Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 07, 2016, 04:48:45 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98765 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of the left
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left  (Read 164788 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6370


« Reply #800 on: November 12, 2016, 04:36:41 PM »

All of a sudden.  Where were these leftist shrinks all these years of media depravity and sexual exploittion and vulgarity?  How about when Clinton refused to resign despite his DNA on the young lady's dress?  On so on:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-trump-effect-psychologists-warn-that-children-are-watching-201915771.html
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 07:55:56 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #801 on: November 15, 2016, 10:31:52 AM »

.33 Blood Alcohol Drunk Driver Blames Donald Trump

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/11/drunk-driver-blames-donald-trump.php

But wasn't Trump's win Comey's fault?

.33% is more than 4 times the legal limit in MN.

She couldn't spell her name but she was able to articulate the motivation for her intoxication.

“I am upset over the outcome of the election and you should let me go home,”

No word on whether or not that is excusable situation in St. Paul.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6370


« Reply #802 on: November 16, 2016, 08:42:13 PM »

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/levin-why-isnt-this-national-news

The DNC is stepping up their anti American revolutionism.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 08:44:03 PM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38262


« Reply #803 on: November 16, 2016, 11:51:22 PM »

When the Dem Party is in tatters with its Old Guard seemingly done for and all attention is on Trump it is a perfect moment for this seditious crap.  In the long run this may play to our benefit.  Even Schumer, who heavily depends on support for Israel and attendant Jewish support in NY, seems likely to have to square off with him when Trump makes a pro-Israel move.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #804 on: November 17, 2016, 02:43:52 PM »


Ellison was on one of the big Sunday shows (Meet the Press or Face the Nation).  They went through a big election recap deciding that Democrats never reached out to rural America.  The host wondered what Dems were going to do about that.  Next up was Keith Ellison, possible choice to head up the party, 'we'll ask him what his party plans to do about this', nothing. Ellison told them essentially he would double down on all the progressive ideas they already were committed to.  Good for him, as they say.

Funny thing is, I can find no public record that Keith Ellison has ever been to rural area in the United States.  No record I can find he has ever set foot in a red county as defined by the Trump vote map.  

Ellison was born and raised in Detroit.  Went to college in Detroit, law school at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.  Lived in and represented north Minneapolis (where my rental properties are) in the state legislature, downtown St. Paul.  He most certainly knows Washington DC, the Capitol Building, CAIR headquarters etc.  He has visited Iraq (to oppose the war, during the war).  He's traveled to Mogadishu, Gaza, Mecca and Guantanamo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/politics/keith-ellison-minnesota-congressman-visits-somalia-and-meets-president.html
https://ellison.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/press-release-ellison-visits-guantanamo-to-review-detainee-conditions
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-30-ellison-iraq_N.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100885553
http://www.meforum.org/2756/keith-ellison-stealth-jihad

The Trump map has better coverage than Verizon wireless.  Democrats won the big cities and about two other areas. To my knowledge, their is no public record or press account that Keith Ellison has ever set foot in a county marked red.  Yet he is the 'right person' to lead a national party that wants to connect with all of us...
[img]https://dohdeick6sqa6.cloudfront.net/screenshots/production/live-president-counties/00@lg.png[img]
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35862/does-trump-have-better-coverage-than-verizon
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 03:04:23 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6370


« Reply #805 on: November 17, 2016, 02:55:39 PM »

"They went through a big election recap deciding that Democrats never reached out to rural America.  The host wondered what Dems were going to do about that.  Next up was Keith Ellison, possible choice to head up the party, 'we'll ask him what his party plans to do about this', nothing. Ellison told them essentially he would double down on all the progressive ideas they already were committed to."

Well said Doug.   Yes, the Dem response is for *more* propaganda that blames America for everything, more government, more dividing us into groups and pitting non whites against whites
and females against males  Spanish vs Anglos etc.

Astounding.

Just shove the one world government with control from a few at the top onto the rest of us and buy off enough voters to do it.  and phony proclamations to make the middle class believe they for them as obama has done for 8 yrs. 

We may be able to find an occasional common ground but we must never compromise (anymore).  The two are not the same.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #806 on: November 24, 2016, 07:46:25 AM »

The media and the left are overlapping threads.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/23/colin-jost-faces-furious-backlash-after-transgender-joke-on-saturday-night-live/#comments

37 genders night be why they "we" lost the election.  Not funny to sensitive leftists.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2016, 07:50:30 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #807 on: November 24, 2016, 07:59:28 AM »

They had a name for it and it guaranteed that they had the advantage in all presidential elections. They called it "The Blue Wall" and no ordinary Republican would ever again be able to climb past it.      Oops.

All you have to do to get rid of the EC is get 38 smaller states agree to give up power to NY and Calif.  They never talk of amending the Constitution, just 'getting rid of' things they don't like.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38262


« Reply #808 on: November 25, 2016, 11:20:10 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/dems-inaction-over-2m-vot_b_13199450.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38262


« Reply #809 on: November 26, 2016, 01:03:11 PM »

 Progressives without Power
Hard times for the Sanctimonious White Lady Party
By Kevin D. Williamson — November 26, 2016

A very nice liberal broadcaster asked me earlier this week whether I am worried about the future of the Republican party.

Funny question.

There are 25 states in which the state legislatures and governorships are controlled by Republicans, and two states with executive/legislative divides in which there are Republican legislative majorities large enough to override a veto from the Democratic governor. Sixty-eight of the country’s 98 partisan state legislative chambers are Republican-run. There are only four states with Democratic governors and legislatures; it is true that these include one of our most populous states (California), but the majority of Americans live in states in which there are Republican trifectas or veto-proof legislative majorities. Two-thirds of the nation’s governors are Republicans; more than two-thirds of our state legislative houses are under Republican control. Republicans control both houses of Congress and have just won the presidency.

