Al Gore was saying this: Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds." In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history — the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation — when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached. "This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"
It was about climate change but I can be hopeful that it's applicable in a wider way. I hope.
No one party or candidate ever has a lock on the voter's "best interest". Even when a candidate comes close you'll never get a 100% match unless you are voting for yourself. It can be like going to a hot night club, hooking up with the finest looking chick in the club only to find out later that she has a penis. Then you're stuck because she has 90% of what you are looking for but that last 10% is now dangling right in front of your face... So, do you head back to the club and find a different girl who is missing a different 10% or do you just close your eyes and hope either you enjoy it or your friends never find out?
Anyone who would vote "party line" all the time is stupid. I feel the same way about someone who would let the race/gender/sexual persuasion of the politician influence their vote.
There is also the issue of long vs. mid vs. short term "best interest". What may be in someones best interest in the long term may be extremely bad for them in the short or mid term. When someone is on solid footing suffering a short term loss for a long term gain is an easy sell. When someone is on a shaky footing they don't want to hear about how it's going to continue to be bad until some mythical point in the future where it gets better.
Remember, just because YOU think something is in every one's best interest does not mean everyone else agrees with you.
Remember, just because YOU think something is in every one's best interest does not mean everyone else agrees with you.
Doesn't mean they're fucking right, either.
Yeah, lowering taxes to nothing for Exxon and to nearly nothing for the top two percent really, really helps the working class people pulling in 30K.
No one party or candidate ever has a lock on the voter's "best interest".
Actually, it's pretty clear from the past few years that the democrats have common people's interests way more at heart than republicans, if for no other reason than they don't simply want to give away the whole country to the top two percent.
The republicans in the house voted pre-emptively to refuse aid to any victims of Hurricane Irene. In whose best interest was that? The victims? The insurance companies? Please tell us, Steve.
There is also the issue of long vs. mid vs. short term "best interest". What may be in someones best interest in the long term may be extremely bad for them in the short or mid term. When someone is on solid footing suffering a short term loss for a long term gain is an easy sell. When someone is on a shaky footing they don't want to hear about how it's going to continue to be bad until some mythical point in the future where it gets beter.
Okay, so tell us, Steve, how does Exxon paying zero dollars in taxes last year translate into a benefit in any term? The short term? The long term? When? When does refusing to raise the minimum wage help anyone? When does refusing to pass health care reform help anyone? When does playing political games with raising the debt ceiling help?
What about those Irene victims? Will refusing to give them aid perhaps turn out to be in their best interest one day?
Do you expect me to believe that the fact that Exxon paid zero dollars in taxes is going to somehow be in the 30K guy's best interests at some point in the future? What does the 30K guy do until then? Eat dreams?
Remember, just because YOU think something is in every one's best interest does not mean everyone else agrees with you.
Let's talk about those Irene victims. I think that it probably would have been more in their interests to wait and see what the damages were before any vote was held to deny benefits. I'll bet most people agree.
Let's talk about a republican hard-line Christmas wish. Who benefits from a repeal of abortion rights? Who benefits from a denial of marriage rights for gay couples?
Are you going to tell me that these people will eventually be thankful their rights were infringed?
Hey, how about those trillions of dollars lost in Iraq? I'm not just talking about money spent. I'm talking about the couple of billion that were simply lost, as in, no one knows where it went. Will that turn out to be in someone's best interest in the future?
Which party was against each extension of unemployment benefits? Which party is against nearly any form of union benefit? Which party wants to severely restrict Medicare and Social Security? Which party doesn't want to allow negotiations with drug companies for lower prescription drug costs? Who does all that benefit? Who is harmed by all of that?
What about voting against any reasonable measure to counter climate change? Who will that benefit in the near, middle, or long term? How about censoring evolution from schools?
Now ask yourself: Which party do all these things come from? When was the last time a democrat said we should "teach the controversy" about evolution and intelligent design instead of just straight evolution? Who was the last democrat that we abolish the Department of Education? When has a democrat tried to block green initiatives?
Sorry, but you can try and be as moderate as you like, but you're simply fooling yourself if you think both parties are the same on these issues.
*takes a few deep breaths* Okay...so...this...is a quote from the head of the NRA:
“[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,†LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.â€ÂÂ
“But it’s a big fat stinking lie!†the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.â€ÂÂ
“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,†La Pierre declared.
