If the choice was between a pro-gun Democrat and an anti-gun Republican...

[wooderson]

Those who use the phrase "throwing your vote away" are the people responsible for our two-party system of "progressives" and "progressives".

Ironically, you can replace that with 'reactionaries" and "reactionaries" and get the view of a large chunk of dissatisfied liberals and lefties.

***

They're ideological Authoritarian Socialists.

In this phrase, too, you just replace Socialists with Fascists, turn 'they' into Republicans and you get a no less common statement.

Political discourse in this country is a joke.

 

[ArmedBear]

In this phrase, too, you just replace Socialists with Fascists, turn 'they' into Republicans and you get a no less common statement.

Political discourse in this country is a joke.

Not really. I know of no Republicans who are actually associated with a fascist organization. There are quite a few well-known Congressional "progressives" who were associated with the Democratic Socialists of America until the Progressive Caucus split off, apparently because the name sounded better.

You're trying to take discourse back to square 1, and avoid a real discussion.

Nancy Pelosi's set of beliefs are authoritarian and they're socialist. Those words have meanings, too.

If you want to provide evidence refuting my claim, go for it. There may be some. But if you want to argue over the meaning of words, or simply respond by throwing around words like "fascist" which have no real meaning in the post WW II world, then you've already shown that it's you who doesn't want discourse.

 

[MikePGS]

Heres a pretty good link to an essay on the subject of politics and gun control. This link is from Libertarian writer L Neil Smith http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

 

[wooderson]

I know of no Republicans who are actually associated with a fascist organization.

David Duke would be the first name that came to mind. But if I were prone to calling Republicans fascists, I'd rattle off dozens of front groups that don't bother to call themselves fascist ("because the name sounded better" in your parlance), throw in former Dixiecrats and their sympathizers, on and on.

There are quite a few well-known Congressional "progressives" who were associated with the Democratic Socialists of America until the Progressive Caucus split off, apparently because the name sounded better.

"Quite a few" is, I believe, about a dozen actual DSA members (which, coincidentally, doesn't espouse 'authoritarian beliefs') - not to be confused with the Progressive Caucus, which isn't associated with the DSA - grossly outnumbered by the Blue Dog Caucus and the DLC and about a hundred other issues groups, all of which are definitively capitalist in nature.

Nancy Pelosi's set of beliefs are authoritarian and they're socialist. Those words have meanings, too.

They do indeed and that's the problem. People wantonly using "fascist" and "socialist" don't seem to have a basic education as to their meaning and history, nor are they interested in one. They are happiest to reduce these words to epithets and nothing more - an epithet has no meaning.

An inability to differentiate between a liberal millionaire's agenda and 'socialism' illustrates a lack of knowledge about those words' meanings.

 

[orionengnr]

Sure, I'll vote for a pro-gun Democrat. That's the easy part.

Now, nominate one! That's the hard part...about as easy as finding a unicorn, I think

I actually voted Third Party in the Texas Governor's race this time around. Purely a protest vote. Did me absolutely no good, except I sleep better at night....

(Give me a few minutes to make some popcorn...this is going to be fun...)

 

[ArmedBear]

I think many people would argue that the violation of constitutional rights in the name of "national security" is something that would be done by a fascist.

Lincoln wasn't a fascist. The word hadn't been invented.

Socialism actually has a definition, current literature, etc.

My point? When I say someone is a Socialist, that means something. It means that they support Marxist economic policies, probably with some modifications, e.g. "Social Democrats" in Europe.

When I say someone is Authoritarian, that has a simple, dictionary meaning:

1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

Now if someone favors a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution, and strongly opposes judges with a philosophy that looks for the words and intent of those who wrote and amended it, that, to me, means that they oppose accountability of the government to the Constitution as amended. It's pretty clear. Most Democrats fit this description. RKBA is probably the best example, where the idea of the right being a "collective right" only for militias was made up by the "living document" crowd in the mid-20th century, and is being used right now by many "progressive" politicians in an attempt to circumvent a Constitution they find inconvenient.

As far as individual rights, apart from the right to privacy WRT abortion (I have no problem with that), yes, most Democrats do favor some individual rights. They don't, however, often favor applying the same principle of privacy to firearms, political speech, drugs, cash transactions, etc. And taxation is, by nature, a violation of individual rights. More taxation is a greater violation, less taxation is a lesser violation.

Like I said, the words have meaning that is different from tossing around "fascist" or "nazi."