Democrats control the dean of students’ office at Oberlin.

And Democrats have responded to their recent electoral defeat with riots, arson, and Alex Jones–level conspiracy theories. Progressives have just raised $5 million to press for a recount in several states. Clinton sycophant Paul Krugman, sounding exactly like every well-mannered conspiracy nut you’ve ever known, says the election “probably wasn’t hacked,” but “conspiracies do happen” and “now that it’s out there” — (who put it out there?) — “an independent investigation is called for.”

Maybe it isn’t the Republican party whose future needs worrying about.

In one sense, what is happening in American politics is a convergence of partisan styles.

Beginning with the nomination of Barry Goldwater, and thanks in no small part to the efforts of many men associated with this magazine, the Republican party spent half a century as a highly ideological enterprise. But highly ideological political parties are not the norm in the English-speaking world, especially not in the United States, and the conservative fusion of American libertarianism, social traditionalism, and national-security assertiveness probably is not stable enough to cohere, having now long outlived the Cold War, in which it was forged. Trump’s lack of conservative principle is unwelcome, but it points to an ideological looseness that is arguably more normal, a return to the model of party as loose coalition of interest groups.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are becoming more ideological, or at least more openly and self-consciously ideological, as the party’s progressivism becomes more and more a catechism. This has the effect of making the Democratic party less democratic. American progressives have a long and genuine commitment to mass democracy, having supported not only various expansions of the franchise but also many instruments of direct democracy such as the ballot initiative, but they also have a long and genuine commitment to frustrating democracy when it gets in the way of the progressive agenda, which is why they have spent the better part of a century working to politicize the courts, the bureaucracies, and the non-governmental institutions they control in order to ensure they get their way even when they lose at the ballot box. Democrats did not pay much attention when they started suffering losses at the state level, because they were working against federalism and toward a unitary national government controlled from Washington. And they did not fight as hard as they might to recover from their losses in Congress while Barack Obama sat in the White House, obstructing Republican legislative initiatives and attempting to govern through executive fiat — an innovation that the Democrats surely are about to regret in the direst way.

For the moment, the stylistic convergence — the Republicans becoming a little more like the selfish-coalition Democratic party, and the Democrats becoming a little more like the ideological Republican party — works to the Republicans’ advantage, though there is no reason to believe that always will be the case. The GOP had a very good run of it as a highly ideological enterprise.

The longer-term problem for the Democrats is that they are finding out that they have to play by their own rules, which are the rules of identity politics. This is a larger problem for the Democratic party than is generally appreciated. The Democratic party is an odd apparatus in which most of the power is held by sanctimonious little old liberal white ladies with graduate degrees and very high incomes — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Randi Weingarten — while the manpower, the vote-power, and the money-power (often in the form of union dues) comes from a disproportionately young and non-white base made up of people who, if they are doing well, might earn one-tenth of the half-million dollars a year Weingarten was paid as the boss of the teachers’ union. They are more likely to be cutting the grass in front of Elizabeth Warren’s multi-million-dollar mansion than moving into one of their own. They roll their eyes at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s risible “abuela” act, having actual abuelas of their own.

As in the Republican party, the Democrats have a restive base that is more radical than its leadership, more aggressive, and in search of signs of tribal affiliation. The Democratic base is not made up of little old liberal white ladies with seven-, eight-, and nine-figure bank balances, but the party’s leadership is. It is worth noting that in a year in which the Republican candidate painted Mexican immigrants with a rather broad and ugly brush, Mrs. Clinton got a smaller share of the Hispanic vote than Barack Obama did in 2012. She got a significantly smaller share of the black vote, too. Interestingly, Mrs. Clinton’s drop in the black vote came exclusively from black men. Many black Americans had very high hopes that an Obama administration would mean significant changes in their lives and in the state of their communities. but that has not come to pass. There is nothing about Mrs. Clinton that inspired similar hopes. “She’s not right, and we all know it,” the comedian Dave Chappelle said.

It is far from obvious that Senator Cherokee Cheekbones or anyone standing alongside Debbie Wasserman Schultz will feel more “right” to Democratic voters who have almost nothing in common with them. A coalition in which elderly rich white faculty-lounge liberals have all the power and enjoy all the perks while the work and money come from younger and browner people is not going to be very stable.

Especially when it has been stripped of the one thing that has held that coalition together so far: power.

— Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.

Editor’s Note: This piece has been emended since its publication.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #810 on: November 26, 2016, 07:47:45 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367058.php

Ode(s) To A Dead Guy

Masks are coming off all over. One of the most repressive and bloodthirsty tyrants that the Western Hemisphere has ever seen has finally exited this world and gone on to his reward in the next, and you can learn a lot about people by how they responded.

For example, here is the statement by President Obama:

    At this time of Fidel Castro's passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans - in Cuba and in the United States - with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.


From this, someone who has never heard of Obama before can conclude that he is a cowardly little pussy. All he can say about a murderous psychopath who spent most of his life increasing the suffering of the Cuban people is that he had "enormous impact"? I mean, really, what is he afraid of? Is there some massive pro-Castro voting bloc that Obama doesn't want to risk offending?

So, too, Jimmy Carter:

    Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country. We wish the Cuban citizens peace and prosperity in the years ahead.


