<< Another opinion, But what is in the bill that says he won't be able to do that? What directly leads to this? Is this just a nightmare worst case scenario? >>
Clarkmo, its always about the nightmare worst case scenario. You are asking the tough questions people don't want you to ask, you're supposed to blindly follow along without question. How dare you actually ASK for someone to support their claims!
This is textbook politics, unfortunately. Its about who can mislead the most people, who can incite the most fear and concern, who can scare [or anger] the most people into their corner. That's how laws get passed and defeated.
If you want a law to pass, you tell people their freedoms are threatened, America herself will be brought to her knees, the barbarians are at the gate, if this law doesn't pass. If you don't want a law to pass, you tell people the fascists will be knocking on their doors, their first-born will taxed and tattooed then sent to concentration camps, that something will come out of the toilet and bite their ass in the middle of the night, if the law isn't defeated.
God bless America, buts that's our political system.
There is no better example of how all this works than gun control forums. You name the place, I have several hundred posts there; Salon Magazine's Table Talk (before they began charging a fee), CNN, Free Republic, talk.politics.guns, et. al.
I started using my own name, but after rubbing a few people the wrong way and receiving threatening phone calls, even harassing calls at my place of employment(!), I stopped using any indication of my real name. Most of those types are harmless, they just like to think they're not, but you never know just how far that one nut-job is willing to go.
Here's how it works: the antigun crowd attempts to create an environment of fear and hysteria [or outrage] against guns, the progun crowd attempts to create an environment of fear and hysteria [or outrage] against gun control. All other politicized issues are exactly the same. Since I have always supported gun ownership, I initially took the bait (I was much younger then).
For several months, I was under the impression that Communists were going to knock on my door any day now, my freedom was under attack, they wanted to take my guns away, blah blah blah. I swallowed that package hook, line, sinker, and so I HAD to do something...my freedom was at stake!
I went to various gun control forums and started peddling the same paranoid and alarmist crap all the other progun posters were. I signed every petition or letter I came across. I used Hitler, Sarah Brady, and George Washington (Founding Father) quotes, all of which I would later discover to be bogus fabrications. I purchased a life-membership in the NRA and the NAHC (North American Hunting Club), along with annual memberships in several other groups like the Gun Owners of America.
All I talked about at work was how nobody was going to take my guns away: "You can pry my cold, dead...yadda". I'm sure my co-workers were joking that I would come to work one of these days with a bandolier strapped across my chest and an assault rifle in each hand, barrels a-blazing.
I confronted anyone who did not oppose gun control as zealously as I did. It didn't matter if they were generally supportive of gun ownership, but didn't see the problem with some reasonable restrictions. To me, there were only two kinds of people; those who opposed gun control as zealously as I did, the rest were Communists. Remember, my "freedom was at stake!" There was no room for 'moderates' and 'fence sitters', this was a fight for my freedom!
I remember out of all the progun forum pundits, rabble-rousers, and demagogues, of which I was included, there was one person I couldn't figure out. I had read a dozen of his posts defending gun ownership, all very articulate and well-researched, and came to believe he was "one of us". Then he turned around and took several progun posters, including me, to task for making false and misleading statements, such as the Hitler and Founding Father quotes that are very popular among progun pundits, and he provided convincing evidence to prove these quotes were false.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that he actually spoke against his progun allies. I began to suspect his motives, wondering whether he was really an 'antigunner' in disguise. I couldn't reconcile his statements defending gun ownership with his dissent and objection to the statements of his progun allies. Even if we were wrong and he was right, even if the Hitler and Founding Father quotes were bogus, what's the harm? Isn't that the game? Antigunners lie and misrepresent things for their cause, so we are entitled to do the same for ours. Fight fire with fire, right?
But that wasn't even really the point. The point was that, even if he didn't want to personally disseminate false information, he could have just turned a blind eye to our statements, he didn't have to challenge or refute our statements on the forums. After all, if he were "really" progun, he shouldn't have a problem with false and misleading information, as long as that information had the effect of favoring the progun position or discrediting the antigun position. And because he didn't turn a blind eye to them, doesn't that mean he "really" isn't progun?
Those are the rules by which pundits, rabble-rousers, demagogues, scoundrels, politicians, and those who follow them, play the game. It is also fundamentally unprincipled, hypocritical, and dishonest. The fundamental premise being, "It is US vs. THEM. We are right and they are wrong, therefore, our sins are excusable while theirs are not."
This fundamental premise is at work in many walks of our society as a reasoning to excuse wrong-doing, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. Its actually quite pathetic, if not alarming, the number of people who employ this rationale. There a few slightly different variations on this, but they're all essentially the same.
After having a few lengthy private discussions with this individual, I realized his motives were not suspect at all, he merely loved the truth above all else; above the rhetoric, above the politics, above the issue, above himself, he loved the truth...good, bad, or ugly. He convinced me that pundits and demagogues with their politics and misinformation ultimately do a DISSERVICE to their cause, because they do a DISSERVICE to the truth.
If they are so convinced their cause is 'just', why on earth would they have to lie? If a cause is just, wouldn't the truth be on their side? And if the truth isn't sufficient support for their cause, that they must resort to fear-mongering and misinformation, isn't that in reality the de facto measure of a position or argument which lacks credibility or merit?
I had a decision to make. Either I was going to continue being a hypocritical and dishonest pundit and demogogue, which would not sit well with my conscience, or I would change and become a person who loves the truth above all else. Since my conscience would give me grief had I continued to practice the former, I chose the latter.
But that doesn't come without a price. See, I'm supposed to tow the line, like you are supposed to tow the line, Clarkmo. That's what is expected of us, and if we don't do that, then we're not doing 'our part' for the cause. In fact, if you don't tow the line, then you're a 'traitor'. Your motives are suspect, you are accused of working for the opposition.
A lot of people work really hard to create an environment of fear and hysteria, they've spent a lot of money to commission 'studies' so they can have junk statistics to combat the junk statistics of their opposition, and here you are trying to reject all of that, trying to be above all of that, trying to get others to be above it, you and your stupid love for the truth.
The truth is not valued in our society, tragically, and those who love the truth are valued even less.
And before some fool attempts to argue "that's why I joined the Libertarian Party". The Libertarian Party is home to some of the more extreme demogogues, rabble-rousers, and pundits in the business. Every political party has an "angle", and the angle of the Libertarian Party is "tired of the two major parties who seem to be more alike than they are different? Then give your money and support to us, we're different!" Its a pretty attractive angle for many people who become frustrated with the other two parties, but its no less an angle and the Libertarian Party is no less a political animal than the others.
>>
Facebook
Twitter