« This Part Goes There… | Main | Bourjaily: What Guns Should Browning Make? »

April 14, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

The Truth Revealed!

One of the rules of probability states that if you forced a million chimps to type for a million years, they would eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare, or "It Takes a Village," I forget which. Similarly, the endless stream of Clinton/Obama verbiage was bound to produce a nugget or two of truth, and a couple of days ago, we got a couple.

According to Barrack Obama, citizens who are bitter about their economic hardships "…cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…" as a way to explain their frustrations. Hillary, sensing blood, immediately called him an elitist, and went on to say that "Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right."

Barack Obama (Harvard Law) is of course an elitist, and he is an urban elitist, and among these folk, interest in or ownership of firearms is viewed as anything from a quaint aberration to a dangerous form of psychosis. Hillary is, if anything, more of an elitist, and what is really fascinating about her statement is her use of the word "believe." Believe means that you think something may be true, but you can’t prove it, so you have to go part of the way on faith.

"I believe the Yankees will blow it again this year."

"I believe I’m going to throw up."

Hillary Clinton (Yale Law) does not necessarily accept the Second Amendment as the law of the land. If you believe in it, she says, it is the law. If you don’t believe in it, by implication, it isn’t.

In the meanwhile, Hillary (who as First Lady urged Congress to buck the gun lobby; at least I think the word was buck) continues to prattle about her father teaching her to shoot, and Governor Ed Rendell, who is one of the worst of the anti-gun governors, blathers on about the great traditions of hunting and sportsmanship in Pennsylvania.

I believe I’m going to throw up.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b54869e200e551d226528833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Truth Revealed!:

Comments

shootreadyaim

I would also add, that people who use rifles for duck hunting usually end in failure.

Mike Diehl

Dukakis never claimed he was a war hero or a gung ho guy. He went for a ride in a tank. If he hadn't looked like a silly short guy in a small helmet, no one would have noticed. Dukakis was and is a stand up guy, and unlike, for example, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, Mike Dukakis served overseas in the US military. He just isn't the kind of guy who tries to pass of "Honorably Discharged" as "War Hero," and isn't the kind of guy who would proclaim that military services equates with "can do no wrong."
More than that, no one ever caught Dukakis in a lie. And that is better than the record of Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GWBush by a long long shot.

Had Dukakis been our president the last 4 years, we'd all be a lot better off.

Second, for the people slamming Sen. Clinton over her campaign tactics, especially the recent Obama gaffes, recall this: in Dec 2006, Obama called Clinton "disingenuous" in a Newsweek article. When asked by the reported whether he was calling Sen. a "liar" his reply was "Ask Senator Clinton." But Obama could not or would not actually specifically state what she may have lied about.

I'm sorry, call her a liar and then ask her to make his case for him? That's baloney.

When Sen Clinton observed that Pres Johnson put Federal teeth into the various civil rights acts, Obama tried to make Clinton out as some sort of racist.

"Obama the Uniter?" "Saint Obama the Straight Shooting Clean Campaigner?" Give me a break! I could vote for Sen. Clinton but never for Obama.

Almost certainly I will hold my nose and vote for McCain. But let's get one thing clear. There ARE NO true CONSERVATIVES in the Republican Party.

Real conservatives don't wear their religion on their sleeves, the don't start baloney wars, they don't diss all over the Constitution &c, they do try to reduce the size of government, they do try to reduce taxes, they do respect the conservation ethic espoused by President Roosevelt (TR that is), and they DO try to keep the government nose out of citizens' private concerns.

Mike Diehl

Sorry that Newsweek article was Dec 2007.

SilverArrow

Heavens to mergatroid! I almost have to agree with Mike Deihl again. Almost. He is right about true conservatives. He is right about Obama. He is however, obviously, HRC's cousin (no one else would so vehemently defend her!)!

Eyeball made a very good point above when describing the challenges that this current administration has faced; they have certainly had stumbles but have overall brought the country through. MD has not a shred of respect for GWB and that is sad indeed.

It seems that every election cycle we remark that the mudslinging is the 'Worst ever.' This time we might just be right, So far it looks like the Republicans are going to benefit. More previously doubtfull middle of the road voters are swinging to McCain; a lot of weight has to go on the Veep choice now. For McCain I'd like to see a moderate such as Christine Todd Whitman or Colon Powell versus appeasing the right too much with Huckabee. McCain really doesn't have to cow-tow to the right as much, they will vote for him anyway to keep either HRC or Obama out.

