The next Obama

[MicroBalrog]

And yet, more and more people in the United States own guns - while gun accidents are declining in absolute numbers, showing modern Americans are far more responsible gun owners than their fathers and grandfathers. While are at it, gun murders are also in freefall, showing once more how modern Americans are less violent and better gun owners than their fathers and mothers.

More and more states are adopting sensible gun laws. Freedom is on the march, Longeyes.

Indeed, I am ready to bet good money that by the end of the next 4 years, at least one US state will have expanded gun rights even further.

[longeyes]

"Freedom is on the march, Longeyes."

I have put that in my wallet for future inspiration, Micro. 

But where is it marching?  Look, this is just more proof that we are now culturally and wlll be, eventually, quite literally (at least) two countries.

What we lack in reality we recreate in fantasy.  But maybe my real point is that, bouncing off William Blake, too many of our fantasies are in fact created by others, often with the worst of motives, not the result of a real, personal, grounded connection with existential reality.  Do you think Call of Duty was created by combat veterans?

[MicroBalrog]

It'd be a  bit hard to find a WW2 veteran who hasn't retired yet AND works in the gaming industry.

But this is irrelevant. Frankly, so far we need less and less people to fight our wars (as a proportion of population). Most men and women will never (thank god) experience combat of any kind.

So fantasy is going to be a major way for future generations to fulfil whatever need for violence a healthy individual has (and he undeniably has one). This is a good thing. I vastly prefer game-war to real war.

[longeyes]

I am not justifying war. On the other hand I am not justifying fantasy life either.

Maybe I would put it to you this way: he who controls the fantasy world controls the actual war that is going on. You don't need guns to have a war. Look around you in the United States. We had a war and we lost it.

For every call of duty there is a grand theft auto, or haven't you noticed?

[Perd Hapley]

Same sex couples can adopt. You now have your "whole other kettle of kittens"

When you said you couldn't have kids, I thought you were talking about that medical issue you have brought up before. If so, you either refuted your own argument, or changed the subject. Anyhoo, it doesn't explain how it should suddenly be perfectly obvious that marriage isn't about heterosexuality. Because we could assign an orphan to a single person. Or a corporation. Or a research laboratory. Or a church.

Why do you want corporations to be able to reclassify themselves as marriages? And why are you trying to revive the Oneida Community? 

[roo_ster]

Why do you want corporations to be able to reclassify themselves as marriages? And why are you trying to revive the Oneida Community? 

Eschatologically misinformed socialism falls flat.  Ware-liy we ought to approach such notions. I do not cut followers of them much slack and wish they would put a fork into it and stop spooning out such foolishness.

[Perd Hapley]

Gosh, I hit a nerve there. I thought the most objectionable thing about them was the complex marriage thing. With the cult leader getting first dibs on every bride's "honor."

[makattak]

Gosh, I hit a nerve there. I thought the most objectionable thing about them was the complex marriage thing. With the cult leader getting first dibs on every bride's "honor."

(Psssst... Oneida is also a silverware company.)

[Perd Hapley]

Groan.

[Perd Hapley]

I was wanting to say this before the last holiday time-out, so I'd better get it out before Christmas.

A fatal flaw with these plans to ditch social conservatism in favor of a socially-neutral, economics-only libertarianism (or whatever) is that it fails to take into account the "mainstream media," the education establishment, and the other machinery of left-wing indoctrination. Because the problem with the GOP is not their platform, or the social views of people like Romney or Todd Akin. The problem is that any challenger to the Democratic Party, whether GOP, Libertarian Party, or other, will be misrepresented, and their views demonized.

Look at how the "War on Women" began. George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney, from the clear, blue sky, whether states could ban contraception.¹ Was there any indication, from any quarter, that Mitt Romney or the Republican Party were interested in banning contraception? Not that I'm aware. The left simply wished to make this an election issue. Next, they went on to the Catholic institutions, and continued to fabricate the myth that Republicans wanted to take away contraception.

Then, as soon as the election is over, GQ magazine interviews Marco Rubio. Now, you might think they'd want to ask him about his expected presidential bid, or about other issues relevant to the presidency of the United States. But they made sure to ask him how old the Earth is.²

And it's not just two cases. It's a whole history of the last few decades, in which a short-lived "Southern Strategy" forever tars the Republican Party, but a hundred years of violence and intimidation of black Americans leaves no stain on the Democratic Party.

So it doesn't matter whether you rid the GOP of the social conservative "baggage," or create a new party from the ground up. In neither case will the opposition party be in control of its image, or what its platform is perceived to be, or who it supposedly hates. That will be taken care of by left-wing image-makers who have demonstrated no scruples about smearing candidates (and parties) in the most blatant fashion.

So your sex-positive, pro-choice libertarian party will be anti-woman, if it doesn't support the next Lilly Ledbetter Act, or want to force Catholic institutions to provide condoms.

It will be racist, if it doesn't support reparations, or isn't fully supportive of affirmative action.

It will be anti-gay, if it won't force bakeries to make cakes for homosexual weddings, etc.


1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKWij_v4Twk

2. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/marco-rubio-muses-gq-earths-age-hip-hop/story?id=17761631#.UM6NAJVtjcs

[Strings]

That is a VERY good point, fistful.

Actually, some of that could be solved by a candidate, when asked one of these "ringer" questions, looking at the reporter and asking "What the hell are you talking about?"

