps) makes the whole process separate but equal (read: demeaning).

    Just my $0.02

  84. 84
    Cassidy says:

    I’m not gay, so I’m only guessin here, but I believe their fear is that if they don’t start the movement demanding the term “marriage”, that they’ll never get it. It’ll become the norm for it to have a “union” tag, and this semantic diff (in their minds, perhaps) makes the whole process separate but equal (read: demeaning).

    I don’t disagree. But, I’m a goal oriented person, so to me the important part is attaining the goal. The goal is equal rights and privileges. It’s not completely ideal, but at least you can campaign from a position of legal equality.

    I, too, missed the subtleties. Are you strictly defining gun ownership as only those individuals who register their gun,

    Yes, I was referring to a citizens right to legally own a gun. Criminals will commit crimes, regardless of the tools at hand. It isn’t right to lump them in with legal, innocent civilians owning a gun.

  85. 85
    tBone says:

    He gets off on it. What would you like me to do?

    I want you to get a room, surrender to your Sam/Diane feelings for each other, and make hot monkey love. Was I not clear before?

  86. 86
    Cain says:

    I’m not gay, so I’m only guessin here, but I believe their fear is that if they don’t start the movement demanding the term “marriage”, that they’ll never get it. It’ll become the norm for it to have a “union” tag, and this semantic diff (in their minds, perhaps) makes the whole process separate but equal (read: demeaning).

    It’s a hard problem. Maybe they can go for the gold and fight for marriage I don’t know. It seems like all semantics to me but I can appreciate that for others it would not be. But at the moment it’s a big dead end regardless. So they’ll need to figure out which to fight for first or wait till evangelical power is ebbing and then do the push.

    cain

  87. 87
    Cassidy says:

    I want you to get a room, surrender to your Sam/Diane feelings for each other, and make hot monkey love. Was I not clear before?

    I already said he wasn’t my type. I like breasts, not man-boobs.

  88. 88
    dslak says:

    Someone who thinks that governments simply ought to do what the majority of its citizens want would have no basis for saying that any decision by a direct democracy was unjust.

    Also, such a person should also think the Constitution to be a fundamentally evil document, given that it is intended to subvert the will of the majority on certain issues.

  89. 89
    tBone says:

    Maybe they can go for the gold and fight for marriage I don’t know. It seems like all semantics to me but I can appreciate that for others it would not be.

    I’ve never been able to figure out why government is in the marriage business anyway. Let the gov’mt administer civil unions and leave marriage up to the churches as they choose.

    I already said he wasn’t my type. I like breasts, not man-boobs.

    The manssiere is easier to get off, though.

  90. 90
    Cassidy says:

    The manssiere is easier to get off, though.

    amateur

  91. 91
    jcricket says:

    I already said he wasn’t my type. I like breasts, not man-boobs.

    Anyone else see a post dripping with self-loathing?

  92. 92
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    And you still miss the point. It is not the job of our gov’t to decide which products you can and cannot buy.

    I want a nuclear-powered dildo so I can shove it down Cassidy’s throat.

    Fucking hated The Partridge Family.
    .

  93. 93
    Jen says:

    Oh, my second favorite Texan, if only you were earlier.

  94. 94
    Cassidy says:

    I want a nuclear-powered dildo so I can shove it down Cassidy’s throat.

    Heh…don’t bring a dildo to a gun fight.

  95. 95
    John S. says:

    Another slap fight between John S and Cassidy? Get a room, already.

    Sorry, I should know better than to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

  96. 96
    John S. says:

    It’s very simple, you proposed that you could correlate a rise in deaths to gun ownership. I realize that you may have missed the subtleties, but I cannot be blamed for your poor genetics.

    Wow, that’s a strawfecta!

    A misrepresentation of the facts, a move of the goalposts and a flat out personal attack. All without mentioning a word about the CDC report which states that casualties resulting from firearms are expected to outpace motor vehicle fatalities.

    At least you avoided whining about how I lowered the level of discourse, forced you to respond and treated you unfairly. You’re improving.

  97. 97
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Heh…don’t bring a dildo to a gun fight.

