Monday, 20 September 2004
|1026 - Why Tom Clancy is a Republican|
The one thing I detest about the Political Left is how they seek to apply their aesthetic to the world. Rather as Hitler, since he disliked Jews, felt it fine to exterminate them. We on the political Right try to allow people to do whatever they wish, so long as it does not do harm to others. In the U.K., a country for which I have a lot of affection, the Political Left seeks to wish to become the new nobility, ruling the peasants (I am a peasant) through the Divine Right of Kings. Here we fought a war over that issue in 1775-1783, and the good guys won. Now we have lawyers, however.
Over here we have those who hug trees (they ignore the fact that trees do not hug back) and want us to share their point of view or else. The anti-gun crowd is the same. Next it will be SUVs (yes, I own one) and french fries at McDonalds. (McDonalds does good fernch fries.)They?ve already won on the cigarette issue (evidently they do not write books).
I am a Republican because I want to live my life as I choose. I belong to the NRA because I enjoy shooting. I drive a nice car because I like nice cars. I do not trouble my neighbors because they have rights, too.
What is so hard about this?
Indeed, this says a lot of what I believe as well. My disagreements with the Republican Party are precisely about where it strays from this ideal. Yes, they're substantial, but my disagreements with the Democrat Party are even more substantial, and there's no other practical choice.
current mood: content
Yes, they are that way on many issues. They at least hold that as an ideal, though, while the Democrats don't even pay it lip service.
Your marriage situation is one area where I do disagree with the Republicans. I wish there was a party out there that represented all of my ideals. There's not one, however, and there's not likely to be one in the US, so I must choose the party which I feel most closely represents my opinions.
Precisely. Yes, I know there's a chicken-and-egg problem here...but as long as there's a real danger of the Democrats winning, voting for the Libertarians is counterproductive.
There are places I disagree with the Libertarians, as well; in particular, they're a bit extreme for my taste in a lot of areas having to do with existing governmental regulation.
Unrestricied gun control doesn't hurt others?
SUV's don't hurt others in accidents? Were does it end? Will tanks be allowed on the road soon?
As pointed out already, republicans don't want you to live your life as you choose, but by the way they think you should live.
Will tanks be allowed on the road soon?They already are
. Reinforce your bicycle! :o)
My beef is with THESE Republicans, not with the Republican Party, for reasons pointed out so far.
On gun control, I think the responsible people are paying the price for the stupidity of people that will have guns regardless of the law. It doesn't feel so hot being treated like a criminal when you're not... The same can be applied to many other policies and issues of this administration, or even any administration.
There was one of those parked at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel last week while I was there. Man, is that thing huge.
Did you mean to ask "unrestricted gun ownership doesn't hurt others?"? If so, nobody I know - and that explicitly includes the NRA - advocates no restrictions at all. I do believe that convicted felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to own firearms, and this is consistent with everyone's position of which I am aware. As for law-abiding citizens, however, I do believe that there is no practical purpose served by prohibiting them from owning any sort of firearm. It is not the law-abiding you need to worry about, but the criminal - who, by definition, ignores laws anyway and thus is no more likely to abide by laws prohibiting him from owning guns than any other laws.
It's not the gun, but the hand that holds it, that should be the object of concern.
SUVs hurt others in accidents no more frequently than pickup trucks and semis. Should we outlaw those too? My RX300 is less likely to hurt others in an accident than an F-150; why should I be singled out?
Neither party is perfect, granted, but the Republican Party is much closer to what I believe government should be about.
It used to be, and parts of it still are. Unfortunately, those are the parts that now get trotted out every four years to make the party look more moderate during the convention, and then get shoved off into the shadows again immediately afterward.
This is not the party of Barry Goldwater ("I don't care if they are straight, just that they can shoot straight") any more. New England has a number of Republican senators (and Jim Jeffords, who finally had enough); their faction is basically no longer a force in the national party.
Or, for that matter, contrast the governors of Massachusetts over a decade. Ten years ago, William Weld was Governor; he was a moderate Republican, combining fiscal prudence with social freedom. Now, we have "placate the Religious Right" Mitt Romney, who has made petty move after petty move against same-sex marriage (like refusing to process one-day solemnization permits for said marriages until after the deadline, even though they have a six week lead time) and is busy touring the country complaining about Kerry not doing his job as Senator, while his Lt. Gov. does his. (We have two Senators, but only one Governor....)
Continuing to support the Republicans after their takeover by the current crop of anti-freedom theocrats is supporting a group that believes in "smaller government" only in the sense that they want a government that can fit into your bedroom.
Yes, but everyone is law-abiding till they become a criminal. Controlling what is put into the hands of the law-abiding citizen will control those who will choose to later break the law with a legally purchased weapon.
well some pickup trucks can be as small as cars, others can be huge. the larger ones are no better then SUV's semis don't apply because they are restricted on which roads they can travel on and you need a special licence.
