“I have never really understood exactly what a ‘liberal’ is, since I have heard ‘liberals’ express every conceivable opinion on every conceivable subject. As far as I can tell, you have the extreme right, who are fascist, racist capitalist dogs like Ronald Reagan, who come right out and let you know where they’re from. And on the opposite end, you have the left, who are supposed to be committed to justice, equality, and human rights. And somewhere between these two points is the liberal. As far as I’m concerned, ‘liberal’ is the most meaningless word in the dictionary. History has shown me that as long as some white middle class people can live high on the hog, take vacations to Europe, send their children to private schools, and the reap the benefits of their white skin privileges, then they are ‘liberals’. But when times get hard and money gets tight, they pull off that liberal mask and you think you’re talking to Adolf Hitler. They feel sorry for the so-called underprivileged just as long as they can maintain their own privileges.”
—Assata Shakur
“What if we start calling them semi-automatic assault vaginas with extended gay marriages?? Then they'll be certain to regulate the crap out of them.”
—Opinionated Democrat (http://www.facebook.com/OpinionatedDemocrat)Questions for people who say both parties are equally bad:
How many predominately liberal states filed for secession when Bush was reelected?
Have democrats ever trumped up a non-problem in a deliberate and admitted attempt to suppress democratic voters?
Has an influential liberal pundit ever called Mitt Romney a retard?
Or one that would help two million Americans find work?
Or how about one that would give health care and medical compensation to 9/11 first responders?
Was this issue so trivial to the democratic party that President Obama didn’t even know what it was?
Do liberals support doctors outright lying to their pregnant patients?
“You, who are so liberal and so humane, who have such an exaggerated adoration of culture that it verges on affectation, you pretend to forget that you own colonies and that in them men are massacred in your name.”
—Jean-Paul Sartre, preface to ‘The Wretched of the Earth’
Cars kill people, so quit picking on guns!
dailykos.com
Conservatives are fond of this argument.
That laughable “argument” has gotten new life in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, as conservatives pretend that there’s some kind of equivalency between guns and cars. If you want to take away guns because they kill people, why not take away cars because they kill people?Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Thursday argued that guns should not be regulated after the massacre that killed 12 and wounded 58 in Colorado because the suspect could have “taken a car and driven it into a school bus” […]
When I was in the Army, we used vehicles to go places and guns to kill things, not the other way around. But fine. Let’s treat guns exactly the way we treat vehicles.
1. You have to pass a proficiency test to get a license, and get that license renewed at specific time intervals.
2. You have to purchase vehicle/gun insurance.
3. You have to pay an annual registration fee per vehicle/gun.
4. There are restrictions to the kinds of vehicles/guns you can own and operate. And restrictions in the places you can operate them. Just like street cars with nitrous oxide injection are illegal in many places, so too can multiple-round magazines be banned.
5. You can’t operate vehicles/guns if intoxicated.
6. You must abide by various safety regulations, be it wearing a seatbelt or mandating gun locks.
7. You must pay a transfer tax when selling vehicle/gun to a third party.
8. We should create a federal agency, along the lines of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, tasked with improving gun safety.
So do conservatives really want to go with this argument? Because if so, then we’ve just found some rare bipartisan agreement.