I am not supporting the GOP here. That's not my point.

John McCain is an Authoritarian, too, BTW, though not a Socialist or a Social Conservative, either. Bush is a mixed bag, realistically. Demonized, yes, but no more deserving of it than a number of others. Guiliani appears to be a mixed bag, also, in a different way. Hillary Clinton is probably closer to "fascist" than Bush, actually, as she is a DLC corporate Democrat, with Authoritarian leanings. But that would be the real meaning of the word, and it's really a dead movement, politically. At least there are few conscious "fascists" in the world, whereas there were real Fascists in the 1930s and 40s.

 

[ArmedBear]

not to be confused with the Progressive Caucus, which isn't associated with the DSA

It was until 1999, with a lot of the same people in it. I can only surmise that political expediency caused the split. Maybe not, but don't try to tell me that you'd give the GOP the benefit of the doubt if it were some Religious Right group that split off in 1999. I wouldn't.

Also, in Congress, there are big names and also-rans, on both sides. The big names matter a lot more than the also-rans, usually.

It matters more who the Speaker is than some random other person. When the Democrats used Tom DeLay to tarnish the rest of the GOP, were they wrong, because he was just one guy? Are all Republicans in Congress after young male pages? Do all Democrats have cash in the freezer? I don't think so. Does it matter? That depends.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Name exactly one "pro-gun" Democrat who's actually capable of running for President with actual, real Dem party support.

C'mon.....do it.....just one really "pro-gun" Dem.

Just one.

And no, being "pro-hunter" is not the same as being "pro gun."

Howard Dean is gun friendly and can be argued to be pro-gun.

Harold Ford was very pro-gun I hear.
Jim Webb of Virginia is supposedly pro-gun.

 

[ArmedBear]

Howard Dean is gun friendly and can be argued to be pro-gun.

Dean, though, is a tad, well, inconsistent.

I'd trust his ideological integrity about as much as, well, Bush's.

 

[hoji]

Zell Miller anyone

 

[wooderson]

It means that they support Marxist economic policies, probably with some modifications, e.g. "Social Democrats" in Europe.

Which is a backhanded way of saying "they aren't socialist, but I'm calling them one because it makes a better pejorative."

(nb: socialism existed before Marx and continues to exist distinct from Marx, along with a wide variety of Marxist derivatives that have very little to do with Marx or his ideas; social democracy has had numerous translations in its history but for the last 50 years has been primarily capitalist in nature and moreso since SD parties don't have to be a left-alternative to Bolsheviks anymore.)

But since you've gone with Marx - where does a 'liberal' (Pelosi) begin to agitate for a classless society? Or for the means of production (capital) to reside within the dictatorship of the proletariat?

It was until 1999, with a lot of the same people in it. I can only surmise that political expediency caused the split

(point worth mentioning beforehand: the DSA is actually more of a social democratic organization these days - it belongs to the same International as our friend Tony Blair)

Um, the Democratic Socialists of America still exist. They're an issue group that rose out of the fall of the Socialist Party USA (which split into the DSA and the markedly more conservative Social Democrats USA around 1968. The SDUSA is largely defunct, but was something of a breeding ground for neo-cons in its way) - they were never a 'congressional caucus' nor did they have a laundry list of Congressional Members. The only one I can remember off the top of my head is Bernie Sanders (who isn't a Democrat in the first place, and not much of a socialist in the second).



I haven't taken issue with your 'authoritarian' claims because they're simply a matter of opinion. By any reasonable definition, every major political figure advances some 'authoritarian' issues. But socialism has a meaning, and liberal ain't it.

 

[ArmedBear]

Which is a backhanded way of saying "they aren't socialist, but I'm calling them one because it makes a better pejorative."

Pejorative? Dude, give it up! My uncle was in the Austrian Parliament. His party? The Social Democrats. It's no more a pejorative than "Democrat" or "Republican." It's a descriptive term for a set of political policy platforms. In Europe, of course, there are many smaller parties, so their names are a lot more descriptive than "Democrat" or "Republican", which are just brand names.

But since you've gone with Marx - where does a 'liberal' (Pelosi) begin to agitate for a classless society? Or for the means of production (capital) to reside within the dictatorship of the proletariat?

By favoring the redistribution of wealth through a stated platform of growing taxes and growing government entitlement programs, including socialized medicine. A general policy of coerced transfer of wealth from owners to employees through laws governing wages, etc., are philosophically from the same roots, even if Marx's pat scenario has been shown to be a myth.