Yes, but everyone is law-abiding till they become a criminal. Controlling what is put into the hands of the law-abiding citizen will control those who will choose to later break the law...
Isn't that an argument for banning pretty much everything, since just about anything can be abused to the detriment of others? Controlling what the law-abiding can have is to control the law-abiding. Was not that control deemed so dangerous by the founders of the U.S.A. that states refused to ratify the Constitution until it was amended to specifically prohibit the government from exerting such control?
yes, but the difference is a gun is a tool to kill. A car is a tool to move. Not to kill. It can be. But the main purpose of a gun is to kill, that is the fundmental difference in the arguement.
A gun is a tool. It has no purpose any more than a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a stapler have purposes. They all can be used for good or evil; the only difference is the intent of the person using the tool.
Yeah execpt its primary purpose is to kill, there is no way around that.
No, its primary function is to send a projectile in a precisely controlled direction with a sufficiently high force to allow it to penetrate soft materials. None of the guns I have ever owned has ever been used to kill or injure a person. None will be except in lawful circumstances, and, I devoutly hope, those will never arise. Even so, they still retain legitimacy.
A gun has no purpose, just as a hammer has none, or a car. Purpose is a function of sentience. No gun has ever leaped off a table and killed anyone on its own. There has always been a human hand controlling it.
It would seem apparent that both you and Clancy fall into the same trap--that your view on what hurts others and what doesn't is the only possible view, and as such, "the Left" can't possibly hold to such an ideal.
Which is utter bullshit. Why is there such a big deal made about environmental issues? Because a lack of environmental protection inevitably hurts others. While you (like Mr. Clancy there) are apt to dismiss the arguments of people like this outright, it is an argument driven out of stopping harm that one person is doing to others.
I'm a Democrat because I want to live my life as I choose, and because I'm responsible towards others as well. I support the EPA because I like having breathable air and drinkable water, for myself and everyone else in this country. I drive a nice car, but it's fuel-efficient and not a wasteful monster. I don't trouble my neighbors by trying to do things like legislate how, when, or with whom they may have sex, like the GOP likes to try every so often.
It's also interesting to see Republicans cling so heavily to the defense of cigarettes, when tobacco companies have openly admitted by this point to putting additives in cigarettes to make them more addictive, and to covering up for years the serious health risks involved by smoking. But personally, as a Democrat... I don't care if you smoke. I only care if you smoke indoors where there's not proper ventilation, because then your smoking is harming others.
What's so hard about that?
Because a lack of environmental protection inevitably hurts others.
The big deal is that some people want to protect bugs and weeds to the detriment of people - and that hurts others even worse. It's entirely possible to go overboard on environmental issues, and the left wing has certainly done so.
I support the EPA because I like having breathable air and drinkable water, for myself and everyone else in this country.
Even when the EPA uses junk science to go way overboard? I'd have no quarrel with the EPA if it were restricted to using solid, verified science to do the minimum necessary to accomplish its mission. Instead, it's been turned into a weapon for the environmentalist left to wield against economic growth and the big, bad, eeeeevil corporations.
You have in the past called for banning SUVs and other nasty, eeeeevil vehicles you don't approve of. How is that not troubling your neighbors? You'd happily legislate what kind of car they could buy, after all. Don't try to claim the mantle of leaving your neighbors alone unless you're prepared to do so in all things, even those of which you do not approve.
FWIW, I agree with you about banning smoking indoors. Your right to smoke ends at the beginning of my airway. Those who argue that it should be the choice of a business owner whether to allow smoking ignore the fact that that's no real choice at all for the affected customer, nor for the affected worker. Offering choices only counts if there's a real choice to be made.
My argument regarding SUVs and pollution is just the same as the one regarding smoking, just on a global level. There is no "outdoors" on the planet--I can't step off of the Earth if I don't wanna breathe all the crap we're spewing into it.
For the record, I don't advocate outright banning of SUVs at large--just the largest ones. I'm a big fan of the new hybrids coming out, and I think that any vehicle, built within reason, is good for a person, and it's good for people to have choices. That said, I believe that there should be a limit to things, and that vehicles in the class of the Hummer H2, which get fewer than 10MPG and weight around three tons, should be limited to commercial applications.
I'm claiming the mantle of leaving my neighbors alone when they're not harming me. Being massively wasteful by driving something like an H2 as a commuter vehicle, when there are plenty of good options out there (including SUVs with decent fuel mileage) certainly falls into the larger category.
You're totally ignoring my actual argument, or you're trying to assert that excessively polluting vehicles don't harm anyone. I'm not sure which, so I can't respond from there.
But is he a Bush repub? Cuz if he is, he needs to pay more attention to what Bush says... he's already stated he thinks he's ruling under Divine Right... part of what I don't like about him
He's a Bush Republican for the same reason I am: the alternatives are far worse.