    That’s a nuclear powered dildo, bucko.
    .

  98. 98
    Cassidy says:

    Sorry, I should know better than to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

    You must be tapped. Lame…really lame. Tell you what, go eat some Wheaties and come back when you got a little fuel in your tank.

  99. 99
    Cassidy says:

    That’s a nuclear powered dildo, bucko.

    So what…it’s got 5 speeds?

  100. 100
    Cassidy says:
    Heh…don’t bring a dildo to a gun fight.

    That’s a nuclear powered dildo, bucko.

    Vic Deakins: Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?

  101. 101
    Cassidy says:

    A misrepresentation of the facts, a move of the goalposts and a flat out personal attack.

    Or an example of a emotionally hysterical window-licker who like to jump to conclusions and make assumptions before being sure of what he’s talking about.

  102. 102
    John S. says:

    You’re right, Cassidy. I can see when I’m outmatched by your impervious logic.

    Gun ownership and gun fatalites have nothing to do with each other. The CDC are just a bunch of emotional window-lickers. Death due to injuries from firearms is not an increasingly important public health problem, and even if it were, these deaths have absolutely nothing to do with actual gun ownership.

    Thanks for showing me the light.

  103. 103
    Robert Johnston says:

    A pox on both houses re: guns!

    As far as I can tell, the evidence is pretty conclusive that

    1) Anything coming out of John Lott is a hoax; more guns, less crime is an out-and-out lie;

    2) Guns are pretty close to useless for self defense, and are in most cases roughly as likely to be stolen or involved in an accidental or mistaken shooting resulting in injury or death as they are to be used successfully in defense of person or property;

    3) Guns are completely useless in the modern age as a bulwark against the state; and

    4) Whatever the Second Amendment means, it does not protect your fucking hobby. The Constitution is not an entirely frivolous document. If you can’t even make a good faith argument that a particular weapon is suitable for food-hunting or self defense, then just shut the fuck up. The Second Amendment, whatever it means, applies to tools, not toys.

    On the other hand:

    1) Guns don’t really correlate well with more crime either. Gun culture matters a hell of a lot more than the mere presence of guns when it comes to how dangerous guns are, so why not try working on that?;

    2) Regulations banning guns on the basis of how those guns look, as in the expired assault weapons ban, might just be the most ridiculous regulations ever enacted;

    3) Worrying about banning most shotguns and hunting rifles is a sign of completely irrational fear; and

    4) The gun nuts are, in fact, nuts, and it’s more politically productive to come to grips with that fact and back down in cases where the benefit of a ban or regulation is speculative or minimal than to fight them tooth and nail just because you think you’re right.

  104. 104
    John S. says:

    Anyone else see a post dripping with self-loathing?

    Heh, that’s what I find so amusing about Cassidy. When I attack him personally, it’s for things that are self-evident in a forum such as this, like not backing up an argument, stating opinions as facts and general bloviating.

    But when Cassidy attacks, he takes it to a special place, spluttering invectives that are so ludicrous that you just have to laugh. Window-licking? Man-boobs? Genetic deficiencies? Emotional hysteria? How one can determine any of these things from a blog post is beyond me. The best part is when he hurls around that kind of stuff and then posts:

    You can’t restrain yourself from firing off insults and whatnot

    Without any sense of irony. He really is quite the character.

  105. 105
    Cassidy says:

    Guns are pretty close to useless for self defense, and are in most cases roughly as likely to be stolen or involved in an accidental or mistaken shooting resulting in injury or death as they are to be used successfully in defense of person or property;

    Opinon sure….provable fact, no. Sorry.

    Guns are completely useless in the modern age as a bulwark against the state

    Once again, opinion. A few farmers with guns have done quite well in modern times.

    Whatever the Second Amendment means, it does not protect your fucking hobby. The Constitution is not an entirely frivolous document. If you can’t even make a good faith argument that a particular weapon is suitable for food-hunting or self defense, then just shut the fuck up. The Second Amendment, whatever it means, applies to tools, not toys.

    It protects the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms if you’re using the gun in such a manner. You don’t get to add qualifiers. When in doubt, the letter of the Constitution wins.