There is this idea that military service is necessary to make a good President. I would say we have had good, even near great, Presidents who did not have distinguished military service and on the other hand we have had awful Presidents who did have distinguished military service. Grant was a well respected General (military historians differ on how good he actually was) as President he was drunk most of the time. Yes the reverse is true as well; Teddy Roosevelt is revered as a Great President in many circles and had a storied military career, Ike was a good President but a better General. Dare I say JFK was not a particularly good President, GHW Bush isn't likely to be lauded by Presidential historians either; both had excellent service records from World War 2. Peanuts Carter served in the Navy and must have hated it because he SCREWED our military every which way and didn't do much for the rest of the country either. Reagan did serve though without particular distinction. Slick Willy should have served time in Leavenworth for Treason instead we elected and reelected the dirtbag; while Americans were fighting and dying in Vietnam he was over in Moscow protesting the war in Red Square.

Silver Arrow is climbing down from the soapbox now!
SA

Mike Diehl

"He is however, obviously, HRC's cousin (no one else would so vehemently defend her!)!"

Just a sense of chivalry or something. I'm sure it makes me a real neanderthal.

"MD has not a shred of respect for GWB and that is sad indeed."

Nothing sad about it. Morally and ethically, and with respect to fidelity to oath of office and to the US Constitution, "Slick Willie" is a saint compared to Perp George. If there's a treason charge to be made, I'd make it on the "signing statements" added by Perp George in which he declares himself to be above the law.

eyeball

Military service should be a strong qualification for the job of President of the US, not because ex-military are necessarily better than the rest of us (although it's possible they are), but because when elected the President gets an automatic promotion to five star general of the army, air force, and marines, and five star admiral of the navy, etc. I ask you, would you make somebody manager of a Donalds if he'd never made a hamburger?

Obama plans to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq, and cut our forces to the bone; Hillary outright loathes the military. This isn't 1992; today the world is a dangerous place. We can't afford to make this election into a beauty contest. Bill Clinton damaged military morale more just by being his draft dodging self than George W. does by extending tours of duty. Someone who has no respect for the military or its mission (Obama) or who outright hates it (Clinton) is unqualified to be president.

Mike Diehl

The plain fact is one doesn't need to have military experience to be a great president, even though the Presidency gives one authority over the military; one doesn't have to have served a day in combat or in the military to understand the value of expert advise. FDR's administration of WW2 is proof enough of that. Likewise, being a servicemember doesn't mean that a pres will know jack squat about warfare, how to wage it effectively, or how to recognize good advice. The current President is proof enough of that.

As for Clinton, the only military people whose morale suffered under Pres Clinton were partisan scumbags who would have kissed GHW Bush's posterior and worshipped things that emerged therefrom, if the former had been reelected to a second term and done EXACTLY the same things (militarily speaking) as Clinton.

Nor was Clinton a draft dodger. Anyone who makes that assertion is as full of beans as the idiots who accused GW Bush of cheating his service term. I'm no Bush fan clearly, but lies do not become any of us.

YooperJack

Mike:
Again we disagree! When you have a President that, prior to his election, said "I hate the military". You can't expect any type of esprit de corps after his election. He cut the defense budget to the point that they couldn't function. You and I are arguing about historical perspective so if HRC wasn't running, this discussion would be moot. With her running, this discussion is still moot because I don't believe that she has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being the POTUS.

My big problem is the Democrat Party. Sometime between now and their convention, they will realize that BHO cannot win the general election. If they dump him, they'll permanently lose his supporters (the black vote). If they stick with him, they'll almost certainly lose this election. I think that the end result might possibly be the demise of that political party. The end result will be one political party in this country.

While I strongly believe that we, as a country, have tremendous problems to overcome, I also believe that we live in the greatest country that ever existed on Planet Earth. While many of the problems are global, I believe that it will be this country that ultimately solves the problems. Historically, we've always had a two party system, and I believe that this system has gone a long way towards solving past problems. I believe that this system will be necessary to overcome our future problems, and I'm quite pessimistic that the system won't be there.
YooperJack

YooperJack

Mike:
Again we disagree! When you have a President that, prior to his election, said "I hate the military". You can't expect any type of esprit de corps after his election. He cut the defense budget to the point that they couldn't function. You and I are arguing about historical perspective so if HRC wasn't running, this discussion would be moot. With her running, this discussion is still moot because I don't believe that she has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being the POTUS.

