Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 01/16/2012 7:14:32 AM PST by marktwain
I generally make New Year's resolutions in hopes of becoming a better person — more disciplined, healthier, or, at the very least, less pathetic. Some of these resolutions last until nightfall. Some don't. None ever sees February.
This year, I'm taking a different approach. I'm going to concentrate on giving up things. Not things like smoking — been there, done that. I mean giving up on ideas I have pursued through the years into one blind alley after another.
Ideas like climate change, for example.
You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians.
Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.
Why? Money, of course.
If money is the mother's milk of politics (and it is), then the oil and coal industries are the biggest mothers on the block. They own our political system lock, stock, and sleazebag.
As a result, our energy policies are crafted largely by the extraction industries, which care little if at all about global warming, clean water, or breathable air. Meanwhile, the Earth's poorest nations, who sat back for 200 years while the countries known as "the West" burned forests, polluted the air and water, and made a lot of money, now want their turn at the trough.
It's hopeless. Even if we suddenly got serious about the issue, it's probably too late. We've reached a point where the warming already out there is producing a dynamic that will produce more warming.
So I'm giving up on writing about climate change. You can start the next oil spill without me.
I'm also giving up on gun control.
Over the years, I've written I don't know how many columns urging that some control be placed on the sale of weapons that go bang. Dozens probably, possibly even scores of them.
Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker's dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society.
Did it do any good? Even less than my global warming columns. There are more guns out there now than ever, and states have grown increasingly permissive about where and how people can pack heat.
In other words, the battle has been lost. The absurd arguments of the National Rifle Association and the Merchants of Death lobby have carried the day.
Why? Money, of course. Too many politicians have learned that to deviate even the slightest degree from the NRA's absolutist positions is to invite a truckload of money into your opponent's campaign, ensuring your electoral defeat.
The argument I find most absurd, by the way, is the constitutional one. Yes, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But "arms" back then had as much resemblance to modern weapons as an 18th-century schooner has to a nuclear submarine.
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?
Get real. The Constitution is a wonderful document, but it's outmoded in many ways. Consider the preposterousness of North Dakota having the same number of senators as California. But it's not going to change any time soon, at least not for the better.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Forces of Darkness are in the saddle, and they're wearing spurs.
The author has assumed that the levers of power in society are controled by business people with money, and that those people are willing to do enormous evil to get more money. This is a basic tenet of Marxism.
Conservatives generally understand that money is only one aspect of life, and that people have a will to control other people even if it means losing money to do so.
This is why it is necessary to have limits on government power. A business cannot force you to buy its products, but a government can.
It is rather sad to see someone so delusional about reality, but it has become increasingly common on the left.
You betcha!
This guy is soooooooooooo much smarter than the Founding Fathers. We should just burn the Constitution, give this guy a pen, and say “Tell us how it should be!”
Ideas like climate change, for example. You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians. Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.
The writer of this whining screed might very well be the living embodiment of the term “idiot.”
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”?
The uninformed author is describing a fully automatic weapon, which is already not legal to own.
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”?
The uninformed author is describing a fully automatic weapon, which is already not legal to own.
I usually wear spurs around the house. That’s just what we “Forces of Darkness” do.
—Ideas like climate change, for example. You and I both know that the earth is heating up, right? Everybody knows that, with the possible exception of oil executives, the owners of coal mines, and Republican politicians. Yet no number of hurricanes, droughts, floods, wild fires, melted glaciers, or columns by granola liberals like me has inspired a somnolent Congress to confront the problem.—
That is exactly the one I focused on. It’s a pet issue of mine. I’ve been a “denier” from way back and have compiled a list of literally HUNDREDS of articles debunking the phony science.
But two things really jumped out. First “everybody knows”. This person needs to watch more John Stossel on pretty much any subject and learn the fallacy of such a statement. Second, “Yet no number of hurricanes...”. They are down, nut up.
The whole article is an exercise in filling space with pap and meeting a writing deadline with less than ones best. A lot less - unless the writer truly is an idiot.
Me thinks the author would be horrified to know that our founding fathers had to LEASE warships during the revolutionary war from PRIVATE OWNERS.... in other words, if a man had the money and desire to have a warship, he could order it and have it built... the same for cannon... The idea of the second amendment is to have the citizenry capable of and legally allowed to possess, the same weapons our military has.. this includes ships, planes, tanks, cannon and “machine guns” ... this is to allow the citizenry to overthrow a government gone rogue.....but, the libs can’t have THAT now, can they?
Quote from the article:
“Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: “Oh yeah, that’s a good thing to have around the house”? Or “Everybody should have one”?”
Yes, dumbass, I think they would say that.
I feel like giving up. The GOP has six candidates still running (until 11 today anyhow). Five of them are raging statists and one is a foreign policy idiot.
Willard will be the nominee. Get over it. We’re going to run our own gun grabbing, baby killing, homo loving, big goobermint health caring, Harvard educated elitist against the one currently in office just because he has an R after his name. Don’t worry. Obama is going right back in there because Donald T. Rump will be running as an independent, just like Soros tells him to in order to fulfill Perot’s role as stalking horse for the DUMBASSED AMERICAN VOTERS.
I’ll be voting for the foreign policy idiot, because I believe the greatest danger to American liberty (not freedom, there is a difference), safety and prosperity does not come from the Maoists in China or the Muslims in Iran, but from the unelected and unaccountable Maoists and Muslims currently operating and legislating within our own govenment agencies.
Work on the Senate and work on the House. The rest is hopeless.
—Every time some clown would go berserk and mow down a baker’s dozen of his fellow citizens, I would deliver a rant about the idiocy of our failure to do something about the proliferation of guns in our society. —
Q: How often does that actually happen?
A: Not often enough to take guns out of the hands of the rest of us who actually do GOOD with them (like protect ourselves from criminals)
Do you think our founding fathers would have looked at an assault rifle that can fire at a speed of 400 rounds a minute and said: "Oh yeah, that's a good thing to have around the house"? Or "Everybody should have one"?
In that same time frame, a weapon in the hands of US citizen soldiers turned the tide. The long rifle was instrumental in the defeat if Burgoyne and also contributed in other important battles.
The long rifle had as much in common with the smooth-bore musket that the recurve bow has with an atlatl. Incidentally, the musket had a higher rate of fire. By the writer's reasoning, we should have been defeated quickly. Idiot author.
—Did it do any good? Even less than my global warming columns.—
There is good news in that comment: That the author believes that the Global Warming luddites lost.
Truthfully, I’d settle for Donald just “giving up breathing,” myself. Anyone that cannot understand the reason for State Representation (i.e., TWO Senators from each state) doesn’t deserve to call themselves ‘American’.
A curious citation for sure in his reasoning mentioning North Dakota as reason NOT to have two Senators for each state; what’s his explanation for Rhode Island? Hmmmmm? Do Rhode Islanders sniff their farts to keep the methane out of the atmosphere or something?
Methinks they would have preferred TWO.
One for the back, one for the front.
I understand how you feel - with respect to the Republican candidate field, it’s as if a circus clown cars drove into the ring and disgorged its cargo.
But I’m not laughing, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.