Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gun control is not a priority for the Demo. Just a few individual are concerned about strengthing gun control

 Mannahnin wrote:
If you think there's a credible argument there, it might be a good time to find a good one, and not a paranoid blogger.

It would be nice if you guys actually started reading what I wrote. At no point did I suggest I thought the accusation that Obama wants to take everyone's guns was credible, only that the right-wing base was concerned about it. Thus, a Senate stuck in a filibuster loop would not be capable of passing harsher gun control legislation, alleviating the concern, whether there was actually anything to be concerned about or not in the first place.

Okay, but is that really high on the actual legislators' agendas? Yeah, it's a rallying cry for some of the base, but I do think gun control has been practically irrelevant in the larger ongoing debate about debt, spending, entitlements, and healthcare reform.

Gun control arguments have basically been dead for a decade now, at least.

Well, maybe in one sense, Melissia, where they haven't seen a lot of movement in the legislature for a while.

They're still potent as a wedge issue to drive certain voters.

Yeah, but so is "dem webtacks are comin'!", even though we have record low immigration legal or otherwise.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, maybe in one sense, Melissia, where they haven't seen a lot of movement in the legislature for a while.

They're still potent as a wedge issue to drive certain voters.

Not really.

The "certain voters" who would be manipulated by the gun control issues aren't going to be voting Democrat anyways.

That's not the point. The point of using that issue is to motivate that part of the base to get to the polls. A wedge issue isn't used to convince people on the other side. It's used to draw an us vs. them contrast to get people stirred up and emotional, motivated to knock on doors and actually get out themselves to vote.

Careful now Mel on rusing racial slurs

It's borderline, but I think it's clear that she's referring to racist fears about immigration. I'm up for editing it if other folks (especially in the Southwest) think the usage of the term is too offensive.

I was mentioning that it was used to motivate the base, not actually calling anyone that.

There's nothing borderline about it. Would you in fact say that to a mexican. If I said that in my current occupation I would lose stripes.

edit
Remember way back I got nailed for using the word "Paki"

You mean would I mention in casual conversation that the term is used by politicians to motivate their xenophobic voter base?

Well... yes. And they'd probably agree with me. I'm not using the term to denigrate Mexican immigrants in specific or Hispanics in general. I'm using it as an example of how unsavory, unsupported things are used to motivate the Republican base to vote.

 Jihadin wrote:
There's nothing borderline about it. Would you in fact say that to a mexican. If I said that in my current occupation I would lose stripes.

Remember way back I got nailed for using the word "Paki"

I'm also talking about the usage, not just the term.

You got nailed for using the word in a way which didn't make manifestly clear that you didn't mean it as a slur. IIRC because you didn't realize how bad a term it is in some parts of the world. You used it kind of casually, not realizing you were making yourself look like a racist. Mel's specifically using the term as a quote of racist jerks, not as a slur she's making herself. Our word filter doesn't auto-filter "Paki" or "wetback" because we have not (at least as yet) determined that they're totally without redeemining value as used, and can't be discussed in a polite way.

Yet I never heard the word mention by government.at any political rallies, speechs, admin, or SOP.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Okay, but is that really high on the actual legislators' agendas? Yeah, it's a rallying cry for some of the base, but I do think gun control has been practically irrelevant in the larger ongoing debate about debt, spending, entitlements, and healthcare reform.

At this point, I'd advise just going back and looking at how gun control made its way into this thread. It has nothing at all to do with...anything, really, other than that I used it as an example of things that would make Republican basers happy to have stalled in the event of a Senate majority that wasn't filibuster-proof.

You guys crack me up, I'll admit. You see anything that you even think is a conservative statement, and it's full-on attack mode. I'm not conservative, by the way.

 Jihadin wrote:
Yet I never heard the word mention by government.at any political rallies, speechs, admin, or SOP.