Carter is another mewling quim. He spent most of his (mercifully brief) time in office whining about "human rights." Too bad he couldn't spare any for the long-suffering people of Cuba, to at least acknowlege their long suffering. But no, he couldn't do that. Not even now.

And Jesse Jackson's statement is guaranteed to infuriate you:

    In many ways, after 1959, the oppressed the world over joined Castro's cause of fighting for freedom & liberation-he changed the world. RIP


I... can't... even... What a tool. What a complete f* tool. I've always wanted to take Jackson out into an alley and just bitch-slap him, first with my forehand, then backhand, back and forth, over and over again until- well, until my hand hurts too much to continue.

And even that wouldn't be enough. At the end, when I'd have to leave to go to the ER to get my hand bandaged up, he'd still be a stupid f* tool.

(no, I'm not serious about slapping Jesse Jackson around. Even though he deserves it)

Yuu can read more here, 5 Most Embarrassing Statements on Fidel Castro's Death from America's Political Leaders.

I didn't even bother reading Justin Trudeau's, which I hear is equally cringe-worthy.

Contrast these with the statement made by Donald Trump. First he tweeted "Fidel Castro is dead!"

And then he said this:

    Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades.

    Fidel Castro's legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.

    While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.

    Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty.

    I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.

There. That's the way you do it. I can well imagine this would be a statement Ronald Reagan would make were he alive today. It is a breath of fresh air, and a welcome relief after 8 years of mediocrity and incompetency.

Also, the schadenboner I had from the election, that was just starting to subside, is now powering through again and is requiring so much blood that I think I migh
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 639


« Reply #811 on: November 27, 2016, 01:18:34 AM »

Taking tips in snarkiness from a pro....

When Osama was killed, I smoked a Cuban Monte Cristo.... for the first time in my life.

U think I'm going to enjoy another one tomorrow.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #812 on: November 27, 2016, 01:17:59 PM »

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/27/castro-cuba-chavez-venezuela-socialism-glenn-reynolds/94485906/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #813 on: November 27, 2016, 01:45:21 PM »

http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/11/14/a-handy-guide-for-liberals-who-are-suddenly-interested-in-gun-ownership/

A Handy Guide For Liberals Who Are Suddenly Interested In Gun Ownership
November 14, 2016   correia45   
That title isn’t joking. This post is aimed at my liberal readers. I’m a libertarian leaning Republican and gun expert, who thinks you are wrong about a lot of stuff, but I’m not writing this to gloat about your loss. For the record, I disliked all the presidential candidates.

 

Judging by your social media over the last few days many liberals have been utterly terrified that your government might turn tyrannical or that evil people will now be emboldened to hurt you. I’m going to let you in on a little thing the other half of the country is familiar with to keep those unlikely, yet catastrophic, events from happening.

 

And that my lefty friends, is 2nd Amendment.
Having just gone through a war against a tyrannical government, the Founders understood that governments can go bad, so they made sure to note our God given right (or we’ll say naturally occurring right, since a bunch of you are atheists) to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or “sporting purposes”, it’s about having weapons that you can fight with. As an added bonus, being able to protect yourself from a tyrannical government means that you’re a lot better equipped to deal with any common criminal who decides to hurt you.
Before I get into the details about how to enjoy your newly discovered 2nd Amendment rights, let me just say that I get you’re sad, angry, bitter, and fearful. But just like my people over the last few elections, you’ll get over it. The really hyperbolic freak outs about Literally Hitler make you sound just like the Alex Jones crowd worried that Obama was going to herd Christians into FEMA camps last time. So take a deep breath and relax. Your friends and neighbors are the same as they were last week. The vast majority weren’t voting because racism, they voted against the status quo and a really unlikable Democrat. And no, they aren’t going to round you up into cattle cars.

 

But in the off chance they do, let’s get you prepared!

 

WHAT GUNS ARE FOR

 

I’ll start out with the far more likely threat, violent criminals who would assault, rape, or murder you, and how to deal with them.

 

Many of you have been sharing every second hand account, rumor, and urban legend about some random doofus in Somnambulant, Wisconsin or Bumfight, Louisiana, shouting an ethnic slur or spray painting a swastika on a wall. Newsflash, in a country with a third of a billion people, some percentage of them are going to be assholes. I hate to break it to you, but the assholes were there before, and they will be there forever. Just right now the news has a self-serving incentive to report about these assholes in particular.

 

But Correia! You’re not a marginalized Mexican transsexual Muslim! What do you know!?

 

I know that anybody can be “marginalized” if they walk into the wrong neighborhood. Violence can happen to any of us, and it does, all the time. Whether your odds of being a victim are good or bad, it still sucks when you draw the short straw and somebody tries to hurt you. Whoever you are, you are correct to be concerned for your safety. Anybody can be attacked, and everybody should be prepared to deal with it.

 

Since this is addressed to liberals, spare me the usual nonsense about “Victim Blaming”. We don’t have time for silliness. If you’re banking on the goodwill of evil people to keep you safe, you are a sucker. If I urge you to look both ways before crossing the street, I’m not victim blaming, I’m trying to keep your stupid ass from getting hit by a bus.

 

Whether you are being attacked because some jerk doesn’t like your head scarf and you voted for Hillary, or getting pulled out of your car and beaten because the local hooliganry thinks you voted for Trump, or some dude with no coherent political philosophy beyond the voices in his head told him to murder you and rape your dog, it doesn’t matter… There are evil people in the world, and they will hurt you simply because it amuses them.

 

So there are bad people who want to hurt you. Now what do you do?

