* So Paul Ryan has endorsed Mitt Romney. I think we’re going to start seeing pretty much everyone coalesce around Romney now — embracing the inevitable. So, do you think IMAO should go ahead and write up a Romney endorsement? I’m not sure what I’d say.
“There are worse people than Romney… not many, but one of them is currently president, so there you have it.”
Well, despite how tepid we are about Romney, we’re going to get energetic about him the closer it gets to November. That’s when purely partisan part of the brain takes over and mixes with fear of an Obama second term.
* BTW, Paul Ryan’s budget passed the House in a 228-191 vote. It fared way better than Obama’s budget which was rejected by the House 414-0.
Our president is such a serious and capable person.
Anyway, the Democrats are going to portray Paul Ryan’s budget as “radical,” but what’s more radical: Paul Ryan’s budget or not having any budget for years?
* To combat high gas prices, Obama is trying to raise the cost of doing business for oil companies.
Yeah, I’m not sure how that logic works. It’s I guess the same “logic” used when trying to stimulate the economy: If we do mean things to people we’re irrationally angry at, then good things will happen.
* In response to the Trayvon shooting, the New York Times put up a pro-gun control editorial, and it’s kind of pathetic. I mean, it’s got the usual mindless fear and boneheaded logic common to the genre (she mentions that if New York City had conceal carry laws like the rest of the country, Jared Loughner could bring a gun into Times Square, but what exactly is stopping someone like Jared Loughner from doing that now?), but the pathetic thing is the resigned tone where she pretty much understand none of the rest of the country is listening to her.
Anyway, this got me thinking, it sure would be intellectually honest if more people started framing their arguments in the terms, “I don’t like freedom on this issue and here is why…” You pretty much never see that. I mean, gun control is an anti-freedom stance, but they never argue it that way. I think maybe that’s why they don’t understand how unpopular their stance is.
The same thing with the health care debate. The mandate is an anti-freedom stance, but they try to say they’re for more freedom by ending worries about health care, which is BS. One thing is freedom and one thing isn’t; it’s not debatable. Putting a gun to someone’s head and saying, “You must buy health insurance!” isn’t freedom and no one should pretend it is. It’s okay to take an anti-freedom stance, you just should frame it terms of why you think your ideas are better than liberty. And that will probably also help you understand why so many people don’t like your views, as the left always seems to get caught off guard by that.
* I’ve always wondered whether society will end with apes taking over — like in Planet of the Apes — or with robots taking over — like with Terminator. Well, some are trying to make both happen at once. I don’t want to sound anti-science, but we need to destroy science before it destroys us.
UPDATE 7pm: The Sundries Shack linked with some good thoughts on how Democrats could’ve done Obamacare without toilet-paperizing the Constitution, had they been serious about “helping the needy”, instead of just giving into their baser urges to attempt a loathsome power-grab. – Harvey
UPDATE 4-2-12: Linked by PA Pundits
UPDATE 4-2-12: Linked by The Patriot Post