"LaPierre just said in a public forum what the majority
of the people have been saying privately for a very long time."
I really expected about the responses I got. No big deal.
The essence of my comment is really summed up by that
quote. If you really believe that a "majority of
the people" believe that Clinton accepts a certain
level of violence in order to facilitate his political
aims, I think it behooves you to explain how he
was elected. Twice. Is it perhaps the case that
a majority of your buddies believe that, but a majority
of the American people do not? One of the characteristics
(to my mind) of fringe groups is that they tend
to end up only speaking to people with whom they
agree, further partitioning themselves from mainstream
politics. It seems to me that Clinton's two presidential
victories require some explanation from those who
believe that they speak for the majority, but
keep
losing elections.
I know the general fringe reponse to this is "But
elections only represent the people that vote,
and all of the people who didn't vote agree with
me, and therefore I'm right!"
The reasonable response, "How do you know that all
of the people who didn't vote agree with you?"
The answer must be, "I just know."
Come on, if the majority of the people had agreed
with you, would Clinton have been elected even
once?
I don't really have any clue as to the size of
the NRA any more. Do more people belong to the NRA,
or vote for Clinton?
I repeat, "Grow up NRA. This is a democracy, not
kindergarten."
------------------
ahlan wa sahlan
PCV Yemen 1984-86
of the people have been saying privately for a very long time."
I really expected about the responses I got. No big deal.
The essence of my comment is really summed up by that
quote. If you really believe that a "majority of
the people" believe that Clinton accepts a certain
level of violence in order to facilitate his political
aims, I think it behooves you to explain how he
was elected. Twice. Is it perhaps the case that
a majority of your buddies believe that, but a majority
of the American people do not? One of the characteristics
(to my mind) of fringe groups is that they tend
to end up only speaking to people with whom they
agree, further partitioning themselves from mainstream
politics. It seems to me that Clinton's two presidential
victories require some explanation from those who
believe that they speak for the majority, but
keep
losing elections.
I know the general fringe reponse to this is "But
elections only represent the people that vote,
and all of the people who didn't vote agree with
me, and therefore I'm right!"
The reasonable response, "How do you know that all
of the people who didn't vote agree with you?"
The answer must be, "I just know."
Come on, if the majority of the people had agreed
with you, would Clinton have been elected even
once?
I don't really have any clue as to the size of
the NRA any more. Do more people belong to the NRA,
or vote for Clinton?
I repeat, "Grow up NRA. This is a democracy, not
kindergarten."
------------------
ahlan wa sahlan
PCV Yemen 1984-86