So...the NRA is telling CPAC that Obama, his staff, and all of the liberal media are in a conspiracy to take guns away from everyone. They "know" this because Obama and his administration have done absolutely nothing about gun control. That's right...Obama's big plan is not to do anything in order to sucker gun owners into a false sense of security, and then sneak in during the night and steal everyone's guns...or something. Link to full story. *inhales*
Okay, Steve - I see that you're concerned about taking into account people's benefits in the near, mid, and long term.
Tell me, when the republicans banned stem cell research, who benefited in any of those terms?
When the republicans continuous threaten to take away public broadcasting, who will benefit in any of those terms?
When republicans stalled and stalled and stalled regarding cigarette warnings, bans, and cigarette taxes, and alcohol warnings and alcohol taxes, who benefited?
When republicans made the rules for bankruptcy so much more difficult, who benefited?
When republicans scream about illegal immigration and build walls around our southern border while giving tax breaks to corporations who outsource the majority of their jobs to India and China, who benefits?
When republicans took a surplus and turned it into a deficit, who benefited?
When republicans relaxed regulations to the point where lenders and bankers had the environment necessary to produce the bubble and subsequent crash of 2008, who benefited?
When republicans block every medical marijuana initiative, who benefits?
When republicans make laws like "No Child Left Behind", while reducing school budgets and actively trying to fire as many teachers as possible, who benefits?
When republicans block every reasonable restriction on the outrageous proliferation of firearms, who benefits?
When you look at a graph and see that real wages have stayed stagnant since about 1975 due mostly to republican tax policy, who has benefited?
So...the NRA is telling CPAC that Obama, his staff, and all of the liberal media are in a conspiracy to take guns away from everyone. They "know" this because Obama and his administration have done absolutely nothing about gun control. That's right...Obama's big plan is not to do anything in order to sucker gun owners into a false sense of security, and then sneak in during the night and steal everyone's guns...or something.
Gotta feel sorry for Obama on that one - The Gun control lobby, particularly the Brady Campaign, Give him shit for not doing anything, and now the NRA are giving him shit for not doing anything, but for an insane reason. Poor fucker just can't catch a break.
I'm trying to think of some other benefits republicans have given us.
Reagan sold arms to Iran. Rumsfeld and Cheney sold arms to Iraq. How did that benefit us, Steve? Maybe those were some of those delayed benefits you told us about.
The republicans have been deregulation kings for thirty years. Is deregulation a benefit or a hazard? Once again, maybe those were some of those delayed benefits you told us about.
The republicans spent millions on Clinton's impeachment and shut down government once under Clinton over what amounted to pure obstructionism. Who did that benefit?
We talked about this a little earlier. GWB started two wars that had nothing to do with his stated reasons for going to war. During those wars, thousands of American soldiers were killed. Many more were maimed. Millions of Iraqis were killed or maimed. Those who survived have a whole new list of reasons to hate America.
Under GWB, for the first time in history, a country pursuing two separate wars treated itself to a deep tax cut for the wealthy. We spent trillions of dollars on the wars, and ACTUALLY LOST, and I mean lost as in the three little kittens who lost their mittens, billions of dollars in Iraq. This is totally separate from the money that was supposedly honestly spent. This money was just simply lost.
Oh yeah - under republicans, for the first time in US history, torture became an accepted part of US policy.
Economically, GWB continued deregulation that led to more and more outsourcing of US jobs. Where we once were the world's biggest exporter of goods, before GWB, after GWB, we are the world's greatest importer of goods. About the only heavy industrial good we export these days is scrap steel to China.
Steve, who did all these things benefit, either in the near, mid, or long term? Did the working class guy making 30K benefit from any of these things, or was he harmed by them? Oh yeah, you said that, just because i might not see things as benefits, that doesn't mean that others wouldn't.
So help me forumites, do any of you see any of these things as benefits?
This is the crux of the statement that we often make that the teabaggers voting republican are voting against their best interests. Does anyone see any of these things or the things republicans have done that I posted about in my last few other posts as being in anyone's best interests?
Finally Steve, if, as you say, the benefits might be long term in nature, and I'm just too blind to see who the 30K guy might end up benefiting from any of these things in the future, or that any of the things republicans have done that I posted about in my last few other posts might end up as being in anyone's best interests at some point in the future, please enlighten me.
