* 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
It seems strange that some people believe laws against drugs do nothing but cause crime, and therefore think we should simply legalize all drugs, but then apply the reverse to firearms. Strange, until you remember that most people who “think” (emote?) this way are liberals…
“…what’s more radical: Paul Ryan’s budget or not having any budget for years?”
Not having a 16th Amendment.
“In response to the Trayvon shooting, the New York Times put up a pro-gun control editorial”
Yes, because keeping people in New York from lawfully obtaining guns has slashed murders down to only 500-600 per year.
More guns = less hoodrats.
If you formally endorse Romney don’t forget to replace the moon in your logo with a green football.
Anyway, this got me thinking…
And your thinking got my weebled brain to thinking. You see, when I wear my kilt, I feel free when I’m wearing naught under it. Anything more and I’m bound up like a book
So, there you have it. More stuff is less freedom.
By the way, i’m not Irish, I just like weearing kilts.
Go Mitt Romney!!! You have my full….(YAWNNNN)….support!
“if New York City had conceal carry laws like the rest of the country, Jared Loughner could bring a gun into Times Square”
And since it doesn’t, Faisal Shahzad parked an SUV full of gas cans rigged to explode, instead.
Good thing no law-abiding citizen tried to shoot him.
Also a good thing he was a crappy bomb-maker.
Mitt Romney! Not crazy like Ron Paul! Not fat like Newt Gingrich! Not as weird as Rick Santorum! Not a socialist America-hater like Obama!
Exciting, what?
“By the way, i’m not Irish, I just like weearing kilts.”, uh Burma, Kilts are Scottish, the Irish stole them, just like whiskey and public drunkenness. Of course the Scottish got all of it from the Vikings. But I digress.
“So Paul Ryan has endorsed Mitt Romney.”
yay, mitt, whoo hooozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Florida, follow your own star. Arizona, arm your kindergartners. Just stop trying to impose your values on places where the thinking is dramatically different.
Really, just leave us alone. If you don’t like our rules, don’t come here. Is that too much to ask?”
Oh my, where to start..
Finally a liberal argues for federalism, yet uses it to argue for what, the unconstitutionality of the Constitution (2nd Amendment)!?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for this liberal elitist moron to argue federalism concerning things that are actually unconstitutional, such as Obamacare. “Leave us alone, but.. Free Pope Brand Condoms for everyone!”
Romney vs Obama = White Sh*t Sandwich vs Black Sh*t Sandwich
Well Harvey, obviously all NY City needs is a law against parking bomb laden vehicles in Times Square. Such a law would certainly put the fear of God into any potential bomber and completely prevent a person like Faisal Shahzad from carrying out such an act. The very fact that he used a bomb rather then a gun proves his fear of the city’s gun laws. Problem solved…next problem?
@plentyobailouts: I suppose the key phrase in my post was “weebled brain.”
My forebears actually came from Scotland, not to mention other places even less repectable.
Oh good heavens, why start now. Anyone who’s been here for more than two days knows Romney’s not your choice. Integrity, always integrity (homage to Gene Kelly in Singing in the Rain).
I suppose if we had stricter gun control laws then nobody could put a gun to your head to make you buy stuff, right?
Oww! I just hurt my brain!
zzyzx FTW!
I’d like it if there was a rule, in, you know, a constitution or something, that said the government couldn’t make any laws abridging the freedom of speech or taking away the right to bear arms, or hell, do anything but a few basic thing like make laws about interstate commerce. But I guess I’m just one of those slack jawed conservatives – my jaw has been kind of slack lately – so it’s never gonna happen.
Re: Frank’s excellent post on freedom: I cannot improve upon Bob_R’s comment.
@Bob_R,
…and perhaps if there was, say, an opposition party of some sort. And, its representatives could stand up and challenge someone who was stepping over the boundaries of those few and limited powers granted by the Constitution, using a sort of checks and balances system between factions of the government to actually enforce that Constitution.
All the Administration he brings with will be both better then himself and approximately 17 light years improved from the cyborg-alynski-troll Valerie Jarret types.
Also once a republican is in the white house the left will rediscover that government can sometimes be a bad thing and then unable to help themselves will start tearing it down in places again.
Pingback: The Left Shreds the Constitution + More « PA Pundits – International