And she's not agitating. She's in Congress. She doesn't have to "agitate."

Furthermore, and I'm sure you know this, Marxism has a meaning that goes beyond Das Kapital, which is pretty old now. Generations of Marxist social scientists, for example, have expanded the meaning far beyond Marx and Engels. Few modern Sociology professors, for example, would "agitate for capital to reside within the dictatorship of the proletariat."

 

[ArmedBear]

But socialism has a meaning, and liberal ain't it.

"Liberal" has no meaning, and I would avoid using it. "Progressive" is an old term, recycled, and I avoid that, too, except in quotes, because it doesn't describe a set of policies well, either. Both are used to describe politicians who might favor, say, gay marriage on one hand, gun bans on another, and restrictions on Wal-Mart on yet another. It's hard to find a real ideology there, apart from trendy emotional crap (same with the anti-flag-burning idiots, campaign finance reform advocates, both sides of the pro-choice/pro-life debates...)

If you read The Economist and apply the American pop-definition of "liberal" to the articles, they won't even make sense.

 

[michiganfan]

I do recall Bill Clinton admitting that the reason the Dems got clobbered in mid term elections was the gun legislation he got passed. At least maybe they learned some lesson from that.

 

[shaggycat]

I can't say without knowing where all the candidates stand on all the issues.

While an individual's stance on gun control is extremely important to me, it is not the only thing I consider when voting.

 

[wooderson]

Pejorative?

Yes. Your use of socialism is primarily pejorative - Nancy Pelosi (or insert liberal here) is a commie, and you'll warp her policy views and the meaning of socialism to make the pieces fit together, because it's easier to view her as an enemy under that portrait.

Just like Dubya becomes a fascist to your nearest dirty hippie.

By favoring the redistribution of wealth through a stated platform of growing taxes and growing government entitlement programs, including socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine has nothing to do with wealth redistribution or socialism. A capitalist economy relies on the most efficient use of capital, does it not? That's why large American corporations will eventually demand (and have begun to demand) national, single-payer healthcare, because it costs them a great deal to provide it for their workers, making them uncompetitive with firms in nations where healthcare isn't a commodity.

A general policy of coerced transfer of wealth from owners to employees through laws governing wages, etc., are philosophically from the same roots, even if Marx's pat scenario has been shown to be a myth.

That's nonsense. The minimum wage isn't a Marxist tool. Nor is it redistributive. Nor will, as I'm sure you'd claim,

A Marxist reading of the New Deal, minimum wage and various elements of welfare capitalism is short and sweet: tools of the reigning economic aristocracy to maintain an iron grip on economic and political power by helping meet the basic needs of the proletariat without giving up a significant chunk of their wealth. (shorter version: bread and circuses, but with more bread than circuses) The New Deal saved capitalism after the Depression by providing angry, hungry people with jobs and food - crippling any potential 'socialist' movement in the United States (look up the SPUSA and 'Progressive' vote totals of the teens and twenties and compare them to FDR's elections and the years afterward).

If you want to criticize welfare capitalism, feel free - but recognize what it is.

A progressive income tax doesn't redistribute wealth - it distributes (note the lack of 're') the tax burden. The tax burden goes first and foremost to the military and second to private contractors supplying the federal government with goods and services. Which of these is a socialist enterprise?

The only redistributive element of our system is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays out a small amount of money to those at or below the poverty line with other qualifiers.

But as you've linked socialism to Marxism - there isn't really a distributive element to Marxism in the way you're thinking. The proletariat seizes capital en masse and then runs it en masse in a Marxist revolution - they don't tax someone at a higher percentage. That's a function of welfare capitalism.

Few modern Sociology professors, for example, would "agitate for capital to reside within the dictatorship of the proletariat."

Because few "Sociology professors" are a)communists or b) political theorists. I'm not even sure why you referred to Sociology professors there - aside from confusion about Marxist as a political term and Marxism in the social sciences - since the appropriate fields would be political theory and economics.

(nb: 'means of production' line comes from the Manifesto, not Das Kapital - the former is proscriptive, the latter descriptive)

Marx had a great and lasting impact on every social science, but it's rather separate from his utopian political ideals.

"Liberal" has no meaning, and I would avoid using it.

Of course liberal has a meaning, just as conservative does - they're broad, descriptive terms with general connotations. That it's not the meaning you like doesn't equate to the meaning not existing.