I've heard a number of folks say the Republicans aren't "playing hardball" with the Democrats. Which is true. But they also have to do the same with the press, not allowing them to frame everything for soundbites that make the Right look like a bunch of ignorant savages...

[Perd Hapley]

That is a VERY good point, fistful.

Actually, some of that could be solved by a candidate, when asked one of these "ringer" questions, looking at the reporter and asking "What the hell are you talking about?"

Oh, absolutely. I think any opposition party is going to have to train their candidates to do that. Though the press can still spin that. They can choose to downplay the spurious line of questioning and just make it into "Candidate X won't answer questions!!"

Also, that won't work when the left decides to actually make the non-issue an issue. That's what happened in the contraception debate. Romney didn't really play along with the Stephanopoulos's question, but it didn't really matter. Because the next step was to make a ban on contraception into an issue, when it hadn't been one in, what, decades? And they didn't even have to get Republicans to discuss any such ban. They just had to instigate a controversy about who's going to pay for some people's contraception, and then spin it the way they wanted it.

[birdman]

That is a VERY good point, fistful.

Actually, some of that could be solved by a candidate, when asked one of these "ringer" questions, looking at the reporter and asking "What the hell are you talking about?"

I've heard a number of folks say the Republicans aren't "playing hardball" with the Democrats. Which is true. But they also have to do the same with the press, not allowing them to frame everything for soundbites that make the Right look like a bunch of ignorant savages...

Or simply be really clear:  "I don't believe it's any of the federal government's business to deal with {marriage, sexuality, contraception, etc}". The problem with attempting to spin the real libertarian viewpoint is the vast majority of people DON'T believe it is the government's business.

Perhaps we need the Manchurian candidate conservative (the converse of Obama, Lieberman, etc)...take some liberal sleeper, groom them for years, have them publicly reject everything conservative, get elected and go full on libertarian.  Basically, what Obama did in 2008, run on a centrist, bridge the gaps, but still liberal platform, then go hog wild once elected.  Perhaps the same "damage" to the progressive state can be done that he did to the liberty state.

[Perd Hapley]

Or simply be really clear:  "I don't believe it's any of the federal government's business to deal with {marriage, sexuality, contraception, etc}". The problem with attempting to spin the real libertarian viewpoint is the vast majority of people DON'T believe it is the government's business.

   What makes you say that the vast majority (not a simple majority, but a vast one) believe govt. has any business in the three areas you stated? That wouldn't seem to be true, even for contraception. The Democrats just won an election on the idea that government should force employers to provide contraception.

Perhaps we need the Manchurian candidate conservative (the converse of Obama, Lieberman, etc)...take some liberal sleeper, groom them for years, have them publicly reject everything conservative, get elected and go full on libertarian.  Basically, what Obama did in 2008, run on a centrist, bridge the gaps, but still liberal platform, then go hog wild once elected.  Perhaps the same "damage" to the progressive state can be done that he did to the liberty state.

 I presume you want them to run as a Democrat. They couldn't be elected as a Republican.

[Perd Hapley]

Also, Jerome Corsi has just started floating the idea that Eric Holder will be the next Dem. candidate. I guess he's thinking what I'm thinking.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/

[RoadKingLarry]

Now that's a *expletive deleted*ing nightmare scenario if ever there was one.
 

[Strings]

I have to agree with RKL. I think I'd rather have Clinton

[Ron]

Back in the early 80's I ran with a real libertarian crowd that was also very  

As some years went by I lost my paranoia and sense of imminent doom. It seemed to me that there was a lot of institutional momentum and that our fears while real would take a lifetime to be implemented. After a while I just stopped thinking about those things and went along living my life. 9/11 kind of woke me back up.

I'm just astonished how quickly things seem to be going south. It is hard to believe I may actually have to witness the unraveling of our country.

This ship isn't going to get turned around, time to man the lifeboats and prepare to survive the sinking of the ship of state.



  

[Boomhauer]

Also, Jerome Corsi has just started floating the idea that Eric Holder will be the next Dem. candidate. I guess he's thinking what I'm thinking.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/

Ride a crisis to Glory and peter principle your way to the top.

[longeyes]

Also, Jerome Corsi has just started floating the idea that Eric Holder will be the next Dem. candidate. I guess he's thinking what I'm thinking.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/eric-holder-for-president-in-2016/

Well, it makes sense given that the "paradigm" looks more and more like South Africa every day.

[SADShooter]

Back in the early 80's I ran with a real libertarian crowd that was also very  

As some years went by I lost my paranoia and sense of imminent doom. It seemed to me that there was a lot of institutional momentum and that our fears while real would take a lifetime to be implemented. After a while I just stopped thinking about those things and went along living my life. 9/11 kind of woke me back up.

I'm just astonished how quickly things seem to be going south. It is hard to believe I may actually have to witness the unraveling of our country.

This ship isn't going to get turned around, time to man the lifeboats and prepare to survive the sinking of the ship of state.



  

I've had the same sense. I think we are seeing the progression accelerate geometrically post 9/11, along with rapid technological and demographic shifts, whereas pre-9/11 is was happening in lesser increments. Smaller changes have widened the floodgates so that a trickle is becoming a torrent. Shorthand: the frog gradually got comfy, and the water temp is rising rapidly to a boil...

[longeyes]

Avalanches build up a huge number of fragile "nodes" prior to collapse.  Instability is all around us.  I think that is what we are seeing.

[Perd Hapley]

Cory Booker?

http://politicker.com/2012/12/cory-booker-is-keeping-his-options-open-online/