Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Jindal Jandal and teh Wacky Right...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


It would be almost laughable (the idiocy of the man) were it not so damned pathetic and the issue so serious.

Now, let's get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer's father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns. Of course he doesn't know. You know why he doesn't know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son's life. He's a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He's the problem here. He brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns. Why didn't he know? Because he failed to raise his son. He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology.

Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal no doubt is mouthing his absurdity because he knows he has a base that will listen to him and agree. Nodding their collective and empty heads in approval while ignoring mountains of data that points to the real problem. Prolific growth in firearms in the USA and non uniform and ineffective firearm control.

Jindal represents the symptom of why America cannot quell its firearm violence, the lack of political will and the disproportional power the NRA holds over our elected representatives in government. It has become a national disgrace and the other advanced western democracies look at us as being very stupid. AND THEY ARE RIGHT

Read entire article inEsquire

Via: Memeorandum

21 comments:

  1. He's indirectly correct. The problem with gun violence isn't guns....it's how we're raising [coddling/enabling/ignoring] the current generation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We shall agree to disagree. All reliable data points to other causes. It is easy to find and makes considerable sense. But as we are exceptional we accept exceptionally large numbers of human carnage the result of firearms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretending that "all data" supports your premise is convenient, isn't it? There's data that supports mine as well, and it's just as easy to find.

      Delete
    2. Much of this "data" CI says supports his incorrect hypothesis comes from biased shills. People such as John Lott. I shall agree to agree with the wise views of the blog host on this matter. It is extremely refreshing to see a Libertarian-identifying individual with sane views on gun violence.

      Delete
    3. Much of this data comes from sources such as the 2013 CDC study, conducted by Executive Order. Didn't turn out the way Obama had intended. Other data comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice. But hey, fun talking point you have anyway, right?

      Delete
    4. The fact that you CI are apparently either unable or unwilling to understand and accept the TRUTH this data highlights is your problem not ours.

      As for talking points and conspiracy theories, well, the conservatives/reactionary neo con tea party and revisionist GOP excels at both.

      You want to have an honest discussion and present valid data and from credible sources (with link(s)) that support YOUR opinions wonderful, I'm all eyes and ears.

      Delete
    5. The fact that you CI are apparently either unable or unwilling to understand and accept the TRUTH this data highlights is your problem not ours.

      By virtue of this statement alone...why would I be remotely convinced that you would be open to and honest discussion? That you seem unable to accept the that your camp uses talking points and false narratives as currency, also underscores this....as well as the assumption that I care about the GOP, tea party, neo-cons, etc.....

      Delete
    6. I might reply with precisely the same question CI. Tit for Tat eh?

      All special interest groups (including your very own favorites) use talking points. A major difference being your favorite groups generally are light on fact, science, and objectivity and CI, that is simply a fact. Even Ayn Rand had little if anything good to say about conservatism as she believed it dwelt in the realm of mysticism and nationalism in the extreme.

      But like I said, present your SPECIFIC opinion supported by fact based data and or science and we'll have a discussion. Otherwise take your points to Contra O'Reily or The Smut Hut and the choir will no doubt be exceedingly pleased to welcome you.

      Delete
    7. A major difference being your favorite groups generally are light on fact, science, and objectivity and CI, that is simply a fact.

      You've further proven that you cannot discern fact from fiction. I'll leave you to the intellectual exploits of people like Dervish. Have fun with that.

      Delete
    8. Unable to refute anything I've stated in my posts with actual relevant facts you simply attempt to turn the tables and project your own deficiencies in recognizing objective facts.

      See ya around. Say hi to Will and Lisa for me.

      Delete
    9. Latte: Much of this data comes from sources such as the 2013 CDC study, conducted by Executive Order.

      The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand. According to the Washington Post, gun but like CI point out that the study is missing "the key finding the president was no doubt seeking — that more laws would result in less crime [however] that's because we don't know the answer -- one way or the other. [And] that, some would say, is exactly why the CDC needs to conduct research".

      BTW, the study also says "gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership".

      Delete
  3. It is not pretending, but I will accept you think it is.

    Is it possible it is you that is pretending? Never mind. I know the answer already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On this issue...I expected nothing different from you.

      Delete
    2. Nor I you.

      We shall simply agree to disagree.

      Delete
  4. Huh! An interesting case of making the perp into the victim.

    It reminds me of the universal male excuse. "It is not my fault. I was drunk!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well put Jerry. It is interesting the majority of the American people hold different views than the NRA and our gutless representatives yet the people are not being listened to. AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Politicians listen to money, not people. Things won't change unless one of two things happen.

    1. Public (taxpayer only) funding of elections at all levels -- local, state, and federal.

    2. The people take a heightened interest in elections and study issues and candidates, ignore the mass media advertisements, and VOTE.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I highly doubt #2 is likely I have no problems with # 1. It would be a huge positive if campaign periods were limited to three months by law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would love limited campaign periods. I would also limit campaign donations to the same period.

      Delete
    2. I am in agreement with both RN and Jerry. Time for RN to abandon Libertarianism?

      Delete
  8. I'm more of a objectivist than a libertarian or conservative. Truthfully I am a Classical Liberal with more than the narrow view. Put simply I am who I am and will remain so. Call it arrogance if you like Dervish.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.