Economically, GWB continued deregulation that led to more and more outsourcing of US jobs. Where we once were the world's biggest exporter of goods, before GWB, after GWB, we are the world's greatest importer of goods. About the only heavy industrial good we export these days is scrap steel to China.
Granted this was going on way before GWB. Clinton wasn't exactly protectionist. Neither was Reagan or Bush Sr for that matter.
Economically, GWB continued deregulation that led to more and more outsourcing of US jobs. Where we once were the world's biggest exporter of goods, before GWB, after GWB, we are the world's greatest importer of goods. About the only heavy industrial good we export these days is scrap steel to China.
Granted this was going on way before GWB. Clinton wasn't exactly protectionist. Neither was Reagan or Bush Sr for that matter.
That's why I said "continued". If you want to throw Clinton into the mix, I'll make a little bet with you: I'll bet that if you list every single democrat that has been in favor of exporting jobs overseas, I can name five republicans that have been in favor of the same policy. This is WAY more of a republican policy than a democrat policy.
Whose best interest does this serve? That's what I want to know from Steve. Does it benefit Johnny Worker when his job is sent overseas? Is that in his best interests? Any interests at all? Near, mid, or long-term? Does this give Johnny Worker a reason to vote republican?
When Steve said that I might be the only one who doesn't see the benefits, I want to know from the forumites: Do any of you think that Johnny has received a benefit from having his job exported overseas? How about when the republicans try to refuse to extend Johnny's unemployment benefits because he can't find a job? How about when Johnny tries to declare bankruptcy but can't because republicans have changed the law to make it really difficult to file? What about when Johnny gets sick and can't afford to get well because republicans have killed every meaningful attempt at health care reform? What about when Johnny finally tries for welfare or food stamps but can't get them because republicans have made it too difficult?
If Johnny then voted republican, what inspires him to do so? Rationality or aspiration bias?
It seems to me like there must be some way to counter aspiration bias.
That's why I said "continued". If you want to throw Clinton into the mix, I'll make a little bet with you: I'll bet that if you list every single democrat that has been in favor of exporting jobs overseas, I can name five republicans that have been in favor of the same thing. This is WAY more of a republican thing than a democrat thing.
I'm not sure about that, both parties seem to have a both protectionist types and free market types almost in equal numbers. I'm sure that changes on each issue and election year but take for example, the passage of NAFTA.
"the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994."
So...the NRA is telling CPAC that Obama, his staff, and all of the liberal media are in a conspiracy to take guns away from everyone. They "know" this because Obama and his administration have done absolutely nothing about gun control. That's right...Obama's big plan is not to do anything in order to sucker gun owners into a false sense of security, and then sneak in during the night and steal everyone's guns...or something.
Gotta feel sorry for Obama on that one - The Gun control lobby, particularly the Brady Campaign, Give him shit for not doing anything, and now the NRA are giving him shit for not doing anything, but for an insane reason. Poor fucker just can't catch a break.
Here are three things working against Obama on this matter:
1) He's a Democrat - EVRY1 NOES DEMS HATE GUNZ!!!! ZOMG!!! 2) It has been reported (played up on the fringe sites) that in a meeting with Jim and Sarah Brady Obama told them that he was working on gun control but he had to do it "under the radar". 3) Fast and Furious.
There is nothing he can do about number one. Number two was mostly ignored until number three popped up. Number three is going to be a real bitch and may derail any run control options he may have wanted to pursue. How do you respond when your "American guns are flowing into Mexico and killing people" storyline is suddenly spoiled by the revelation that there was a government program designed to do exactly that!
Sometimes I think gun rights is the scare tactic equivalent to abortion rights. Both issues get the base of their respective parties frothing at the mouth over the perceived threat to their liberty but neither right is in any danger of being taken away.
Sometimes I think gun rights is the scare tactic equivalent to abortion rights. Both issues get the base of their respective parties frothing at the mouth over the perceived threat to their liberty but neither right is in any danger of being taken away.
Except unlike Gun Rights abortion rights are being restricted mainly on a state level.
... and so Steve simply ignores questions and challenges put to him. Does this mean he has no response? Or, does it mean, like so many other republicans, he just doesn't fucking care so long as Exxon's billions in profits are tax-free?