My big problem is the Democrat Party. Sometime between now and their convention, they will realize that BHO cannot win the general election. If they dump him, they'll permanently lose his supporters (the black vote). If they stick with him, they'll almost certainly lose this election. I think that the end result might possibly be the demise of that political party. The end result will be one political party in this country.

While I strongly believe that we, as a country, have tremendous problems to overcome, I also believe that we live in the greatest country that ever existed on Planet Earth. While many of the problems are global, I believe that it will be this country that ultimately solves the problems. Historically, we've always had a two party system, and I believe that this system has gone a long way towards solving past problems. I believe that this system will be necessary to overcome our future problems, and I'm quite pessimistic that the system won't be there.
YooperJack

SilverArrow

Yoop
I don't think we should be playing dirges for the Democratic party just yet. In the trenches they are far better organized than the GOP. They have a majority in Congress as well as more governors.
Right now I am cautiously optimistic regarding Sen McCain's chances in November. He still needs to choose his running mate very carefully and find a boatload more money. What happens will largely be determined by how well the Democrats do damage control coming out of their convention this summer. I do think -- for right or wrong reasons -- a lot of white male voters on the middle and even slightly left thereof will hold their noses and pull McCain's lever which ever Democrat wins the nomination. HRC has already learned that she can not count on a women voter surge. Obama's organization has registered a hell of a lot of young new voters though.

A wounded Democratic party on the national level is not the worst thing either. I would like to see a viable third party with Libertarian/Jeffersonian ideology take some power from the left and the right and get us more centered. Cutting the influence of Hollywood and the Liberal Left Media as well as cutting the influence of the far right on our process should be a priority for all of us.
SA

Jackson Landers

None of the 3 candidates, McCain included, is particularly gun friendly. However, at least Obama doesn't pander or pretend that he is something that he isn't. He doesn't try to fool us, which suggests that he at least respects us. That's more than I can say for Clinton or McCain.

He has said that he agrees that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. In a field of candidates that doesn't contain a serious pro-gun advocate, I'll settle for Obama and hold him to that statement.

Del in KS

Jackson,

Go back and see what Obama has said about guns. This guy is to the left of HILL and she is rabidly anti-gun. McCain isn't exactly like having Charleton Heston but he is head and shoulders above the two Dems.

SA, My family does not go to movies that feature far left anti american view points (redacted, etc.) or liberal loud mouth stars (Tim Robbins, George Clooney etc).

YooperJack

SA, I can see it all coming apart if BHO gets screwed on this nomination. Whether that happens or not.... I would really hate to be a Dem fat cat an have to part with my hard earned to donate to such a lame prospect.

Hey Del, I only go to good movies. As such, I can't tell you what year it was, but the last movie I saw in a theater was the original "Men in Black". I took my preteen son.
YooperJack

Mike Diehl

"When you have a President that, prior to his election, said 'I hate the military'."

Given the frequency with which people attribute to President Clinton things that he seems never to have said, I'll take that allegation as an expression of agitprop rather than anything I'm gonna worry about.

"You can't expect any type of esprit de corps after his election."

Bull. Beyond that, was there any person in the US armed forces who was less committed to their duty after his election than before, then said person has a very shallow and limited idea of the notion of citizenship and probably isn't or wasn't fit to be in uniform in the first place. I know plenty of soldiers who were in service early in Clinton's presidency. Bunches of 'em were my students. Knee-quaking over Clinton wasn't on the table. They were more concerned with career options, baloney from superior ofcrs, better pay and food, and trying to replace all the parts worn out in Gulf War 1.

"He cut the defense budget to the point that they couldn't function."

B.S. Beyond that, if readiness is your concern, then you must be really ticked at the current president. I suppose also that multiple 12-15 mo deployments may also be adversely affecting espirit de corps but if it is, the guys whom I used to teach and who are still in service don't seem to show it.

"You and I are arguing about historical perspective so if HRC wasn't running, this discussion would be moot."

The discussion IS moot. Real soldiers do their duty. They'll do it as well as soldiers usually have, I suspect, regardless of the pres.

"With her running, this discussion is still moot because I don't believe that she has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being the POTUS."