 

Regardless of what you worship, who you love, or you skin tone, you have the unalienable right to self-defense. The 2nd is an equal opportunity amendment.

 

Calling the cops is awesome. If they get there in time they will be happy to save your ass, but that’s assuming they get there in time. Violent encounters usually happen very quickly. Good police response time is measured in minutes. You can be dead in seconds. Plus, your side is the one that doesn’t trust the cops anyway. It isn’t Republicans out there protesting the police. So why is it you expect agents of the state to risk their lives to save you? Gratitude?

 

What most of us in the right side of the country understand is that responsible adults need to be able to defend themselves. That means owning guns and learning how to use them. (To be fair, many on the left have also come to this same conclusion already, but they have to keep that opinion to themselves so the rest of you don’t yell at them).

 

Unarmed self-defense is great, when it works. I’m a fan. Less-lethal devices like pepper spray are great, when they work. But trust me on this, everybody who does this professionally, who has spent years learning about how violence really works, we all have guns.

 

You’ve probably been taught that guns are frightening murder rods, just itching to go shoot up a school. You want to survive, get over that nonsense. I know that most of the stuff liberals think they know about firearms is flat out wrong. I’m here to tell you as a retired professional firearms instructor that sadly everything Occupy Democrats memes have taught you is incorrect. Whatever you think you know, check those preconceived notions at the door, because it is probably biased garbage.

 

Firearms are not magic. They are neither evil nor good. They are just tools that throw a projectile. That’s it. There’s no voodoo involved. They are items that allow a physically weak person to survive a confrontation against somebody who is stronger, or there’s more of them, or whatever other nightmare scenario you come up with. I know many of you are scared of guns, but just think of them like fire extinguishers, but for murderers.

 

 

HOW SELF-DEFENSE WORKS

 

Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean that you can just go and shoot whoever you feel like. I see this pop up all the time amongst my liberal friends. Like if a redneck sees a black dude, he can just blast him because the redneck felt uncomfortable. First off, no, that’s not how the laws work. Second off, maybe if you’d quit proclaiming everybody who isn’t part of your clique is a racist murderer, you’d win more elections.

 

Here is another article where I go into a great deal of detail about when it is legal to shoot somebody. http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/25/the-legalities-of-shooting-people/ I taught this stuff for a living. Trust me, I know more about this than the staff writers at Salon. Almost everything I’ve ever seen from a liberal publication concerning self-defense laws is incorrect. And I’m not just talking like I enjoy guns and they don’t, I mean they have such a basic, elementary misunderstanding of the legalities of shooting people that we aren’t even inhabiting the same reality. My reality is the one that the jury instructions will be issued from.

 

The short version is that in order to be justified in using lethal force against another human being, they need to be demonstrating the ability to seriously harm you, the opportunity to do so, and acting in a manner that a reasonable person would believe they are an immediate threat.

 

So no, you can’t just shoot somebody walking down the street in a Trump hat. That would be Murder. Or considering most liberals don’t understand basic marksmanship, more likely Attempted Murder. However, if somebody dressed entirely in Confederate flags walks up, screams DIE GAY ABORTION VEGAN and tries to stab you with his commemorative Heinrich Himmler SS dagger, it’s game on (don’t blame me, I’m basing this hypothetical scenario on what most of your facebook feeds sound like).

 

Go read that article. As a bonus once you understand how use of force laws actually work, you won’t be able to get as spun up with outrage over every shooting that makes the news.

 

 

 

LEARN HOW GUNS WORK

 

Now that you’ve decided that you should be able to protect yourself from sexist war bands, and you know the basics about when it’s okay to shoot people, you want to go get strapped. But hold your horses there, Che. Guns are tools, but they are also very unforgiving of stupidity, and the last thing I want to have happen is one of you liberals shoot somebody on accident, because then you’ll be trying to pass more laws to punish people like me. First you need to learn how to be safe.

 

Seek out your local gun range. Sadly, for those of you living in deep blue areas, this will be difficult because the politicians you have voted for have run off most of your local gun ranges. Now that you’re afraid the state can’t/won’t protect you, I hope you realize that was a bad call.

 

But if you do have one in driving distance, most ranges will have ads posted for upcoming basic classes. Contrary to what you’ve been told about the ultra evil National Rifle Association, the majority of what the NRA does is conduct basic safety training to keep newbies from shooting themselves in the foot. They will walk you through the fundamental rules of gun safety, mechanics, and storage.

 

Here is another mind blowing factoid for you liberals, the NRA was actually started by Union army officers to train recently freed blacks how to defend themselves from the Democrat KKK. The first gun control laws in America were racist in origin, and aimed at disarming “undesirables” like blacks or the Irish. So in that respect, not much has changed.

 

For those of you in the LGBTWTFBBQ community, in the aftermath of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, a transsexual friend of mine started Operation Blazing Sword. https://www.facebook.com/OperationBlazingSword/ It is a network of firearms instructors across the country who are volunteering to help out gay and trans people who are new to guns learn about basic safety and firearms familiarization. I helped them get started. Check their map. They’ve probably got somebody near you willing to help.

 

If you haven’t blocked all of them yet for having dissenting opinions, you can ask your gun owning friends and family for advice. I would still recommend talking to actual experts though, just because we know what we’re doing, and we personally haven’t had to listen to you talk about how we’re all baby murdering psychopaths over Thanksgiving dinner. But if they love you, they’ll be happy to help you learn about how guns work. If you don’t have any friends who own guns, you may want to ask yourself how you live in such an echo chamber.

