I can always rely on Bill Maher. Below are two clips from last Friday's show. The first is from the New Rules segment at the end of the show. His final new rule is usually the best and he really drove it out of the park with this one. My favorite line?
"If you think Barack Obama is going to take away your guns, the you are an armed idiot."
This leads quite nicely into the next clip, shown earlier in the show, in which author Jeremy Scahill goes into some small towns in rural Pennsylvania and sees if Obama offended anyone with his "bitter" remarks. As I had hoped, the "Alabama" which is in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, is more pro Obama than one might think. I think some folks over on Kevin Baker's blog aren't going to be too happy.
They are probably going to blow a bowel when, in the last part of the segment, Scahill visits a gun range and finds Obama supporters there as well. I am reminded of the 2004 election and how out of touch liberals seemed with what was really driving voters to the polls (fear, gays, doom etc..). This time around it is apparent to me that conservative pundits and much of the "liberal" media don't have a fucking clue what is really on people's minds.
Shh....let's not tell them.
Aw, who I am kidding? Like they would be reflective, change their mind, and listen.
Sheeya....right!
20 comments:
You never do get it, do you? No matter how many times it gets explained to you, you never bother to process the information.
No, Barack Obama isn't "going to take (our) guns away." First, I find it doubtful that he'd actually try, seeing as that's been political suicide over the last couple of elections.
But the fact remains that he believes doing so would be a good (i.e. "reasonable") idea - just like he views Washington D.C.'s ban on firearms.
Mark, it's not what he would attempt that bothers us as much as what he believes. You keep telling us "He doesn't really believe that," and when we show you what he has said and how he has voted, you say "I bet you could educate him" into believing otherwise.
Just like I (supposedly) educated you.
Shall I pull your quotes from my comment threads?
You really don't get it.
How a politician feels about honest, law-abiding, citizens having firearms is our litmus test for the people we think ought to be representing us, working for us, in Washington. Either they trust the people who put them there, or they don't.
He doesn't. Quoting Donald Sensing, he (like most all politicians of both parties today) sees America as a problem to be fixed, and Americans as a people to be managed.
For that matter, so do you.
Actually, Kevin, what he believes in are sensible gun laws. I don't really see what the problem is. I think you are overreacting a little bit. Pretty much everyone I know owns a few guns- I live in Wyoming after all-and many of them voted for Obama in our caucuses here last month.
This is a very interesting blog. Seems like a variety of views all over the map. A friend of mine recommended it to me a few months ago but I have always been afraid to post. People's opinions are so strong. But this whole thing with Obama lately is really a bunch of nonsense. I just had to say something.
Whoa. Stop the presses. This from a conservative?
"it's not what he would attempt that bothers us as much as what he believes"
I thought conservatives cared about THINKING and not beliefs. Who cares what he believes? And I don't think you really understand what he does believe in either.
Kevin, did you actually watch the second clip that Mark put up? It seems the owner of Pistol People in PA has it right.
"I think anyone with an intelligence level can read through the comments and understand the comments in totality. I don't think it was reflected to denigrate anybody."
This is a guy who used to be a Republican and is going to vote for Obama. Some of the other patrons there are going to vote for him too. I read through some of you blog today and the comments. Your characterization of Obama supporters being zombies and brain dead is terribly short sighted. Does the owner of Pistol People fall into this category? Are the patrons there also brain dead?
I think it is laughable that you think Mark "doesn't get it." Between the two of you, it's clear to me that you don't get it at all.
Sandra: ...what he believes in are sensible gun laws.
Yes, like Washington's and Chicago's handgun bans, which are anything but "sensible" to anyone capable of reading statistics. I don't think Obama is incapable of reading statistics. Which leaves us... where?
Elizabeth: I thought conservatives cared about THINKING and not beliefs.
Well, I'm more libertarian than conservative, but everybody's thought processes are affected by their underlying beliefs. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying to you.
And I don't think you really understand what he does believe in either.
I judge him by his actions and by how they conflict with his words.
Markadelphia apparently only judges him by what he says, and then only when his words match Markadelphia's pre-conceived beliefs about him. He's far from alone in this.
Sara: "I think anyone with an intelligence level can read through the comments and understand the comments in totality. I don't think it was reflected to denigrate anybody."
I don't think he intended to denigrate anyone. I don't think he understands why a lot of people took his words as denigrating.
And I think that, alone, indicates a lot about what he (and a lot of other people) believe about their fellow citizens - but not themselves.
John Edwards was almost right - there are "two Americas." But the division isn't between the haves and the have-nots. It's between those who believe that the government ought to be responsible for everything, and those who very much don't. Unsurprisingly, that divide is largely urban vs. rural.
Kevin,
I don't think half of the people in this country think that the government should be responsible for everything. Sure, there are some people who feel they should be entitled to something. Look at the Clintons!
