But IMHO, most of the people for whom gun control is an issue are gun owners who don’t want their guns taken away from them, just as I wouldn’t want my automobile taken away from me.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-reform-is-critically.html

And like me, he thinks the Democrats will pay the price come the mid-term elections.

Minor quibble: To the extent that my opinion means anything, I disagree with him, however, that Clinton had to move to the right on social issues, which he did per Dick Morris’ advice. Once Clinton got the economy going (addressing inflation, the deficit and jobs, all inter-related) he had all the political capital he needed to stay “left” and survive (assuming he had stayed away from guns which he didn’t).

GregLondon at 170: I believe that gun control is political poison and is one of the few social issues both parties need to be on the “right” side of if they are to win on a national scale. You apparently don’t (or maybe you do, which may explain the rant). Either way that’s fine, though it appears that the Democratic Party apparently has the same view on the issue that I do.

The vast majority of people who oppose gun control don’t do so because of a fear of “black helicopters” but because they believe it infringes on a fundamental constitutional right. If you want to paint a large body of the electorate with the same paint bruch as a few nutjobs, that’s your right though I believe it is an extremely flawed analysis in that similar kooky behavior can be attributed to any left leaning social issue.

As to abortion, that is a far more complex issue. For example,I know people who oppose Roe v. Wade as they believe it twisted the Constitution out of all proportion. Under current judicial philosophy, you are always 5 Supreme Court votes away from losing or gaining a “right”. I would hardly characterize them as unreasoning hypocrites.

As to your religious hypocrite tirade, there are hypocrites in every crowd. Your painting with a very broad brush.

My own personal motto, stolen from Bill Maher: Don’t be so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance. And the Tea Baggers got a lot of bigots in there. And I don’t mind calling a bigotted spade a bigotted spade.

As for dehumanizing, uh, yeah, that’s pretty much what racists and homophobes and sexists do. You know, bigots. If you want I should play nice with bigotted bastards who fuck with other people’s lives, then, the line forms over there (points to Antartica).

I don’t tolerate intolerance.

For the record, I am pro-life… I am against gun control… (and for) fiscal conservativism

pro-life is based on nothing but religious dogma. A woman who got pregnant from a rapist should not have to carry that pregnancy to term. But the personhood of the embryo doesn’t suddenly change just because the woman was NOT raped. If an embroyo is a person the day after conception, its a person whether the mother was raped, had unprotected unmarried sex, or had protected sex but the condom broke the same day her pill failed.

The sheer hypocracy of religious nutjobs who say they oppose abortion because its murdering the unborn but will allow murder of the unborn due to rape just boggles the mind. It becomes clear that what is driving anti-abortion is nothiing more than trying to stop people from having sex. Either you’re against abortion even in the case of rape (because abortion is murder), or you allow abortion up to a certain time after conception (because personhood isn’t achieved until some period of time after conception, and it doesn’t matter how conception occurred). Any other argument and you’re a hypocrite and a liar.

As for gun control, I prefer facts about gun crimes over paranoia about the gummint coming in black helicopters to take the guns your saving up for armegeddon.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/followingthegun_internet.pdf

“Gun shows. Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of
trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000
illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows.”

You know what? If 26,000 illegal guns is only one-tenth of one percent of all the illegal guns out there, I don’t give a damn, it’s 26,000 guns that they’ll have to find some other way. But the ATF says it’s more than that:

“Nearly 50 percent of the ATF investigations involved firearms being trafficked by straw purchasers either directly or indirectly. The investigations also involve trafficking by unlicensed sellers (more than 20 percent); by federally licensed dealers (just under 9 percent); and diversion from gun shows and flea markets by FFLs or unlicensed sellers (about 14 percent).”

given that straw purchases are less risky when you don’t have all the paperwork that comes up at a gun show, I’d guess that closing the gun show loop hole would cut down on a big chunk of that 50% number. But even if it didn’t, 14% is still significant enough to want regulation.

But the anti-gun control nut weighs the real deaths that come from real guns entering the hands of criminals via the gun show loophole, and they weigh it against their paranoid delusions of what will happen to them when the gummint comes after them in their black helicopters and they dont ahve their assault rifles and stockpiles of ammo to fend them off, and guess what? Paranoia wins.

As for “fiscal conservatism”, all that means is you hold reducing the national debt as more important than anything else, even american lives, which is stupid. No one thinks racking up debt is a good idea, but some people realize that debt isn’t as important as, say, saving lives. Course, conservatives tend not love spending money when it comes to war, so they can sometimes grasp the issue. But when it comes to other less violent means of saving lives, it often evades their mental grasp.

Health care reform is about saving lives (getting people with preexisting conditions covered), but it’s also about reducing costs (keeping them covered means they won’t wait till its an emergency, rack up massive medical bills that could have been prevented, declare bankruptcy, and pass those costs on to everyone else).