 

Again, most of what you’ve been told about the gun culture is a myth. We want you to be able to defend yourself, and we want you to be safe and responsible doing it.

 

 

HOW GUN LAWS WORK

 

Now it gets really complicated. And that’s entirely your fault. See, traditionally Democrats don’t like the 2nd Amendment and historically have done everything in their power to screw with it. Your gun laws are going to vary dramatically based upon where you live. It might be really difficult and expensive for you to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, or it might be relatively easy.

 

But you’re scared right now! Well, that’s too bad. Because for the most part Democrats have tried to make it so that citizens have to abdicate their responsibilities and instead entrust that only state can defend everyone… That doesn’t seem like such a bright idea now that you don’t trust who is running the state, huh?

 

You might get attacked in your home, but let’s be realistic, you’re way more likely to be attacked out in public. Accordingly, democrats have made it way harder to have a gun where you are most likely to need it. If your state is red or purple, you probably have an inexpensive way to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon so that you can be armed everywhere. The bluer your state, the more unlikely/expensive that becomes, and in the most exclusive cities, unless you are a politician, movie star, or body guarding a politician or movie star, you are basically out of luck.

 

Oh yeah, it kind of goes without saying by this point, but most of what you think you know about what gun laws do is wrong. I know you think you’ve been helping with your demands to Do Something, but you aren’t. I wrote this article a few years ago in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. It is one of the most widely read articles on gun control laws ever written. http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun-control-repost/

 

I am a big fan of concealed carry, and if you are honestly worried about murderous racists being emboldened, then you should be too. If your state has a concealed weapons permit, I would recommend taking that class. Even if you are not personally ready to take that big step of actually keeping a firearm on your person, the class should provide a great primer on your state and local laws.

 

There are thousands of onerous little gun laws. I won’t overcomplicate this, but you guys have been sticking extra gun laws on the books all over the country at every opportunity. In your area you might not be able to buy certain guns, or you’ll have to lock them up in a specific manner, or you’ll have to register them with the state. (now that you’re worried about the state rounding you up, having a registry of which of you own guns seems kind of dumb huh?)

 

 

HOW TO BUY A GUN

 

Now that you understand basic safety and marksmanship, let’s get you armed.

 

Contrary to what Barack Obama told you, Glocks are not easier to get than books. Hell, I’ll trade an autographed copy of each of my published novels for a Glock if you’ve got any spares lying around.

 

If you haven’t completely alienated all of your pro-gun friends by blaming them for every mass murder that’s ever happened, now would be a great time to ask them to come shopping with you.

 

Find your local gun store. Go there. Ask the nice people behind the counter questions about what is the best gun for you needs. They are usually very helpful, however, don’t tell them that you are a liberal, because since you’ve previously tried to ban everything you’re now buying, they will probably laugh at you. That’s expected, because your people do kind of malign them constantly and have repeatedly tried to ruin their livelihood. Oh well, live and learn. You know better now.

 

Shockingly, you will quickly discover that the gun best suited for your home self-defense needs is probably one of the guns that the news would call “assault weapons”. In reality that’s a gibberish term to scare newbs, but remember, most of what you’ve been taught is complete bullshit. You want the best tool for the job. Yes. It looks scary. That’s kind of the point.

 

If you live in a place with concealed carry laws, you will probably want one of those deadly high capacity assault pistols too. In regular America we just call those handguns. Have the experts help pick one out that suits your lifestyle and manner of dress. Then make sure you get a good holster to carry it safely. Common newb mistake is to get a decent gun and a crap holster. Don’t do that.

 

Once you’ve picked your firearms, you will need to fill out a federal 4473 form, provide ID (gasp! Racist!), and the shop will call in your background check to make sure you aren’t a felon, illegal alien, or otherwise prohibited person. Since this check is computerized it only takes a few minutes.

 

Now that is how it works in most states. If you are lucky enough to live in a blue state liberal paradise, then you may have to deal with extra laws. Like mandatory waiting periods, special permits, or you’ve got to jump through a bunch of other onerous hoops before you are allowed to defend yourself… But hey, you voted for that. Suck it up, buttercup.

 

GET BETTER

 

Now you need to learn to shoot. It doesn’t work like the movies.

 

There are a lot of people out there who do what I used to do, so find the professional firearms instructors in your region and take some classes. Your local ranges and stores will know who is teaching or will have ads posted. A good instructor won’t just teach you how to hit the target, but will teach you basic tactics, and when/how to use your gun. I spent a big chunk of my time teaching people how to avoid fights and not make stupid decisions.

 

The more you shoot, the more you train, the more comfortable you will become. Your confidence will grow. If something awful happens you can be part of the solution instead of just another victim. You won’t rise to the occasion, you will default to your lowest level of training. So get trained.

 

Oh yeah, this training part gets expensive too. Government regulations have driven up the cost of ammunition. You get one guess which party is responsible for that. And around the blue cities you’ve closed all of your shooting ranges because guns are scary and loud (oh yeah, we could fix that, but Democrats made it illegal or really expensive to make guns quieter), so you’ll have to drive further in order to train. Let me check… Nope, I’m still fresh out of pity.

 

 

WHAT ABOUT DOOMSDAY?

 

Now the elephant in the room. I’ve seen a lot of you going on about how terrified you are for all your “marginalized” friends, that the government is going to turn tyrannical and genocidal, and murder them by the million. I don’t think that’s actually going to happen, but let’s say it did. We’re talking full on Gestapo Stasi jack boots and cattle car time. Bear with me through this hypothetical situation, that stuff about ability/opportunity/immediate threat is actually happening, but it is systematically being carried out by agents of the state against its own citizens. I’m talking war in the streets.

