PDA

View Full Version : article on the shrill voices of american politics


bubbapug1
08-24-2009, 12:48 AM
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258768

I for one understand there are legitimate and serious threats against our gun rights, but I also think the NRA really takes liberty with the reality and sets about promoting fear and whipping up the base on a daily basis. When the real crisis apprears how will we know if every week its some new cry to circle the wagons the brown shirts are coming? It gets a little tiring to read propaganda every day.

I am sure some of you will not read the link and attack me for being anti-NRA, but you may be exactly the ones the article talks about.

What I am anit about is the inflamatory rhetoric which doesn't need to be injected into each and every issue we face in america, especially the ones related to guns, god, war, health care, taxes, and deficits. These are tough issues, and both parties play fast and lose with the facts to take advantage of the masses to help their campaign donation base...

Soooo...read the article and think before you rip into me...

bwiese
08-24-2009, 1:23 AM
The NRA promoting fear? Yes, justifiably.

Ever have the DOJ look you and friends and websites up the arse?

Are you unafraid of random rulemaking by gov't agencies affecting gunrights?

And today your own state is trying to ban private transfer of small amounts of ammo between friends.

But how the hell are you bringing in the NRA into healthcare, tax, etc. debates?

The NRA does not express opinions on these and supports politicians on gunrights only. The only reason guns came into the debate on these issues is some yahoos decided to open-carry into these forums, which was probably unwise. Of course if it involves guns the NRA gets tarred by other groups idiocy - leaving people like you to misinfer the situation.

CalNRA
08-24-2009, 1:51 AM
It gets a little tiring to read propaganda every day.

example?

I am sure some of you will not read the link and attack me for being anti-NRA, but you may be exactly the ones the article talks about.

I often read the Economist. It is a decent publication based in the UK. They have about as much insight in American constitutional issues as I do in Nigerian politics, which is not that much.

and both parties play fast and lose with the facts to take advantage of the masses to help their campaign donation base...


if you actually read the American Rifleman magazine you will read a lot about anti-gun Republicans. It is a nonpartisan organization.



I read the article, and since Bill already covered what I could say, I'll say this: Economist is a British publication. Their idea of "slightest curb on right to bear arms" became complete ban on handguns and semiauto rifles. And UK technically still has a "right to bear arms".

I rest my case.

And do I need to remind you that the right of the people to bear arms is one of the reasons why the English lost the colonies? something tells me the Limeys aren't real thrilled about the whole civilian owning guns thing.

Maestro Pistolero
08-24-2009, 2:53 AM
There is an interesting book from a few years ago by Nat Hentoff called "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee", subtitled "How the right and left relentlessly censor each other."

It was eye opening for me at the time. I recall it to be a fairly even handed treatment of the dynamic to which the OP refers.

From our point of view, there is no doubt that there are powerful ideologues who would do away with 2A rights, were it not for the vigilance of the NRA. But even the NRA wouldn't be enough to dissuade the attacks, if it wasn't well known that, even without the NRA, this country won't stand for any more decimation a civil right that has been the red-headed step-child of civil liberties for way too long. No more. The time has come to rise up. RISE UP, AND FIGHT, BEFORE THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO DEFEND!:TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH:

Ahem. . . Ok, I feel better now. ;)

ipser
08-24-2009, 7:22 AM
I find it more than a bit difficult to get worked up about an English magazine declaring that Americans are overly paranoid about their gun rights. As if the English have set a better example on this? If anything, the English example is one of the best arguments for erring on the side of paranoia.

I do find the steady stream of NRA pleadings for my money based on the crisis de jour to be a little annoying, but then I can't fault their track record.

How much is too much when they have been so successful, relative to "reasonable" alternatives?

The article, itself, weaves its own set of paranoid connections. And it's rather tame compared to some of the drivel I've read in the papers here in CA.

If anyone is interested I could probably find some to share with you but I'm gussing you know excatly what I mean. See e.g. Frank Rich's latest screed.

When those calling for civil discourse propogate disinformation we should all take the opportunity for a good chuckle.

bulgron
08-24-2009, 8:04 AM
I find it more than a bit difficult to get worked up about an English magazine declaring that Americans are overly paranoid about their gun rights. As if the English have set a better example on this? If anything, the English example is one of the best arguments for erring on the side of paranoia.

On the one hand, the English have gone so far down the road towards complete authoritarianism that they are now attempting to outlaw glass pints lest they be used as weapons:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8217775.stm

On the other hand, the English as a society are so drunk and violent that they need to outlaw glass pints.

It's hard for me to believe that anything the English have to say is worth serious consideration. After all, when confronted by a drunken, petulant child, you don't debate him. Instead, you send him to his room until he sobers up, and then you explain the realities of the world to him.

hawk1
08-24-2009, 8:12 AM
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258768

I for one understand there are legitimate and serious threats against our gun rights, but I also think the NRA really takes liberty with the reality and sets about promoting fear and whipping up the base on a daily basis. When the real crisis apprears how will we know if every week its some new cry to circle the wagons the brown shirts are coming? It gets a little tiring to read propaganda every day.