Sometimes I think gun rights is the scare tactic equivalent to abortion rights. Both issues get the base of their respective parties frothing at the mouth over the perceived threat to their liberty but neither right is in any danger of being taken away.
Except unlike Gun Rights abortion rights are being restricted mainly on a state level.
The best thinig I could find on the abortion side is this.
Some of these restrictions make sense while others do not. Same thing with gun control.
Make sense: Parental involvement, later term and partial birth bans. Make no sense: ultrasound requirement, insurance limitations.
The rest of the items on the chart sound like valid health care regulations that are likely being twisted to stop abortion providers from setting up shop. Which is a fairly common way local officials stop things they don't like.
I have not been able to quickly find a good breakdown of gun laws by state without either hitting a "ZOMG ALL GUNZ IZ EVILZZZ!!!!" or "JESUS WOOLD CARRI A GLOCH!" website.
... and so Steve simply ignores questions and challenges put to him. Does this mean he has no response? Or, does it mean, like so many other republicans, he just doesn't fucking care so long as Exxon's billions in profits are tax-free?
Answer this, Steve.
Make sense: Parental involvement, later term and partial birth bans.
There's qualifications for both of these things. They don't make sense in all circumstances.
Yeah... I have very mixed emotions about the parental consent laws. On my phone so can't write long post.
As a good parent I don't have any problems with the parental notification laws but... as a good parent I don't need those laws. I already have an excellent level of communication with my daughter and I'm very involved in her life.
If I were a bad parent would I even care if my daughter got an abortion? Would I want to deal with the hassle of being notified?
If I were the daughter of good parents would I confide in them anyways because they are good parents? If my parents sucked wouldn't I want to hide it?
What if my kid is seriously out of control and I'm trying to help her straighten things out? In that instance I would have to rely on the law to help me out.
... and so Steve simply ignores questions and challenges put to him. Does this mean he has no response? Or, does it mean, like so many other republicans, he just doesn't fucking care so long as Exxon's billions in profits are tax-free?
Steve said a long time ago he was no longer going to engage Joe because of a their somewhat abusive relationship. I do not believe he is dodging the question; just ignoring Joe.
So I will ask him instead: Please name several Republican policies the party has championed in the past two decades that you consider beneficial to society in the short, mid, and long terms.
I have a feeling, Steve, that ignoring this request from several people now will come off as admission that you have no examples that can withstand peer review.
Steve said a long time ago he was no longer going to engage Joe because of a their somewhat abusive relationship. I do not believe he is dodging the question; just ignoring Joe.
So I will ask him instead: Please name several Republican policies the party has championed in the past two decades that you consider beneficial to society in the short, mid, and long terms.
I have a feeling, Steve, that ignoring this request from several people now will come off as admission that you have no examples that can withstand peer review.
Steve said a long time ago he was no longer going to engage Joe because of a their somewhat abusive relationship. I do not believe he is dodging the question; just ignoring Joe.
So I will ask him instead: Please name several Republican policies the party has championed in the past two decades that you consider beneficial to society in the short, mid, and long terms.
I have a feeling, Steve, that ignoring this request from several people now will come off as admission that you have no examples that can withstand peer review.
Comments
Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds."
In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history — the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation — when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached.
"This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"
It was about climate change but I can be hopeful that it's applicable in a wider way. I hope.
Anyone who would vote "party line" all the time is stupid. I feel the same way about someone who would let the race/gender/sexual persuasion of the politician influence their vote.
There is also the issue of long vs. mid vs. short term "best interest". What may be in someones best interest in the long term may be extremely bad for them in the short or mid term. When someone is on solid footing suffering a short term loss for a long term gain is an easy sell. When someone is on a shaky footing they don't want to hear about how it's going to continue to be bad until some mythical point in the future where it gets better.
Remember, just because YOU think something is in every one's best interest does not mean everyone else agrees with you.
The republicans in the house voted pre-emptively to refuse aid to any victims of Hurricane Irene. In whose best interest was that? The victims? The insurance companies? Please tell us, Steve. Okay, so tell us, Steve, how does Exxon paying zero dollars in taxes last year translate into a benefit in any term? The short term? The long term? When? When does refusing to raise the minimum wage help anyone? When does refusing to pass health care reform help anyone? When does playing political games with raising the debt ceiling help?