It saves money, but conservatives don’t like it. They’ll try to argue that it will cost to much, but that only works if they don’t compare it to the alternative which is spiraling medical costs and private insurance.

What’s more at the root of the conservative opposition to health care reform is a hatred of government. Many of these morons wouldn’t know who Margaret Thatcher is, but they’d recognize her sentiment when she said:

“too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.”

These delusional types live in a world full of societal benefits and yet delude themselves into thinking they’re “self made” people. The Amish are self made people who have taken themselves out of society. If you’re driving a car made by union labor, eating food that someone else grew, processed, shipped, and refridgerated to you, interacting on the internet, using a VISA card to buy something online, then you’re in society. And government is a better regulator of some things in society than the market. Monopolies, for one, are best regulated by someone other than the monopolies. Civil rights was fought for with blood, sweat, and tears by a lot of people, but merchants weren’t anywhere near the forefront of that battle. Not every problem has a market solution, which means the government is going to have to step in and do something about it, and that costs money. And sometimes the government spending money is ultimately cheaper than waiting until Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan decide there’s profit in it.

So, don’t accuse me of dehumanizing these sorts of people. I’m attacking their arguments, and it just so happens that their arguments are massively flawed and dehumanizing to people and society as a whole.

And I feel no incentive to suffer fools who cause the world suffering.

“Them losing, however, does not mean democrats winning.”

generally I would agree with that. But, in this specific issue as far as federal government representatives go I think it will mostly result in democratic victories. If only because of the gross mismatch between the voice required to win a primary and the voice required to win a general election.

I also am not sure why the conservative dehumanization of democrat would somehow cause independents to tune out democrats. I don’t think dems are nearly as far down the road to not mattering that the repubs are.

Now, if we allow that most folks who label themselves independents these days are where the disaffected moderate republicans have gone then I could see how the dems are now less likely to be appreciated by independents.

If the democrats are smart they’ll highlight all their moderate officials, because I think a disaffected republican now independent is more likely to support that than a watch-out-for-that-death-panel republican.

So, stevem, could you tell me exactly what credibility the Republican Party has on the economy any more? I’m sorry to keep brining reality back into the room, but I don’t recall Congressional Republicans giving a rodent’s rectum about fiscal restraint during the Bush Administration — which, as far as I’m aware, NEVER vetoed a single spending bill.

The conservative talking heads who use the terms “death panels, brainwashing, pol pot supporting nazis” also lack the intellectual fire power and/or moral fiber to honestly debate the issues and so are/were losing the debate. Them losing, however, does not mean democrats winning. It just means that both sides are tuned out by the independent voters. The politicians who can keep the focus on economics, like Clinton, will be the winners.

AlanM at 123: You are right, that deficits are cured any number of ways. I doubt that Joe Independent will care if the Biff the Millionaire’s personal taxes go up. Joe Independent will care, however, if: 1) his personal taxes go up; or, 2) Biff the Millioniare’s increased tax bill means its no longer profitable for Biff to run the company and Joe Independent loses his job. Finding the middle ground is the tough part.

And you are right about many politicians lacking the political will to make needed cuts to reduce the deficits. Which is one reason why the political parties swing in and out of power.

Indeed. I live in New Zealand, and even though I’m a member of the governing National Party (which is main center-right party down here, though by Tea-Bagger standards we’re radical Socialists), I don’t think “my team” has a monopoly on wisdom and insight. (Thanks to our unicameral legislature and mixed-member proportional electoral system, we also require the support of other parties to stay in Government, which is another moderating factor.)

We’re also a party that is genuinely a broad church where there’s a place for a socially (mildy) libertarian, fiscally tinder dry gay like me, along with any number of rural church ladies of both sexes. :) Being an activist in a party like that isn’t always quiet, but it does lead to a healthy degree of debate both internally and in Parliament.

By “fiscal conservative” I presume you mean reduced taxes and reduced spending as opposed to, say, a balanced budget (which can be done in any number of ways) or reduced taxes and spending like a mofo.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats seem particularly interested in going this route (Ron Paul notwithstanding). Particularly not when you can’t actually *cut* anything. National Debt, Social Security, Defense, and Medicare/Medicaid can’t be cut substantially without ending a political career (defense *should* be cut. We don’t need to be 50% of the world’s military spending. Not going to happen, however).

Honestly, I’m not sure that people in general care about fiscally conservative vs. fiscally liberal. They want a job and they want to pay less in taxes (but they have to have the first before they’ll care about the second).

If the economy is looking good in 2012, people have jobs, and there haven’t been any terrorist attacks in the US, Obama will roll back into office. Particularly if the GOP loses its shit and runs a Palin/Voldemort ticket.

“One de-humanizes the enemy, not the opposing party in a debate.”

Seriously? Have you seen the any of the conservative talking points on healthcare? Death panels, brainwashing, Pol Pot supporting, Nazis are running the government.

Your comment seems to accurately reflect the idea that many conservatives and tea partiers see the current government as the enemy. Which is, you know, kind of a deal.