 

I keep seeing you guys saying that you’re going to “fight harder”. No offense, but bullshit. What are you going to do? Call more innocent bystanders racists? Post more articles from Salon even harder? Have a protest and burn your local CVS? Block more freeways with your bodies? Guess what. If the government has actually gone full tyrannical they’re just going to machinegun your dumbass in the street. They are going to drive through your roadblock, and your bodies will grease the treads of their tanks.

 

That’s what actual tyrants do. So despite your bitching, virtue signaling, and panic attacks, we’re a long way off of that.

 

There is a saying that has long been common in my half of the country. There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty, soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. You can debate, vote, and go to court in order to get things changed. You only go ammo box when those other things no longer work, because once you do, there is no going back.

 

God willing, America never gets to that point, because if we ever go to war with ourselves again, then it will be a blood bath the like of which the world has never seen. We have foolishly created a central government so incomprehensibly powerful, that to stop it from committing genocide would require millions of capable citizens to rise up and fight.

 

Congratulations. Now you understand why the Framers put the 2nd Amendment in there. It is the kill switch on the Republic, and everyone with a clue prays we never have to use it.

 

Right now you guys are angry and talking a lot of shit. This is all new to you. My side is the one with the guns, training, and the vast majority of the combat vets, and we really don’t want our government to get so out of control that this ever happens. Only fools wish for a revolution. But that big red button is still there in case of emergency because if a nation as powerful as America ever turned truly evil then the future is doomed. As Orwell said, if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.

 

That’s the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. So don’t screw around with it. If you do you’re no better than the fat wannabes running around the woods in their surplus camo and airsoft plate carriers… You don’t get that, but all my gun culture readers know exactly who I’m talking about. They are the morons CNN trots out whenever they need to paint all gun owners as irresponsible inbred redneck violent dupes for your benefit.

 

And spare me the typical talking points about how an AR-15 can’t fight tanks and drones… It’s way beyond the scope of this article, but you don’t have a flipping clue what you’re talking about. Every HuffPo guest columnist thinks they are Von Clauswitz. They aren’t.

 

This Doomsday option is something we never want to use, but which we need to maintain just in case. It is also another reason Hillary lost. One motivator for Americans to vote for Trump was that Hillary hates the 2nd Amendment. Her husband put the biggest gun ban we’ve ever had in place, and she has been exceedingly clear that she hates guns and would get rid of all of them if she could.

 

And doing that would push that big red button.

 

When the already super powerful government wants to make you even more powerless, that scares the crap out of regular Americans, but you guys have been all in favor of it. Take those nasty guns! Guns are scary and bad. Don’t you stupid rednecks know what’s good for you? The people should live at the whim of the state!

 

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, and somebody you distrust and fear is in charge for a change, the government having all sorts of unchecked power seems like a really bad idea, huh?

 

Absolute power in the hands of anyone should terrify you. The 2nd Amendment is there to make sure some of that power always remains in the hands of the people.

 

CONCLUSION

 

So that’s it. That’s how you go down the path of responsible gun ownership.

 

I don’t care how marginalized you think you are. Get armed. Get trained. Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones. That’s part of being a responsible adult.

 

And quit trying to disarm the rest of us.

 

##

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The guide is over. Quit reading if you are easily offended. I’ve already heard enough crying last week, I don’t need it in my blog comments.

 

Now, it’s my blog, I get to rant because I feel like it. As a personal favor in exchange for all this helpful free advice, quit friggin’ yelling at everybody. Damn, libs, people came to a different conclusion than you did, that doesn’t make them sexist, racist, homophobic, or evil. If you hadn’t let the DNC sabotage Bernie Sanders you’d probably be celebrating your victory today. You ran a hideous candidate. Get over yourself and quit blocking traffic. Protesting doesn’t give you the right to burn other people’s property, no matter how butt hurt you are. And just because you saw a picture of racist graffiti: A. For all you know it was put there by Shaun King’s lying ass to get his old job back. Or B. It was put there by an actual racist doofus, and you’re giving a dimwitted shitbag with a $3 can of spray paint power over your emotions. Random scumbags on the right always represent everybody you disagree with, but when an asshole from Black Lives Matters murders five cops or a Muslim blows somebody up they are anomalies and we shouldn’t paint with a broad brush—No shit, thanks Hypocrite-Einstein! People who know dick about the military sound like idiots when explaining to people who actually know how security clearances work how Hillary did no wrong, because we know we’d be in jail for far less. When he was leaking things that made Bush look bad you loved Julian Assange so hard that Benedict Cumberbatch played him in the movie. And no, people don’t want your kid/grandma to die, but Obamacare is taking another $300-$900 extra out of everybody’s pocket for crappier insurance and they’re broke and pissed. Madonna offering free blowjobs isn’t the incentive you’d think it is. Jerkoff celebrities saying they’d move if Trump won made me want to vote for him just to spite them and I can’t stand the man! Trump sucks, but everybody on your side is such a douche that it didn’t matter. This wasn’t some righteous battle between good and evil, it was choosing between brain or colon cancer. Hillary was a reptile piloting a lifelike human suit, with zero charisma, and entitlement issues, who got the candidate she wanted to run against the most and she STILL LOST. Get over it.

 

Whew…

 

And finally, don’t blame me. I voted for ice cream.