What about those Irene victims? Will refusing to give them aid perhaps turn out to be in their best interest one day?
Do you expect me to believe that the fact that Exxon paid zero dollars in taxes is going to somehow be in the 30K guy's best interests at some point in the future? What does the 30K guy do until then? Eat dreams? Let's talk about those Irene victims. I think that it probably would have been more in their interests to wait and see what the damages were before any vote was held to deny benefits. I'll bet most people agree.
Let's talk about a republican hard-line Christmas wish. Who benefits from a repeal of abortion rights? Who benefits from a denial of marriage rights for gay couples?
Are you going to tell me that these people will eventually be thankful their rights were infringed?
Hey, how about those trillions of dollars lost in Iraq? I'm not just talking about money spent. I'm talking about the couple of billion that were simply lost, as in, no one knows where it went. Will that turn out to be in someone's best interest in the future?
Which party was against each extension of unemployment benefits? Which party is against nearly any form of union benefit? Which party wants to severely restrict Medicare and Social Security? Which party doesn't want to allow negotiations with drug companies for lower prescription drug costs? Who does all that benefit? Who is harmed by all of that?
What about voting against any reasonable measure to counter climate change? Who will that benefit in the near, middle, or long term? How about censoring evolution from schools?
Now ask yourself: Which party do all these things come from? When was the last time a democrat said we should "teach the controversy" about evolution and intelligent design instead of just straight evolution? Who was the last democrat that we abolish the Department of Education? When has a democrat tried to block green initiatives?
Sorry, but you can try and be as moderate as you like, but you're simply fooling yourself if you think both parties are the same on these issues.
Okay...so...this...is a quote from the head of the NRA: So...the NRA is telling CPAC that Obama, his staff, and all of the liberal media are in a conspiracy to take guns away from everyone. They "know" this because Obama and his administration have done absolutely nothing about gun control. That's right...Obama's big plan is not to do anything in order to sucker gun owners into a false sense of security, and then sneak in during the night and steal everyone's guns...or something.
Link to full story.
*inhales*
Tell me, when the republicans banned stem cell research, who benefited in any of those terms?
When the republicans continuous threaten to take away public broadcasting, who will benefit in any of those terms?
When republicans stalled and stalled and stalled regarding cigarette warnings, bans, and cigarette taxes, and alcohol warnings and alcohol taxes, who benefited?
When republicans made the rules for bankruptcy so much more difficult, who benefited?
When republicans scream about illegal immigration and build walls around our southern border while giving tax breaks to corporations who outsource the majority of their jobs to India and China, who benefits?
When republicans took a surplus and turned it into a deficit, who benefited?
When republicans relaxed regulations to the point where lenders and bankers had the environment necessary to produce the bubble and subsequent crash of 2008, who benefited?
When republicans block every medical marijuana initiative, who benefits?
When republicans make laws like "No Child Left Behind", while reducing school budgets and actively trying to fire as many teachers as possible, who benefits?
When republicans block every reasonable restriction on the outrageous proliferation of firearms, who benefits?
When you look at a graph and see that real wages have stayed stagnant since about 1975 due mostly to republican tax policy, who has benefited?
Reagan sold arms to Iran. Rumsfeld and Cheney sold arms to Iraq. How did that benefit us, Steve? Maybe those were some of those delayed benefits you told us about.
The republicans have been deregulation kings for thirty years. Is deregulation a benefit or a hazard? Once again, maybe those were some of those delayed benefits you told us about.
The republicans spent millions on Clinton's impeachment and shut down government once under Clinton over what amounted to pure obstructionism. Who did that benefit?
We talked about this a little earlier. GWB started two wars that had nothing to do with his stated reasons for going to war. During those wars, thousands of American soldiers were killed. Many more were maimed. Millions of Iraqis were killed or maimed. Those who survived have a whole new list of reasons to hate America.
Under GWB, for the first time in history, a country pursuing two separate wars treated itself to a deep tax cut for the wealthy. We spent trillions of dollars on the wars, and ACTUALLY LOST, and I mean lost as in the three little kittens who lost their mittens, billions of dollars in Iraq. This is totally separate from the money that was supposedly honestly spent. This money was just simply lost.
Oh yeah - under republicans, for the first time in US history, torture became an accepted part of US policy.
