Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And quite a few people on here (from comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    and diaries I've read) think that the gun vote had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying it's the only reason, just the most prevalent one.

    •  Well, they are wrong, too. You have to wonder (11+ / 0-)

      though, if gun safety polls strong in a district where the legislator who voted for gun safety is recalled - why was she recalled? Gun safety got the recall going but it wasn't the only reason for the senators being recalled and mail in voting could have trumped any issue as a reason for a senator being recalled.

      In previous elections, as much as 70 percent of Colorado voters cast ballots by mail. Under a new state law, the recall initially was to be entirely decided by mail. That plan changed after clerks in El Paso and Pueblo counties said they didn’t have enough time to send mail-in ballots to voters because of an Aug. 12 court ruling giving potential replacement candidates until Aug. 26 to submit signatures to appear on the ballot.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/...

      The recall could entirely be a fluke because of mail in voting.

      •  Giron lost by twelve points. Mail-in voting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        wouldn't have helped her.

        In any case when you are talking about two Senators being recalled in a state that had never had so much as a successful recall petition in its entire history, where both were in Democratic precincts, both of which voted for Obama (by 19 points in one case) & outspent their opponents 6-to-1 it is weak sauce to make excuses.
         

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:57:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not an excuse - it's a fact, Colorado has a huge (5+ / 0-)

          % who vote by mail.

          The so-called recalls were actually a good example of the pathetic shape of the pro-gun lobby:

          1. Signature gatherers were paid - where were the supposed legions of disgruntalled pro gun folks who were going to come out of the wood work to kick the gun grabbers out? They had to be PAID to do this?

          2. Dead people showed up as supporters of the recall on the sig lists, as did people out of district, ineligible, etc. In other words - the recallers STRUGGLED to get the support they needed.

          3. Mail in voting was pulled about a month before the election causing confusion, etc., and without a doubt cut into Dems vote totals. With mail in voting, John Morse is still state senate president and the recall would have favored Dems and the pro gun safety side - 4-to-1. Instead, the gun lobby could only recall 2 out of 19 who voted for gun safety and of the 4 cherry picked districts they wanted to recall the most - only two of those succeeded, and one of those by only 300 votes.

          4. The gun lobby poured much more money into this than can be publicly reported - you can be sure of that.

          Wow, Frank. That's some powerful gun lobby you got there.

          Can't wait for the real elections when people are actually paying attention and they can vote by mail.

          •  That's not 'fact', that's speculation & conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

            theory.
            Even Morse conceded the validity of the signatures & 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall.

            Giron got curb-stomped by 12 points. Not even in the rosiest case would mail-in votes make a difference.

            But I'm glad you've managed to concede that voters aren't inspired to come & vote for someone that promises to punish them for the crimes of murderers.
            Whodathunk?

            "gun lobby"
            You are correct. The gun lobby isn't powerful.
            But the voters are.

            You just keep those excuses warmed-up.
            You're going to need them.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:33:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Good read for you ... (23+ / 0-)
      Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse” is a fine study of why societies persist in obviously irrational, sometimes suicidal, behavior, even when the reality of just how suicidal it is stares them in the face. Why do they continue to deforest in the face of floods, refuse to eat fish even at the price of starvation? Most of the time, he points out, the simple sunk cost of the irrationality helps it persist: we have always believed this, and to un-believe it is to lose our faith in ourselves.

      Yet sometimes things change. Diamond cites the success story of the Tikopia chiefs who presided over the decision to eliminate pigs from their tiny island, despite an ancient chieftain’s attachment to the destructive animals, and to turn instead to eating shellfish. Passionately held irrational values, even when they are hugely destructive, deserve empathy from all of us, since we all have values that are just as irrational, and just as passionately held. But it’s our job as grownups, not to mention as citizens, to learn the price of our pet irrationality and, like the Tikopians, to undo the animal forces, on our island and in our head, before they finish undoing us.

      http://www.newyorker.com/...
      •  Ancient chieftan's argument: (8+ / 0-)
        The best way to stop a pig from destroying our island is more pigs.
        Now, that's not fair to the old codger, I know; Pacific Islanders aren't idiots.  What he probably said that is directly analogous to the NRA's stance is
        Pigs have been given to us by the ancestors as a way for our tribe to survive.  If we spurn their gift, or even tamper with it, we will fail as a culture.  
        That's the crux of their argument. Also, I'm guessing that, like the NRA, the old chief's family had a major pig concession.

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

        by nailbender on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:53:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What. The. Fuck? (0+ / 0-)

        "Gun Control otherwise our society will collapse because 'pig'........ or something."