I am sure some of you will not read the link and attack me for being anti-NRA, but you may be exactly the ones the article talks about.

What I am anit about is the inflamatory rhetoric which doesn't need to be injected into each and every issue we face in america, especially the ones related to guns, god, war, health care, taxes, and deficits. These are tough issues, and both parties play fast and lose with the facts to take advantage of the masses to help their campaign donation base...

Soooo...read the article and think before you rip into me...

Are you a paid NRA member or did you get it for free (promo) from them?

ipser
08-24-2009, 9:53 AM
On this new pro-civility meme, Victor Davis Hanson writes:

There is a reasonable worry voiced by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic about right-wing, over-the-top rhetoric, and its deleterious effects on the health-care debate, and he references inter alia Rick Perlstein for support. But the essay should become the locus classicus for the problem with all this sudden liberal angst as President Obama's polls dive.

It was Jonathan Chait himself who wrote a 2003 essay, "The Case For Bush Hatred: Mad About You" that began with the inflamatory "I hate President George W. Bush," a piece that became emblematic of a visceral furor that in those years did much to poison politics.

And Rick Perlstein? I think he was the same author of a Village Voice article about Bush sucking American democracy dry, accompanied by a creepy cartoon picture of President Bush as a hideous vampire with his bloody fangs on the exposed neck of the Statue of Liberty (on the level with much of the blood-libel pop art in the Arab world directed at Israel).

Graphic expressions of such hatred at the time earned not much rebuke from liberals. Many think that the present screaming at legislators at town halls becomes rude when replies are booed down and it descends into agit-prop. And the "birthers" follow no logic and should cease. But much of this over-the-top expression was matched or trumped by the very voices who now want it stopped once Obama began to experience a fraction of what the present critics themselves unleashed against Bush.

If we are all not careful, the republic is heading toward the brawling days of Milo and Claudius. But those who proclaimed in print "I hate George Bush" unfortunately won't convince any now to rein in their own trademark venom.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGI2MjQzMmI5MmE4MDRmYzYxZjc3MjA0OGNkYTJhZjk=

ipser
08-24-2009, 9:54 AM
Another:

Notice that as liberals fulminate about the sudden lack of "civility" in the country and the supposedly chilling spread of nihilism and protest across the land they simultaneously celebrate this month's anniversary of the hideously stupid and destructive Woodstock festival. Somehow the Woodstock protests were charming and harmless, according to their moral calculations, while today's raucous townhall meetings are perilous to the future of the republic.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/21/woodstock-authoritarians

ipser
08-24-2009, 9:57 AM
And on right-wing paranoia and conspriacy theories, Ann Coulter nailed it a while ago:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33032

berto
08-24-2009, 10:07 AM
Where is this flame inciting NRA propaganda you speak of? I've yet to receive anything remotely inflammatory from the NRA.

Is Obama an anti? Are most of his cronies antis? Would they enact draconian gun control measures if they could get away with it?

hill billy
08-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Is the leftist and statist media any less to blame for stirring up a frenzy of hair pulling and running around crying that the sky is falling? Fire with fire, I say.

FastFinger
08-24-2009, 12:54 PM
Where was this article when we had thousands of angry deranged individuals protesting Bush policies?

Where was this article when some fool shoot a couple of military recruiters?

Where was this article when effigies of Sarah Palin here being hung in West Hollywood?

Oh, I get it, now that millions of Americans are being forced to yell in order to be heard by deaf politicians hellbent on forcing a major increase of government control - now all of a sudden that's dangerous extremism.

And this coming from a sheep who's had his right to bear arms sheared naked by an oppressive government. He's got some nerve lecturing us about civics.

RRangel
08-24-2009, 1:34 PM
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258768

I for one understand there are legitimate and serious threats against our gun rights, but I also think the NRA really takes liberty with the reality and sets about promoting fear and whipping up the base on a daily basis. When the real crisis apprears how will we know if every week its some new cry to circle the wagons the brown shirts are coming? It gets a little tiring to read propaganda every day.

Your statement may lead some to believe that you know nothing of what you post regarding the NRA. In fact, some of us might even consider your statements subtle agitprop.

I am sure some of you will not read the link and attack me for being anti-NRA, but you may be exactly the ones the article talks about.

I certainly read the article, and nowhere does it mention the NRA.

What I am anit about is the inflamatory rhetoric which doesn't need to be injected into each and every issue we face in america, especially the ones related to guns, god, war, health care, taxes, and deficits. These are tough issues, and both parties play fast and lose with the facts to take advantage of the masses to help their campaign donation base...

Soooo...read the article and think before you rip into me...

If you want to talk about "inflammatory rhetoric," put it into the off topic forum where it belongs.

locosway
08-24-2009, 1:42 PM
Sorry, I can't read that crap article because they're hypocrites.

If anyone has any questions about why, or who, when we're talking about arms they should simply go down to a local community college and enroll in a history class. There's nothing more eye opening than doing that.