 

Peace out.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6370


« Reply #814 on: November 29, 2016, 04:55:39 PM »

I don't know how the left can keep thinking we need millions of unskilled new immigrants who invariably take the low wage jobs and decry how low the minimum wage is.  If there was not excessive labor for these jobs then wages would go up.  These jobs are supposed to be entrly level jobs and were never designed for adults to support families on 15 thousand per year.
Who in their right mind would get a job a Mcdonalds planning on staying more then needed unless expecting to move up in ranks?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/29/thanks-to-fight-for-15-minimum-wage-mcdonalds-unveils-job-replacing-self-service-kiosks-nationwide/#78a4f3d0762e
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:06:20 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #815 on: November 30, 2016, 09:59:24 AM »

John Schindler ✔ @20committee
MSM's right to discuss Trump's conflicts of interest. Just wish they'd been this interested in Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SECSTATE.
5:04 AM - 30 Nov 2016
  82 82 Retweets   109 109 likes


Standards.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38262


« Reply #816 on: November 30, 2016, 10:48:30 AM »

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/obamas-real-legacy-summed-up-by-9-brutal-charts?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6370


« Reply #817 on: November 30, 2016, 11:49:18 AM »

"MSM's right to discuss Trump's conflicts of interest"

Yes.  Does anyone think for one second Trump is not going to have his business interests cloud his thinking whenever it comes up?

It is real cause for concern.   
How is this cleaning up the swamp?
The potential is one swamp for another.

On the LEFt the swamp continues with Pelosi though I didn't think for one second anyone could get rid of her.   She is every bit as corrupt as Clinton.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #818 on: December 01, 2016, 08:53:11 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/15/madoff-hefty-political-contributions-officials.html

Madoff Made Hefty Political Contributions to Top Officials
Published December 15, 2008
It reads like a who's who of liberal Democrats: Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Schumer, Kerry, Markey, Rangel, Bradley, Lautenberg ... and yes, even Obama.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6370


« Reply #819 on: December 01, 2016, 08:58:07 AM »

NFL is corrupt for marketing its product like big tobacco.  Football is now labelled an addiction.

Football is hazardous to body and brain?  Who knew or would have guessed that a 200 to 300 pound person crashing into you at full speed knocking you off your feet and smashing you to the gourn could cause serious injury?

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/nfl-football-moms-kids/

If someone likes to play tennis and watch that all the time why would that not be called an addiction?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #820 on: December 01, 2016, 10:00:08 AM »

"NFL is corrupt for marketing its product like big tobacco.  Football is now labelled an addiction.

Football is hazardous to body and brain?  Who knew or would have guessed that a 200 to 300 pound person crashing into you at full speed knocking you off your feet and smashing you to the gournd could cause serious injury?"



While the left works to ban it, they continue to subsidize it, building stadiums for billionaire owners, millionaire players and mostly rich people who buy tickets, hence the thread name cognitive dissonance!


"If someone likes to play tennis and watch that all the time why would that not be called an addiction?"

Actually they do, but at least we don't subsidize it.  Or treat it or cure it.  Tennis addiction causes you to live longer, costing the country billions...

[Tennis trivia for ccp, what do we call a 90 mile an hour fastball in tennis?  A soft second serve.  ) 
http://www.topix.com/forum/tennis/andy-roddick/TJ8FHK64V5B309G2S ]




Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #821 on: December 02, 2016, 01:10:24 PM »

“Pelosi is 76. Her second-in-command, Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, is 77. Jim Clyburn, the 3rd ranking House Democrat, is 76.” Nothing says “forward-looking leadership” like a trio of septuagenarians at the top of the food chain."

  - Chris Cillizza
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/loose-ends-14.php
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38262


« Reply #822 on: December 02, 2016, 05:09:59 PM »

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-02/democrats-are-headed-down-the-wrong-track?emailed=1&src=usn_thereport
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8403


« Reply #823 on: December 06, 2016, 09:42:29 AM »

James Taranto:  "Conly's greatest contribution to philosophy may be the slippery-slope argument against slippery-slope arguments."
--------------------------------

I would like to point back to this before it slips off the internet.  James Taranto's column alone often makes the WSJ subscription worth the money. They take news tips at 'Best of the Web' at the WSJ and I sent this email to Mr. Taranto, online editorial page editor, on Feb 12, 2013, knowing that his sense of humor might do wonders with it:

Subject: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, It’s For Your Own Good!
A must read if you missed it.  Honest thoughts of leftists are on rare, open display here, why government should make personal decisions for you.  You could base an entire column on this..  - Doug MacGxxxxxx

NY Review of Books: Cass Sunstein reviewing "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism",  by Sarah Conly
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/07/its-your-own-good/


A month later he published the following and listed me in the credits:   )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324105204578382572446778866


BEST OF THE WEB
Don't Nudge Me There
If government may dictate soda size, why not sexual behavior?
By JAMES TARANTO
March 25, 2013

If you want to get published on the op-ed page of a major newspaper, a good way to go about it is to make a reasonable, or at least reasonable-sounding, case for an unpopular and outlandish position. It's important that the issue be trivial, so that readers will get riled up but no one will really feel offended or threatened.

Philosopher Sarah Conly, author of a new book called "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism," has discovered the formula. In a New York Times op-ed titled "Three Cheers for the Nanny State," she defends Mayor Michael Bloomberg's almost universally ridiculed (and judicially enjoined) ban on large sodas and other sugary beverages.

Conly's argument doesn't seem unreasonable, though it is incoherent in places. In a parenthetical aside, for example, she mocks opponents for objecting over such a trivial matter: "Large cups of soda as symbols of human dignity? Really?" (Note to the editors: That "Really?" is lazy writing. Why not let a rhetorical question stand on its own? See what we mean?) But of course she wants us to take her defense of this silly policy as a serious philosophical argument.