If you read The Economist and apply the American pop-definition of "liberal" to the articles, they won't even make sense.

Of course they won't - political definitions are highly variable within each culture and even in subcultures.

'Libertarian' in the rest of the world refers to anarchists (socialists) - as it did here until those influenced by Rand co-opted the term. Does that make our "pop-definition" of libertarian unusable or meaningless? Of course not.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Voting for President is a lot different than voting for State offices.

However, I'd vote for the more pro-RKBA candidate in either instance. There is SLIGHTLY more room for 3rd parties in non-national elections.

Create a Libertarian City and a Libertarian State...AND THEN a Libertarian Federal Branch. Not the other way around.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

A progressive income tax doesn't redistribute wealth - it distributes (note the lack of 're') the tax burden. The tax burden goes first and foremost to the military and second to private contractors supplying the federal government with goods and services.

I would like to see your data behind this claim.

 

[SomeKid]

Harold Ford was very pro-gun I hear.

Posted by Novus in post 33.


Novus, you heard wrong.

 

[Manedwolf]

I know of no Republicans who are actually associated with a fascist organization.

PNAC.

 

[SAG0282]

Tough quandary for sure, with each choice having drawbacks, but I'd vote for the pro-gun Dem.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I see the anti-gun Republican has crept up above 4 percent. Anyone know any key players in the Republican Party? Let's send him or her a link to this poll.

A agree that a pro-gun Democrat winning the nomination is about as long a shot as a viable third-party candidate. Let's hope our choices aren't between an anti-gun Republican or an anti-gun Democrat, which seems to be the most likely scenario.

 

[Dan from MI]

I'm a capital R Republican. I'll still never vote for a gun grabber, even in my own party. That said, what happens depends on the candidate. In the case of federal level Democrats, I don't trust 99% of them with their doubletalk (Feingold, Evan Bayh) and current leadership (Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Leahy).

Now if it's Richardson vs McCain/Rudy/Pataki, I'll probably protest vote for the LP'er. That's not due to Richardson's gun stance, but on his other issues.

About the only Democrats I could see myself voting for at this time are Phil Bresden of Tennessee or Zell Miller.

 

[Dan from MI]

Adding more.

Realisticly, the problem is that more pro-2a activists don't work smart on elections. They wait sometimes till the primary, but mostly to the general and then hope someone good has the nominee and backs them (and even then usually only in presidential and sometimes gubenatorial elections). They often rely on what NRA (sometimes good, sometimes horrible) says.

Outside of 2a organzations, how can we make a difference to do our best to make sure the choices are not McCain vs Hillary?

1. Become active in our local parties. I'm a three term elected precinct delegate. In my state, precinct delegates elect a county executive committee. They also elect delegates to state convention who elects party leadership. The Attorney General and Secretary of State nominees are chosen at these conventions as well.

2. Those who stay active early have a heads up on possible 08 nominees for state rep/state senate - even in open seats. If it is a pro/anti race, starting now may "win" the primary by causing the other person to drop out before anything gets started.

3. With strong pro-2a organizations and leadership in multiple states, people like McCain shouldn't be able to get off the ground. Liddy Dole got booed out of New Hampshire in 2000. She came back as a senator (And shockingly voted right since then on 2a issues), but did not become president.

4. Blogs, letters to the editor, grass roots campaigns. All this stuff can raise awareness. A local anti-tax organization defeated a millage proposal 2-1 despite being outspent 4-1. $1700 won in a county of 175,000 people. It used fliers, volunteers, and one mailing. This can be done easier on the 2a level since there's a stronger base there than on school tax issues.

2008 started last year. It's time for us to stop the McCain and Rudy "Death Stars".

 

[Deanimator]

"Liberal" has no meaning, and I would avoid using it. "Progressive" is an old term, recycled, and I avoid that, too, except in quotes, because it doesn't describe a set of policies well, either. Both are used to describe politicians who might favor, say, gay marriage on one hand, gun bans on another, and restrictions on Wal-Mart on yet another. It's hard to find a real ideology there, apart from trendy emotional crap (same with the anti-flag-burning idiots, campaign finance reform advocates, both sides of the pro-choice/pro-life debates...)

A liberal is somebody who believes that a woman has a right to choose whether to have an abortion.

A progressive is somebody who believes that you shouldn't overlook all of the "good" that Stalin did.

I'm a liberal.