  106. 106
    John S. says:

    Robert Johnston-

    Some interesting points. My bone of contention purely rests with this statement:

    Show me a statistically sound study indicating a net rise in deaths due to gun ownership.

    Apparently, the CDC had conducted such a study and not only found an increase in deaths resulting from firearms, but also cautioned that:

    If present trends continue, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

    So what is your take? Do you think that a steady increase in firearm-related fatalities has something to do with gun ownership? To me it seems to be a rather logical conclusion.

  107. 107
    Cassidy says:

    John S…now your man-crush is just getting creepy and stalkerish.

  108. 108
    Cassidy says:

    To me it’s a simplified set of numbers. At least 90% of the homicides from a criminal act need to be counted out. Criminals will get guns, regardless of the laws. This has been proven time and time again.

    So, the magic number is how many deaths due to legal gun owners.

  109. 109
    demimondian says:

    Criminals will get guns, regardless of the laws. This has been proven time and time again.

    Um…then why do we not see the same level of gun violence in Canada, Holland, and Britain?

    Sorry, Cassidy — the numbers are not only against you here, but laughably so. You’re a glibertarian tool.

  110. 110
    Cassidy says:

    If I remember correctly, Canada has more guns in the population than we do.

    So you really want to say that gun crime doesn’t happen in these countries? That’s funny.

  111. 111
    Z says:

    Not to interrupt the John S & Cassidy love connection, but.. I don’t see too many Business repubs coming over to the democratic side. While immigration issues are making them crazy (particularly those in the agriculture, restaraunt/entertainment, and construction industries), taxes make them crazier. For some republicans (like my dad), the republicans could make it their party platform to usher in the anti-Christ, and as long as they simultaneously promised to lower taxes or keep the Bush tax cuts permanent, he’d be on board.

  112. 112
    dslak says:

    No doubt there are many Republicans like your dad, Z, but should Huckabee be the nominee, some of them might stay home.

  113. 113
    Krista says:

    If I remember correctly, Canada has more guns in the population than we do.

    So you really want to say that gun crime doesn’t happen in these countries? That’s funny.

    People, when quoting gun ownership in Canada, tend to ignore one very important aspect of it: the TYPE of gun owned. I’m too damn lazy to look it up, but I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of guns in Canada are longguns (i.e. hunting rifles), and that the guns are purchased for just that purpose — hunting, not for self-defense. I’m also willing to bet that handgun ownership, per capita, is a fraction of that of the U.S.

    It’s not the amount of guns owned. It’s the type of gun, and the reason why it is owned. I think that makes a big difference in regards to one’s attitude towards their gun. People buy rifles with the intent of hunting. People buy handguns with the anticipation of having to point the gun towards another human being — an anticipation which I cannot help but feel creates a certain mental shift.

    As well, let’s not forget how often, in popular entertainment, we see handguns being used on another human. We’re used to handgun = weapon. We don’t seem to make that same connection with longguns.

    I just think that when talking about guns, we make a big mistake when we fail to differentiate between guns that are designed to shoot a pheasant or a deer, and guns that are designed to shoot a person.

  114. 114

    Back to the original post, if, you all seem to agree that the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP is the champion of the serf class of illegal immigration and its crushing of blue collar wages and the consequential slide of middle class wages, exactly why is it that you seem to approve of it? Why exactly do you propose to aid and abet that process? A fence is absolute stupidiy, but removing the magnate – money – involves inducing suffering on those folks and if it is amnestied you simply prove to everyone that you do not mean it.

    If you think that is hard hearted then why don’t you explain to my legal employees of various races why sympathy for illegal immigrants trumps their plight. Make it real damn convincing because I’m about real sick and tired of being lumped with racists and xenophobes by liberals who don’t have a fucking clue for my objecting to their presence in the job market.

    I a hard core leftie, but I work with my hands making things that have to be right, feel good stuipidiy doesn’t cut it, it results in the exact same outcome rationally predicated on the steps, not the emotion drive wants. You all talk about keyboard warriors and act as though there are no consequences to your proposals in the arena where the problem exits that is obviously outside your experience.