I read through some of your old blog posts today and I have to agree with Sandra: you overreact, in a very silly way at times, to what you perceive to be government interference in our lives, especially on the gun issue. I guess you seem way too touchy about government involvement in certain things--to a fault.
We have had times in our country's history where the government was heavily involved in much of our daily lives and our civilization was not ruined.
Sara:
Are you entitled to health care?
Me personally? No. Are others? It depends on the circumstance. I don't think our country should adopt a single payer, government run health care system. That would be a disaster.I also don't think we should force people to have health care. If they don't want it, fine by me.
I do think there is a middle ground, though, that offers people a choice of having health care coverage through private means or public means. And that means anyone at any age.
The main focus on health care should be prevention. This would unburden and already over burdened system. Many of the public vs private health care arguments would go away and less people would be sick.
Me personally? No. Are others? It depends on the circumstance.
Who decides? And who decides the criteria?
I do think there is a middle ground, though, that offers people a choice of having health care coverage through private means or public means. And that means anyone at any age.
You just contradicted yourself. If "anyone at any age" can decide that they want "public means" health care coverage, then yes, you do believe that "anyone at any age" is entitled to health care.
Think about it.
No, I disagree. Anyone at any age can decide if they want to have public care or private care. If they are out of job and can't afford to pay for private insurance, then they can take the public option.
But if they get a job they might reconsider and purchase insurance through their employer.
No one is entitled, you see, but they have a choice. I'm not sure how only having the private option only offers you more of a choice. It seems like less of a choice to me. Entitlement doesn't enter into it at all.
No one is entitled, you see, but they have a choice.
Sara, if no one can be refused "public health care" if they choose it, then you have, de facto, established an entitlement to health care - paid for by others.
I repeat: If "anyone at any age" can decide that they want "public means" health care coverage, then yes, you do believe that "anyone at any age" is entitled to health care.
You cannot (logically) argue otherwise.
So either you're deluding yourself, or attempting to delude me. Words have meaning.
Yeah, Kevin, I've read some of the posts where you draw Mark into that little game. It isn't going to work with me.
People have less of a choice now then they would with the option of public health care. This is a fact. I can see your point about entitlement when it comes to single payer and forced health care. But not with some of the other plans out there.
Yeah, Kevin, I've read some of the posts where you draw Mark into that little game.
"That little game" is called logic.
It isn't going to work with me.
Color me shocked.
If you are unable or unwilling to understand what you are advocating, then we cannot have a "discussion." One side does not get to redefine the terms to mean whatever they want them to mean.
And that is the "game" Markadelphia constantly plays.
Thanks for "playing."
Dude, seriously, are you for real? I think Sara answered your questions quite well and with logic. You just didn't like the answers because, as is the case with most men, it's your way or the highway.
Coming from someone whose blog is filled with illogical statements on Iraq, terrorism, health care, and education, I find your accusations regarding Sara to be quite amusing.
You just didn't like the answers because, as is the case with most men, it's your way or the highway.
"Most men"? What, logic and language are somehow misogynist? I didn't get the memo. I didn't like the answers because they were blatantly self-contradictory. Her genetics have nothing to do with it. (And it's the internet. For all I know "she's" a 55 year-old guy.)
She stated that she does not believe that she is entitled to health care. Then she stated that she believed that "anyone at any age" should be able to choose "public health care."
If A and B then C.
Anyone at any age + public health care = entitlement. She is "anyone at any age" and thus entitled to health care. Entitlement: the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program. No? If not, why not?
She doesn't get it both ways, and neither do you.
Now, if you wish to discuss my "illogic" you will need to be specific - examples with your reasoning behind why I'm illogical. I'm game, but so far, all I've seen are ad hominems. Next I expect avoidance. And projection.
But not discussion.
Maybe a better question for you, Kevin, would be if you think people are entitled to unemployment?
Damn, I left out the "change the topic" ploy!
Curse you for deftly avoiding the questions already presented! I bow to your mad "discussion" skilz!
I'm not sure about universal health care myself. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. But a fellow family member (see if you can guess which one, Mark!) pointed out that people pay into unemployment so if they get laid off or fired, they can collect a check. At least that's how it works in Iowa. So why can't they pay into a public health care scenario similar to unemployment?
Heard of Medicaid/Medicare? Checked their projected solvency recently? Or Social Security's for that matter?
I'm on Medicare and generally have no complaints. I also have supplemental insurance but that's because I am a Republican and I actually prepare and am responsible (sorry, Mark, I couldn't resist).
I think there is a way, though, they we could work universal health care and probably end up saving money. I think sick people, without insurance, are more of a financial burden on society hence the reason why I'd like to explore the option of a system similar to unemployment.
There are a lot of arguments on both sides about the solvency of government programs. I generally start by believing none of what anyone in the government says about it. I guess I'd like to see a real no nonsense look at what is really going on there. No bias. I doubt it will happen.
Post a Comment