She's not my first choice either. But I haven't drunk the radical right wing koolaid or been through the mental reprogramming required to fanatically throw feces at her from the monkey cage. I DO think she'd make a better president than the current one. I can't find a single choice apart from invading Afghanistan where Bush did ANYTHING in service of the United States rather than some fat cat campaign contributor.

YooperJack

C'mon Mike:
Lay off the MSM Koolaid for a couple of weeks! Because this administration was so bullheaded on tax cuts, we were able to avoid a very serious recession when GWB took over. Had he not implemented those tax cuts, we might have seen a full blown depression after 9/11.

Truth be known, between the Dems in Congress, Hollywood and MSM, the entire theme has been "Get Bush, he stole that election".

I honestly believe that 10 years from now, were gonna be looking back to now as "the good old days".
YooperJack

Mountain Man no state

If McCAin or Obama wins, you can hang up your guns. It will be all over for s hunters. Thats fine,we mTn folks been loking out for ouselves for many moon,and can continue. Let teh City Boys contiue to buy our products. If MAcain wins, its 4 or 8 more yes of Bush, not sure the US of A can afford him.so go to the Muslim, yes Muslim,same guys we fighting now overeseas wins, uswhite folks can hang it up. AS for Slaves, go back to Columbus days when the Eureopene Ships sailed back and forth, the Africian tribal chiefs had no money so they traded the misfits to the ships captin to bring here and sale. So nexy time a Black gets Huffy,remind why he's herer. God did not bring thim to the USA, Europe and USA ships did. The African chiefs were a cult, had one man in command of sevral people, who looked up or down to him,snd did as he said. So why do they thin the US owes them a drn thing. Go toa Indian illage adn look what we did to thje Indian?no way they can make a living on that sorry Assed land we put them on.If guy running don't like what he sees, then is has had his head in the sand. Go Hillary, we as a whole never had it so good as we did from 92 to 2000, then Bushie ruined it all.But Bushie gave all out money to his pet projects. Plus his pay-back to the Oil Industry. When gas get to 5 bucks.maye thes folks will begin to see who is liabel. Hillary may not win, but she's the better of the 3 running, you better hope/pray she wins. O well, if she looses shine went up 3-4 bucks a jar. See you at the Poles if they hae a geneal election this year. Wonder some Idiot don;t shoot the lot.Wait till nex week in PA then decide who's ahead, Mich and Fl yet to do something about.Like a flood or earthquake.

SilverArrow

Yooper
I doubt we will be calling these 'The good ole days' ten years from now. The economy is cyclic and by then will be moving toward the upward crest again, we may have couple of rough years yet ahead but with a weakening dollar more jobs will stay here for the moment. Pay will eventually rise to help cover the higher prices of everything. We are creating jobs even now albeit at below the rate of losing them in other segments. What does need to happen is movement of some of the jobs being created to areas of the country with higher unemployment levels especially the 'rust belt' states. We do need to reevaluate 'free trade' and understand that it is a misnomer; so called 'free trade' isn't free when it COSTS Americans their jobs!

As for the posts claiming that Hillary would be the least likely to seek to violate the Second Amendment and steal our guns and our rights; y'all are on CRACK! She has stated support for New World Order and will sign the UN Treaty which will effectively eliminate national sovereignty on issues like private firearms ownership, property rights, civil rights, womens rights, capital punishment and patent protections. Turning those vital issues over to the impotent UN is tantamount to TREASON in my not so humble opinion! So far as I know Obama hasn't pledged to sign the UN Treaty but may well support its aims and do so. I don't believe McCain will go anywhere near the thing!
SA

Mike Diehl

"Lay off the MSM Koolaid for a couple of weeks!"

Go jump off a bride, ya lout.

"Because this administration was so bullheaded on tax cuts, we were able to avoid a very serious recession when GWB took over."

Boy, when you lick neofascists boots you really apply your tongue. Bush's presidency has been a straight up flat out undeniable economic catastrophe. Every citizen born into the US today suffers a $30K birth tax, because of Bush's tax n spend n spend n spend n spend n spend n spend n spend n spend policies. The worst part is that he's running up this huge debt all for someone else's benefit.

"Had he not implemented those tax cuts, we might have seen a full blown depression after 9/11."

When you pick your propaganda you really commit! Man have you been drinking the supply side kool-aid.

Here's a clue, dood. Bush didn't cut taxes. He raised them. By doubling the debt every three years and deficit spending he's saddled some future generation with a HUGE tax. Probably it will fall heavily on the middle class.