  115. 115
    Cassidy says:

    People buy rifles with the intent of hunting.

    I don’t hunt.

    People buy handguns with the anticipation of having to point the gun towards another human being

    I shoot recreationally. If I wanted to tag someone, I’d go with my M4.

  116. 116
    b-psycho says:

    I humbly invite anyone who seriously thinks firearms are useless and/or too dangerous for civilians to have — and thus, the right to bear arms should be tossed or limited to nothingness — to be honest with themselves and simply attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment.

    Or STFU, whichever you prefer.

  117. 117
    John S. says:

    b-psycho:

    Those are some interesting options. There is of course a third option, which is that the 2nd amendment was never meant to allow individual citizens the right to bear arms outside of the purpose for doing so in order to maintain a militia. I don’t think having it interpreted as thus requires the amendment to be repealed.

    And for the record, I don’t necessarily think firearms are useless – they are excellent at killing people, which is the purpose for which the majority of them are designed. I also don’t think all firearms are too dangerous for civilians to have, I just fail to see why civilians need handguns and assault weapons.

    You can either look at the debate as being multi-faceted, or you can pretend that opinions on the topic must be one-dimensional, whichever you prefer.

  118. 118
    myiq2xu says:

    I humbly invite anyone who seriously thinks firearms are useless and/or too dangerous for civilians to have—and thus, the right to bear arms should be tossed or limited to nothingness—to be honest with themselves and simply attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment.

    Yeah! Until it’s repealed, I have the right to own pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, bazookas, SAM missles, grenades and thermonuclear devices.

  119. 119
    myiq2xu says:

    You’re a glibertarian tool.

    Is that like a left-handed monkey wrench or an anal probe?

  120. 120
    Beej says:

    Cassidy, I beg to differ with your assertion that the Constitution protects your right to bear arms for any purpose and not just for some purposes. It could be, and has been, argued that the Constitution explicitly states the purpose, the one and only purpose, for which the right to bear arms applies-“A well-regulated militia being necessary. . . .” Why is the second clause of the 2nd Amendment so easy for everyone to remember while the 1st clause is almost forgotten?

    While I have owned and been around guns (mostly long guns, Krista) all my life, and would argue that adults with no criminal record, no history of violence due to mental illness, and no history of drug or alcohol addiction should be allowed to own rifles, shotguns, and, yes, even handguns, the NRA’s position that anyone ought to be able to own any type of gun they want, up to and including a rocket launcher (exaggeration to make a point)is ridiculous, and probably has more than a little to do with the view among anti-gun forces that gun owners are a bunch of idiots.

  121. 121
    Cassidy says:

    Why is the second clause of the 2nd Amendment so easy for everyone to remember while the 1st clause is almost forgotten?

    It isn’t forgotten. What’s forgotten is that the people were the militia. The common shopkeepers and farmers and cobblers and whatnot, were the local militia.

    the NRA’s position that anyone ought to be able to own any type of gun they want, up to and including a rocket launcher

    I think the position is pretty ridiculous myself. I think everything up to, but not including automatic weapons is okay. I also believe a state or community has the right to ban or limit concealed and open carry. When it comes to guns, the only thing I’m against is legislation that assumes guilt on the part of the private, legal gun owner. It isn’t right to “punish” someone for something they haven’t done.

    I just fail to see why civilians need handguns and assault weapons.

    The history of any military will show the use of handguns as secondary weapons. So even with the “only militia” context, they’d still be owned. Secondly, assault weapon is a very broad definition. Is it something scary looking with black plastic? Is it something with a collapsible stock? Is it an M14; all wood grainy goodness, prior military weapon before the M16?

    Just about all of our modern rifles are built and designed off of a military weapon.

  122. 122
    John S. says:

    Why is the second clause of the 2nd Amendment so easy for everyone to remember while the 1st clause is almost forgotten?

    Because glibertarians have selective reading skills. They have no use for context when it does’t suit their purpose. They like to point out that it was civilians – like common shopkeepers and farmers – that made up the local militia, without heeding the fact that in those times there was no standing army. Most of our founding fathers were against a standing army because they didn’t trust it, and prefered the militia model, akin to like what Switzerland has going.