Yeah, Mel got a bit sloppy there. You don't hear it mentioned in public by governmental figures, as a rule. It's pretty much the same thing as what Atwater described (but for the Mexican border area, as opposed to the South). I think she was trying to reference the kind of terminology they'd use in private, as in public nowadays you have to use lesser terms like "illegals".

You start out in 1954 by saying, “[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules].” By 1968 you can't say “[see forum posting rules]” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules].”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Okay, but is that really high on the actual legislators' agendas? Yeah, it's a rallying cry for some of the base, but I do think gun control has been practically irrelevant in the larger ongoing debate about debt, spending, entitlements, and healthcare reform.

At this point, I'd advise just going back and looking at how gun control made its way into this thread. It has nothing at all to do with...anything, really, other than that I used it as an example of things that would make Republican basers happy to have stalled in the event of a Senate majority that wasn't filibuster-proof.

I did go back, and that's why I tried to moderate the tone and address your argument respectfully. I think dogma has a point that the actual legislators are hoping to get some things done, not just stop anything from being done. Debt, taxes and healthcare seem to be obviously high-priority issues. Gun control is a tiny speck on the rader by comparison, because nothing's actually happening with gun control right now.

But yeah, you're right, it's a side issue, and dogma may have been nitpicking just for the fun of it.

As an aside, I found this in an article about fox news:


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/jacques_steinberg_2182.png
Oh Fox. You racist douchebags.

Mel, that image won't hotlink, so I removed the image tags so people can just go to the link.

Oh, I couldn't tell on my end.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Mel, that image won't hotlink, so I removed the image tags so people can just go to the link.

Referral didn't work there Manny...

As to gun control, I actually think that situation is funny... people over-react to weird things so much, that there were shotages of ammo.

Yup. Runs on ammo and some guns, and zero legislation introduced by Obama. IIRC some legislation has actually expired since then, so the overall trend has been less gun control under Obama so far.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yup. Runs on ammo and some guns, and zero legislation introduced by Obama. IIRC some legislation has actually expired since then, so the overall trend has been less gun control under Obama so far.

Gun sales are definitely up, which is annoying the hell out of me, as I'm in the market for a new piece. Ammo, fortunately, doesn't seem to have become as scarce as it was right after he was elected. It was painful just trying to get to the range back then. I almost took up reloading.

But it was all based on a narrative which was constructed for political gain, and supported by miniscule evidence from his old legislative record.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But it was all based on a narrative which was constructed for political gain, and supported by miniscule evidence from his old legislative record.

Yeah... but that happens everywhere...

Remember when Bush was re-elected that everyone believed that abortion would stop?

When he was running, he pretended to be moderate on the issue. A friend of mine met him at a campaign stop here in NH, and she asked him if he would uphold Roe Vs. Wade. He said to her "I don't think the country's ready for a change".

First day in office, he signed the Global Gag Rule back into effect.

 Mannahnin wrote:
When he was running, he pretended to be moderate on the issue. A friend of mine met him at a campaign stop here in NH, and she asked him if he would uphold Roe Vs. Wade. He said to her "I don't think the country's ready for a change".

First day in office, he signed the Global Gag Rule back into effect.

Yeah that was obvious pandering to religious rights there...

I'd be okay with making sure federal dollars to the funding of abortions, but that was a cluster feth that did more harm (like couldn't fund mammerygram... wth? dude, we need to protect ALL boobeh!)

 Mannahnin wrote:
But it was all based on a narrative which was constructed for political gain, and supported by miniscule evidence from his old legislative record.

I think it was the "bitter clingers" gaffe, personally.

That happened well after the narrative had been constructed and put into use. Though it certainly helped them.

 Mannahnin wrote:
That happened well after the narrative had been constructed and put into use. Though it certainly helped them.

Well, let's be honest: it's not as though it's a narrative without merit, at least if we speak broadly about Democrats in general. They generally tend to be more favorable towards crap like the Assault Weapons Ban than Republicans.