Quote of the day
I consider good gun control as a real steady aim.
15 Responses to “Quote of the day”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Ooh, fear mongering! My favorite! (Not the gun control part, the top part)
December 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Question:
Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Why not? Fearmongering works, especially when there really is something to be feared.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Just for the record, most who want the fight taken to the jihadists and continued aggressively until they’re gone, are not afraid of them. We’re pissed off at them and want them gone, because letting them live and do their deeds is a bad idea. Period. OK?
Being motivated by fear is horrible policy, though the Left seems to want us afraid of our own shadows– every week a new crisis.
The government’s job is NOT to keep us safe, unless we mean “safe from coercion”. The government’s job is to protect our rights. Says so in the Founding Documents, don’t you know.
40 people at the meeting? Awesome.
Sound bites and snappy quotes are nice. Just let me see his full, career-long sponsorship and voting record and I won’t need to read or hear one word he’s ever uttered. I won’t need to see him debate, nor will I need to know anything about his family life, his religion, his personal hygiene habits, his fashion-sense or personality, whether he is articulate and quick-witted or contemplative and reserved, or whether he’s lazy or a hard worker, etc.. None of that gives us real proof of how he votes or what he opposes or advocates. I really don’t care of he’s a coke-head, a pot smoker, or an alcoholic either. I want to know if he means it when he takes that Oath, or if, on the other hand, he’s a typical Republican. As Lincoln said when told about General Grant’s drinking problem; “Tell me what he’s drinking. I’ll send all my generals a bottle.”
December 19th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Fearmongering works, especially when there really is something to be feared.
Sure, but let’s have a little perspective, shall we? The economic rise of China and India (and our increasing dependence upon those nations) threatens us far more than any jihadist group could ever dream of. As to the jihadists, their “home run” only killed about 3,000 people, an order of magnitude more than their next-best effort, and we only artificially inflate their importance when we constantly talk about them as if they’re the greatest threat to Life, the Universe, and Everything since Hitler.
Does that mean we should ignore them, or not try to stop them? Of course not! But neither should we elevate them to the level of Nazi Germany, or pretend that they’re the defining issue of our time.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Unless you live in NYC, DC, or LA, or overseas, they’re almost certainly not out to get “you.” Red State America has literally nothing to worry about when it comes to them. The only thing they have to fear is fear itself, which is deliciously ironic when you consider how much those courting the red staters like to peddle it.
though the Left seems to want us afraid of our own shadows– every week a new crisis.
Such as? Climate change is the only thing I can think of that even remotely fits (although it’s a much better example of “there really is something to be feared”), and that’s been around a lot longer than a week. What else?
December 19th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
tgirsh:
The last nation that scored a 3000 casualty home run on the US was the Empire of Japan.
Pick a side please.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
In regards to Leftist fear mongering, all of my thoughts could be summed up as them wanting the public to fear everyone who doesn’t agree with them. They especially seem to want to stir up fear of Republicans in power.
Examples:
“They want to take Social Security away from old people” used to kill SS reform efforts.
“They are racist xenophobes” to prevent proper immigration reform.
“They want to give guns to lunatics and children” or “They are being paid off by the evil gun lobby” when gun control measures are resisted.
“They are conducting a war on science” when faced with skepticism about AGW or limits on federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.
“They want to start another war for oil profits” with any mention of other countries in the ME supporting terrorists.
“They have ruined all of the international goodwill from 9/11” and “They’ve ruined our image in other countries” on anything where any other country doesn’t like some portion of our foreign policy.
“They are turning this country into a theocracy” any time Bush mentions religion.
“Free trade hurts our economy and costs American jobs” when free trade agreements are proposed or “protective” taxes and tariffs are threatened.
It almost seems like every politically themed commercial aligned with Democrats is full of PSH concerning Republicans.
Also, wasn’t there actually a threat some time ago (never realized, thankfully) that AQ was planning to commit an act of terror in a rural area just to prove that “you aren’t safe anywhere”?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:03 am
They are racist xenophobes” to prevent proper immigration reform.
Well, that one was taken care of tonight. Congress gutted the law mandating a border fence.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:24 am
BCross,
Don’t forget just about everything ending with “For the Children”.
tgirsch,
1) Excuse me for caring about people who don’t live where I do. I guess that since they live more than 100 miles from me their lives just shouldn’t count for much.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
From the article:
I suggest this guy.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Kristopher:
The last nation that scored a 3000 casualty home run on the US was the Empire of Japan.
And that’s where the similarities end. So what’s your point?
BCross:
Whether or not you agree with those criticisms you listed (many of which are, in my estimation, valid to some degree), very few of them are of the “they’re out to get you” variety.
Yu-Ain:
Excuse me for caring about people who don’t live where I do.
Nothing at all wrong with caring about them. But it’s worth taking notice when the overwhelming majority of them have a vastly different idea about what should (and shouldn’t) be done to protect them than you do; they’re the ones whose asses are on the line, after all.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
they’re the ones whose asses are on the line, after all.
That in no way implies they are correct. Just well-intentionedly (is that even a word? Oh well) wrong.
And if their being wrong only impacted them, then I might very well let them have it. But it won’t. Even if you leave it at only lives lost. Open it to the economic aftershocks and something tells me the guy who gets laid off due to the resulting economic recession is going to be saying to himself, “I sure am glad I let those New Yorkers determine our foreign policy since I didn’t have a dog in the fight.”
December 20th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
…isn’t going to be saying…
December 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
That one’s ass is or isn’t on the line is nowhere near as important as whether one can find it with both hands and a flashlight, which most big city residents can’t. Even if I bought into your theory that people see best through their asses, whatever special insight is to be gained that way necessarily requires that they be aware that their asses are on the line. Big town liberals are largely oblivious to terrorism, so rather than dwell on whatever random crap they advocate today, let’s focus on what they advocated the last time they were clearly focused on the issue, e.g., 9/12/01.