The plain fact is that he spends worse than any democratic president ever has. And he's a gutless perps who lacks the moral foundation & honesty to admit that he's stuck the rest of us with this debt.

You must be one real MSM neocon kool-aid drinking tool to think that the money Bush spent isn't going to have to be paid by someone. And yet, that is the only way a person with rose colored glasses and their head in the sand can pretend that Bush has cut taxes.

"I honestly believe that 10 years from now, were gonna be looking back to now as "the good old days"."

That may be, but it will be because 10 years from now we'll be caught between a rock and a hard place with no way to fix the stuff that Bush screwed up.

Best case scenario is that we eliminate medicare, medicaid, cut the defense budget in half, and pay down the debt. Worst case scenario is that we are forced to choose between defaulting on the debt or raising taxes through the roof. And given the way taxes get raised, you can bet it will fall on Joe Workingman rather than any of the "have mores" in Bush's base.

Mike Diehl

Jump off a bride is funnier than jump off a bridge but I meant the latter.

Peter

Jim Mo,
about your comment to me. and about Labor Unions.
About your comment about keeping my mouth shut. Im afraid I cant do that.

Im sorry for whatever happened to you on the job and that the company didn't take responsiblity. Ill admit if a union was there that would not have happened.


Due to the fact Im a senior in High school, you got me on the fact that I am not apart of the work force yet and havn't had to deal yet with the crap that goes on sometimes. But I will within a few weeks.

My Dads Retirement( he worked for UPS for 30 years) is from the Teamsters. So, sir, I do know about Unions. I know theres good things about them.
However I personally know somebody whos getting screwed over becuase, lazy, low-liffers voted a union into their tool and die shop. Now the skilled workers are getting screwed over.


Peter

Common Jim I wanna hear some feedback. Chew me out. Lets go.

Jim Mo.Apr. 15 8:14 pm if anybody's interested.

YooperJack

Hey Mike, when I referenced the Kool Aid, I didn't recommend that you spike it! Apparently you did.

You're living under an assumption that, had Al Gore been elected, he would've talked to al Qaida, and we would'nt have been attacked. Or possibly, after the 9/11 attack, Gore would've sent a crack team of FBI agents to Afghanistan (probably headed by Hillary since she's experienced in dodging sniper fire on landing) to arrest al Qaida.

At any rate, you totally ignore that we were attacked. Both the response to the attack and preventative measures to prevent future attacks cost money. Also, you ignore the phenomenon that military gear, while tested extensively, isn't perfectly designed for conditions encountered on the actual battlefield. Retooling costs money.

You and one other frequent writer are the most critical of GWB. The other guy is retired. Has several firearms. Recently bought a new one. Spends the entire fall hunting in about 4 different states, and rants about how bad the economy is.

It just doesn't add up>
YooperJack

Peter

I may not have work experience. But I do know some history. I know unions gave good hard working Americans a voice in their workplace. A company couldn't just fire anybody. They better have a dang good reason. But nowday's its turned more into a bureaucracy thats killing jobs. Also keep in mind that government agencies have gotten more involved in private business, and also require certain standards and rights for people.

Ford has gotten so bad, people will turn other people, for supposedly doing "their work". Thats good? enlighten me! Someone get turned in for just trying to be a hard worker and be productive? enlighten me!

Your right I have no idea...so ENLIGHTEN ME!

I just see the results. O and to the people who are complaining about the "young generation" not knowing where this countries going....who raised those kids. Whos letting the school system do what they want and teach what they want to them. How about who voted in those people that have screwed our government over for the past 70 years.

Peter

And I will probably be hated for this but. As to baby boomers. You dropped the ball. Now my generation will left with your pieces. I know thats not everyone.
And probably most the people reading the blog don't fit into that category.

Thanks for putting up with my comments people.

Jim in Mo.

Peter,
I'll try to enlighten you, and this time I'll try not to be such a prick. Your post caught me in a bad mood which is no excuse. I appologize. But your remarks about people should be able to do other people's work? Man what outsiders don't know (I worked for Ford for 37yrs) is that management proposed that any skilled tradesman should be able to cross the lines of demarkation and finish a job that isn't within their skill-or trade. So that essentially means a millwright or any other trade, in order to finish a job, could do the work of an electrician, or tinner or hvac? Doesn't make any sense man, would I want my house, shop or outhouse built in this manner?




Our Blogs

Categories



Syndicate