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:01:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thought that might go over your head, Frank. (6+ / 0-)
          •  Something like that. (0+ / 0-)

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:16:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's all you got? Wow, Frank, has the gun debate (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Karl Rover, JVolvo

              gotten you down? Where's the typical broken record stuff you like to post?

              Those who deserve neither, sacrifice liberty and security.

              •  I was thinking about quoting a passage from (0+ / 0-)

                a book that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.......preferably something about pigs and the collapse of society, but I figured I'd let you handle such brilliant observations.

                Boy, don't I feel silly.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:40:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There you go, that's the spirit. The pigs and (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  collapse of society was an analogy for pro gun folk who can't see that guns kill people, regardless of the data, science, ie reasoning, that shows that to be true. So, in the analogy, the society that can't see that pigs are destroying its society, double down on pigs and breed and raise more and more and more - get it? I'll spell it out - pigs = guns and collapse of society = gun deaths.

                  Those who deserve neither, sacrifice peanut butter and chocolate.

                  •  I am surrounded by people that own guns. (0+ / 0-)

                    It really isn't scary.

                    ........but then again, I'm also surrounded by pigs.
                    Apparently, I'm totally fucked.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:48:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, that's true, but the point about the pigs (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo

                      is that in that particular society, pigs were undermining its very existence. Here in modern American, we also have a lot of pigs, but they aren't threatening out existence - unless of course you consider their contribution to climate change, though I think cattle probably produce more methane than pigs because we as a country eat more beef that swine.

                      Guns on the other hand ...

                      According to the Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics, there were 32,163 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2011 with an additional 73,883 non-fatal gun related injuries. That's just below the number of deaths in 2011 from breast cancer (39,9701), and significantly more than deaths from leukemia (21,7802). Would anyone argue that breast cancer and leukemia aren't public health issues? Of course not! So why are public policy makers denying that gun violence and gun deaths are?
                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                      And I don't think its so much about being scared as it is about being dead.

                      •  Yes, I've read it. (0+ / 0-)

                        "And I don't think its so much about being scared as it is about being dead."
                        I'm surrounded by people that own guns. Again, it really isn't that scary.

                        Over half those cited deaths are due to suicide.
                        If you think that owning a gun would lead to you, unwantingly, committing suicide, then don't own one.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:54:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  How about those who don't own one but still (0+ / 0-)

                          manage to use one to kill themselves?

                          Again, not about being scare - more about going to the movies, mall, classroom, restaurant, church, etc., minding your own business and the a bullet ends you life. Also about the costs associated with all the gun deaths and shootings.

                          Those who would sacrifice other's lives to compensate for their insecurities deserve to defeated.

                          •  You claim that you 'aren't scared' (0+ / 0-)

                            then you obsess over the highly unlikely chance of being shot & use that irrational fear to justify taking liberties away from innocent Americans.

                            That is every bit as unreasonable as insisting on warrantless wiretaps because of terrorists.

                            I am not scared. I will not infringe on the liberties of innocent people.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:10:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm tired of watching and don't want to live in (0+ / 0-)

                            a country that accepts slaughter, after slaughter, after slaughter after slaughter and doesn't take the very obvious steps that need to be taken to reduce the occurrence of those slaughters. When I walk outside the house each day I am not scared I'm going to get shot but I know for a fact that 80 people in the United States will be shot each and everyday and mass shootings are happening every week.

                            So then you're going to support the Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado state senate elections to remove the GOPers who are now in those seats who will try to pass legislation that will infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans? BTW, nice to see you're favorite line back in the shuffle - "I will not infringe on the liberties of innocent people." Love that one!

                            So, are you saying that your are so concerned that liberties will be taken away that you simply don't vote? I mean you must be incredibly conflicted on who to vote for and support - the GOPers how infringe on the right to reproductive freedom, the right to a living wage, the right to healthcare, the right to love and marry whomever your want and the Dems, who want you to go through a background check before you buy a gun.

                            You're a fraud Mr. Rose.

                          •  So you aren't scared AND you want to take (0+ / 0-)

                            liberties away from innocent people.
                            How authoritarian of you.

                            " I mean you must be incredibly conflicted on who to vote for and support"
                            Not at all. I will not support anyone that tries to take liberties away from innocent Americans. Non-negotiable.
                            Thus, if a Democrat in my district comes out strongly against AWB & magazine bans, then I will vote for him/her.
                            Otherwise, I will take the wife out for a lovely politics-free Tuesday evening.
                            I'm certain that the proceeding Wednesday I won't have to worry about this particular conundrum for at least another twenty years & I can get to work to fix the debacle your viewpoints caused.
                            You wanted it.
                            You got it.
                            You get to own it.
                            It's all yours.