Then there's this priceless passage: "Do we care so much about our health that we want to be forced to go to aerobics every day and give up all meat, sugar and salt? No. But in this case, it's some extra soda. Banning a law on the grounds that it might lead to worse laws would mean we could have no laws whatsoever."

Oddly, Conly bases her reductio ad absurdum on false empirical premises. The benefits and risks of exercise, and of particular forms of exercise, vary from individual to individual. And giving up all meat and salt, unlike sugar, is likely to harm your health.

The best part is that conclusion. Essentially she's saying that if you accept one slippery-slope argument, you have to accept all slippery-slope arguments. Therefore, slippery-slope arguments are unsound.

But wait, that's a slippery-slope argument! You've heard of the liar's paradox? Its simplest form is the statement "This statement is false." Conly's greatest contribution to philosophy may be the slippery-slope argument against slippery-slope arguments. Call it the slipper's paradox.

We're less impressed with Conly's argument in favor of the soda ban and measures like it. She rebuts John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century liberal philosopher who established the "harm principle"--the idea that coercion is generally justified only to prevent individuals from harming others. Mill also allowed that there were unusual cases in which government would be justified in restricting an individual's behavior for his own good--"when we are acting out of ignorance and doing something we'll pretty definitely regret." Since it's common knowledge that large quantities of refined sugar are bad for you, that wouldn't justify the soda ban.

Conly thinks Mill didn't go far enough in justifying coercion. Science has shown "that we often don't think very clearly when it comes to choosing the best means to attain our ends," she writes. "We make errors. . . . We are all prone to identifiable and predictable miscalculations." Thus we should surrender a measure of autonomy and yield to rules promulgated by experts, who presumably know what's good for us: "Giving up a little liberty is something we agree to when we agree to live in a democratic society that is governed by laws."

Again she brings up the slippery slope: "What people fear is that this is just the beginning: today it's soda, tomorrow it's the guy standing behind you making you eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch 'PBS NewsHour' every day."

Crazy, right? Maybe not. Conly's op-ed never mentions smoking, but in a sympathetic review in the New York Review of Books, Cass Sunstein reports that in "Against Autonomy" she argues "that because the health risks of smoking are so serious, the government should ban it." (Sunstein, a legal scholar and former Obama administration official, is coauthor of the 2008 book "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness," which makes an argument similar to Conly's.)

What's interesting about the smoking-ban proposal is that while it is culturally radical, it is not philosophically radical. Is there any doubt that if cigarettes were a new invention, lawmakers would quickly ban them? Libertarians would object, on the same ground that they argue for the legalization of other drugs. But their point of view would command little public support, at least unless and until illicit cigarette smoking became as widespread as illicit marijuana use is today.

That is to say that a moderate form of Conly's philosophy has long prevailed, even in as freedom-loving a country as America. While we may bridle at being told we can't do something we are used to doing or didn't realize we weren't supposed to do, generally we don't do so as a matter of principle. (Libertarians, you're off the hook on that observation.) Generally speaking, Americans accept a wide variety of regulations on their personal behavior that are designed to be in their own good.

So what does Conly have to say that is original? Well, her book is called "Against Autonomy" and subtitled "Justifying Coercive Paternalism." That makes it sound as if she is advocating aggressive and thoroughgoing government intrusion into individual decision-making. Her positions on the soda ban and tobacco prohibition seem to bolster that. But those take her only slightly beyond the views that today prevail among the left-liberal elite.

Similarly, according to Sunstein, she endorses Bloomberg's ban on trans fats as well as "regulations designed to reduce portion sizes"--presumably of solid food as well as dissolved sugar. But in areas in which her philosophy would seem to conflict with prevailing left-liberal views, she's less adventurous than Bloomberg:

She is far more ambivalent about Mayor Bloomberg's effort to convince the US Department of Agriculture to authorize a ban on the use of food stamps to buy soda. She is not convinced that the health benefits would be significant, and she emphasizes that people really do enjoy drinking soda.

You'd think the logic of "coercive paternalism"--of government-imposed restrictions designed to promote individual welfare--would apply more strongly when individuals are dependent on government for financial support of their welfare. To put it another way, someone who is financially autonomous has a stronger argument that he ought to be personally autonomous. We're not sure what Conly thinks of that argument--the $95 cover price (0% off at Amazon) has nudged us away from acquiring her book--but we suspect she adheres less strongly to "coercive paternalism" than to the orthodoxies of contemporary left-liberalism.

An even better example is this observation from Sunstein's review: "Because hers is a paternalism of means rather than ends, she would not authorize government to stamp out sin (as, for example, by forbidding certain forms of sexual behavior)."

What a staggering cop-out. The past 50 years or so have seen a massive deregulation of personal behavior in the sexual sphere, a revolution of law, technology, custom and economics, all in the name of personal autonomy. Never mind "sin"--this has had bad consequences for public health (AIDS and other new sexually transmitted diseases), for children (far more of whom are born out of wedlock and reared without fathers), and even for the future of the welfare state (since declining fertility makes old-age entitlements unsustainable).

It may be that the sexual revolution is irreversible and the concomitant problems are intractable. If Conly lacks the imagination to come up with policy solutions, so do we. But if she dismisses this enormous question as a matter of "sin" and focuses instead on trivia like soda-size regulations, why should we take her philosophy seriously?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14092


« Reply #824 on: December 06, 2016, 09:47:16 AM »

What costs more? Treating type II Diabetes or HIV infection?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!