Economically, GWB continued deregulation that led to more and more outsourcing of US jobs. Where we once were the world's biggest exporter of goods, before GWB, after GWB, we are the world's greatest importer of goods. About the only heavy industrial good we export these days is scrap steel to China.
Steve, who did all these things benefit, either in the near, mid, or long term? Did the working class guy making 30K benefit from any of these things, or was he harmed by them? Oh yeah, you said that, just because i might not see things as benefits, that doesn't mean that others wouldn't.
So help me forumites, do any of you see any of these things as benefits?
This is the crux of the statement that we often make that the teabaggers voting republican are voting against their best interests. Does anyone see any of these things or the things republicans have done that I posted about in my last few other posts as being in anyone's best interests?
Finally Steve, if, as you say, the benefits might be long term in nature, and I'm just too blind to see who the 30K guy might end up benefiting from any of these things in the future, or that any of the things republicans have done that I posted about in my last few other posts might end up as being in anyone's best interests at some point in the future, please enlighten me.
Otherwise most of those points hold pretty well.
Whose best interest does this serve? That's what I want to know from Steve. Does it benefit Johnny Worker when his job is sent overseas? Is that in his best interests? Any interests at all? Near, mid, or long-term? Does this give Johnny Worker a reason to vote republican?
When Steve said that I might be the only one who doesn't see the benefits, I want to know from the forumites: Do any of you think that Johnny has received a benefit from having his job exported overseas? How about when the republicans try to refuse to extend Johnny's unemployment benefits because he can't find a job? How about when Johnny tries to declare bankruptcy but can't because republicans have changed the law to make it really difficult to file? What about when Johnny gets sick and can't afford to get well because republicans have killed every meaningful attempt at health care reform? What about when Johnny finally tries for welfare or food stamps but can't get them because republicans have made it too difficult?
If Johnny then voted republican, what inspires him to do so? Rationality or aspiration bias?
It seems to me like there must be some way to counter aspiration bias.
"the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994."
1) He's a Democrat - EVRY1 NOES DEMS HATE GUNZ!!!! ZOMG!!!
2) It has been reported (played up on the fringe sites) that in a meeting with Jim and Sarah Brady Obama told them that he was working on gun control but he had to do it "under the radar".
3) Fast and Furious.
There is nothing he can do about number one. Number two was mostly ignored until number three popped up. Number three is going to be a real bitch and may derail any run control options he may have wanted to pursue. How do you respond when your "American guns are flowing into Mexico and killing people" storyline is suddenly spoiled by the revelation that there was a government program designed to do exactly that!
Sometimes I think gun rights is the scare tactic equivalent to abortion rights. Both issues get the base of their respective parties frothing at the mouth over the perceived threat to their liberty but neither right is in any danger of being taken away.
Some of these restrictions make sense while others do not. Same thing with gun control.
Make sense: Parental involvement, later term and partial birth bans.
Make no sense: ultrasound requirement, insurance limitations.
The rest of the items on the chart sound like valid health care regulations that are likely being twisted to stop abortion providers from setting up shop. Which is a fairly common way local officials stop things they don't like.
I have not been able to quickly find a good breakdown of gun laws by state without either hitting a "ZOMG ALL GUNZ IZ EVILZZZ!!!!" or "JESUS WOOLD CARRI A GLOCH!" website.
As a good parent I don't have any problems with the parental notification laws but... as a good parent I don't need those laws. I already have an excellent level of communication with my daughter and I'm very involved in her life.
If I were a bad parent would I even care if my daughter got an abortion? Would I want to deal with the hassle of being notified?
If I were the daughter of good parents would I confide in them anyways because they are good parents? If my parents sucked wouldn't I want to hide it?
What if my kid is seriously out of control and I'm trying to help her straighten things out? In that instance I would have to rely on the law to help me out.
Mixed emotions...
So I will ask him instead: Please name several Republican policies the party has championed in the past two decades that you consider beneficial to society in the short, mid, and long terms.
I have a feeling, Steve, that ignoring this request from several people now will come off as admission that you have no examples that can withstand peer review.
Le dodge'd.
When you start advocating for certain sets of policies, and then refuse to defend them, your credibility is less than zero.
Steve is like the Fredo of the forum. He wants to contribute, but he's too much of a fuckin' testa muto.
Bird needs to take him fishing soon, like we talked about, capiche?