                            "background check"
                            If the President hadn't have decided to propose his plan for a background check alongside a gun ban, I think that bill would have passed with a minimum of political fallout: However, it is understandably difficult to say that gun controllers don't want to ban guns when they push for a gun ban.

                            "You're a fraud"
                            I am a voter.
                            You may have forgotten that, but the party will not.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I will not support anyone that tries to take (0+ / 0-)

                            liberties away from innocent Americans."

                            Show me some politicians you support and I'll show you some politicians who take people's liberties away.

                            You live in a delusional world - you're overstating the gun issue.

                            Of course, anyone can see if they post back and forth with you long enough, you're so called position isn't really a position at all. It's more of a confused guttural scream, like a kid having a toy taken away.

                            Those who would sacrifice pizza for calzone deserve neither.

                          •  It isn't? (0+ / 0-)

                            Huh. I've said gun and magazine bans are wrong because it takes liberties away from innocent people om response to the crimes of murderers.
                            Same reason I don't support warrantless wiretaps.

                            I've said gun & magazine bans cost the Democratic party voters & hence-elections.

                            "overstating the gun issue"
                            Tell that to Morse & Giron.

                            "delusional world"
                            A delusional world is one where you take liberties away from innocent Americans because you fear being murdered?

                            "like a kid having a toy taken away"
                            A condescending comment from someone that finds a Jared Diamond book to be sophisticated?
                            Adorable.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:39:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dodge - who are some of the politicians you (0+ / 0-)

                            support?

                          •  Where is this libertarian utopia you speak (0+ / 0-)

                            of where politicians don't take liberties away from anyone.

                            Sounds wonderful.

            •  Hey claim CT again, declare "victory" and walk off (0+ / 0-)

              We'd appreciate it.

              As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

              by JVolvo on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:18:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I haven't walked off. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm more than happy to have the conversation.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:46:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Great, I'll jump in since you haven't answered (0+ / 0-)

                  my post, either - who are some of the politicians you support?

                  You haven't given an answer to that question after being asekd several times, and I can understand why - it will shatter your so-called position on "innocent Americans" and "their liberties being taken."

                  Or, it'll just pull back the curtain your your nonsense.

                  •  I voted and contributed to Obama. (0+ / 0-)

                    I've also voted for Kerry.
                    I've also voted for Nader.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:31:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What do you make of Reason Magazine's (0+ / 0-)

                      opinion that John Kerry's record on civil liberties sucks?

                      John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties
                      The Man from Beacon Hill's "New War" on the Constitution

                      http://reason.com/...

                      Kerry breaks your tagline's cardinal rule - sacrifice liberty! And you voted for this traitor?

                      Those who would sacrifice toasters for toaster ovens deserve neither.

                      •  You convinced me. (0+ / 0-)

                        I won't vote for him again.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:58:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So, how do you explain your contridiction? (0+ / 0-)

                          it's OK for you to decide which liberties are OK to sacrifice and those that are not?

                          Give me liberty ... I think ... or give me a bad hangover

                        •  Sorry to burst your bubble Frank - see how (0+ / 0-)

                          sticky an issue of "taking liberties" can be - you are guilty. Why don't you drop that crap and get real.

                          •  I am. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't support taking liberties away from innocent people.

                            You, of course, revel in it.

                            We shall see in whose direction the Party takes after 2014.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:38:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see - just ignore the facts and think no one (0+ / 0-)

                            is going to call you on it or remember.

                            You vote for politicians who take civil liberties away from "innocent Americans" - that's you're entire point and you contradict it.

                            You're a joke.

                            What you should be saying is "I won't support politicians who try to stop gun violence by requiring universal background checks and limit gun firing capacity so that madmen can't fire off 30 to 40 rounds at a time without having to reload, nor those politicans who act to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, nor those who require people to acquire a concealed carry license in person rather than the internet, but, BUT, I do support politicians who snoop on innocent American's private communications."

                            Those who would integrity liberty for a cheap tagline deserve neither.

                          •  "You vote for politicians" (0+ / 0-)

                            No I don't.
                            I'm proving it this year.

                            "What you should be saying is.....BUT, I do support politicians who snoop on innocent American's private communications."
                            No. I don't. But you should. Stay consistent in your distrust of your fellow citizens.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:51:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, Frank, Frank - caught in a lie and your (0+ / 0-)

                            defense is "I know you are but what am I?"

                            Pathetic, but not surprising.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

                    •  Obama's civil lib record sucks too - that's (0+ / 0-)

                      being hypocritical of you, isn't it?

                      Obama’s dismal civil liberties record
                      Despite vows to increase transparency, the president has made the government ever more authoritarian and intrusive
                      http://www.salon.com/...

                      Those who would sacrifice integrity for a cheap blog tagline deserve neither.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site