    Like people who are pro-life, people who are pro-gun tend to cherry-pick the information that suits their argument. After all, that is what their fervor over the 2nd amendment is based on; ignoring the portions of text that undermine their argument while focusing on the portions that don’t. It is rare to encounter someone who is pro-gun not make a bad faith argument, because the second they point to the 2nd amendment, that is precisely what they have done.

  123. 123
    Cassidy says:

    without heeding the fact that in those times there was no standing army.

    You show me where it says “Once a standing army is developed, the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed”. That’s the problem with the anti-gun crowd. You project your own petty thinking, with words like need and should, on a document that says pretty plainly what it intends.

    When in doubt, always err on the side of the Constitution. It will save you from looking like a jackass.

  124. 124
    Cassidy says:

    You anti-gun folks are just like the fundies.

  125. 125
    Cassidy says:

    You anti-gun folks are just like the fundies.

    To explain this more, than just to sound like a random insult:

    Fundamentalist like to cherry pick the bible to support their positions. They disregard the fact that for every verse that supports them, there is another that says the opposite. In the end, they fall back on interpreting the bible which, surprise, surprise, fits into their view.

    The anti-gun crowd does the same thing. And this is where you will always fall into problems. There is no set of objective data that supports the anti-gun sentiments. You can’t prove a point, just based on a subjective interpretation of need. When in error, fall back on the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  126. 126
    John S. says:

    Casssidy, your man-crush is getting creepy.

  127. 127
    Cassidy says:

    Casssidy, your man-crush is getting creepy.

    Hey buddy, I’m not making shit up and trying to imitate you. You’ve definitely won the stalker award.

  128. 128
    John S. says:

    Holy shit, I just realized I’ve been taken in by a very good troll. Well done, Cassidy. Very well done. I really thought you were serious about the bullshit you posted, but nobody can honestly argue that anti-gun people are the same as pro-life people. Pro-gun people and pro-life people are usually one in the same. And reading that screed about the constitution, one may as well substitute ‘anti-gun’ with ‘pro-gun’ in order for it to make any kind of sense.

    You got me DougJ.

  129. 129
    Cassidy says:

    anti-gun people are the same as pro-life people.

    Same narrow mindset.

  130. 130

    […] I have written on the same topic here and here. When you look at topics like immigration or the Huckabee campaign you really see diametrically opposed camps that won’t sweep their differences under the rug any more. […]

  131. 131

    […] When historians write down the political narrative of this era a main themes will unquestionably cover just how improbable the coalition that sustained Republican power really was. Cooked up in the mix of interest groups who voted Republican from Reagan through Bush 2 are business cons who absolutely depend on illegal immigration and nativists who will never rest until they end it, you have fiercely anti-Catholic evangelicals and Catholic partisans. You have to give at least some credit to the guy convinced imperialist big-government Trotskyite communists-turned-neoconservatives, Libertarians, panty-sniffing sex crusaders and William F. Buckley to pull the same lever for any meaningful period of time. The job called for some brilliant, evil sick fucks; too bad the GOP ran out of the brilliant kind. […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] When historians write down the political narrative of this era a main themes will unquestionably cover just how improbable the coalition that sustained Republican power really was. Cooked up in the mix of interest groups who voted Republican from Reagan through Bush 2 are business cons who absolutely depend on illegal immigration and nativists who will never rest until they end it, you have fiercely anti-Catholic evangelicals and Catholic partisans. You have to give at least some credit to the guy convinced imperialist big-government Trotskyite communists-turned-neoconservatives, Libertarians, panty-sniffing sex crusaders and William F. Buckley to pull the same lever for any meaningful period of time. The job called for some brilliant, evil sick fucks; too bad the GOP ran out of the brilliant kind. […]

  2. […] I have written on the same topic here and here. When you look at topics like immigration or the Huckabee campaign you really see diametrically opposed camps that won’t sweep their differences under the rug any more. […]

Comments are closed.