Gun play?

[Netzach]

'Panzer re-enactment' is a new one on me too.

There are a group of people who do fetishize the Nazi chic for the simple sex appeal of fascism, sharp uniforms, and sleek, rakish equipment. But I can definitely agree that one shouldn't take the chance and be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

You could argue the entire classic Leather presentation is fascist, and I heart it.

 

[JMohegan]

I've lived in a smallish city in Alabama for the last seven years and in rural bumfucked nowhere Alabama for eighteen years before that. Maybe there are some whackjobs like people always like to talk about in the "rural red states," but I've never met them.

And Jews? Hell, most of us from where I'm from have never even MET a Jew. I didn't meet any Jewish people until I came to college. And they didn't seem that much different than me, really.

Maybe I'm just cranky, but I sort of resent the stereotypical characterization of us rednecky-type people, particularly by people who've never lived in this sort of environment. We're not as backwards as people seem to think, not these blue-collar, racist hillbillies who "cling to our guns and religion" because we're too stupid to know any better.

Yeah, I got out of my hometown and got an education, but I'd still love to live somewhere in the country. I mean, I could take people on a tour of Rednecksville, USA, and I guess they could draw their own conclusions, but I don't think "land of ignorant hicks" is really an accurate representation of my roots and my people.

Here's the original Obama quote, in full:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The observation he seems to be making is that people in small Rustbelt towns tend to turn to guns and religion and xenophobic wariness, as a means of retaining some sense of power or control when they feel powerless or threatened.

Politically, it was a stupid thing to say. But in terms of content, I don't think he's wrong.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm talking about places that people in Austin were like "you don't wanna go there." I'm also talking about my current state. Redneckery isn't a Southern thing.

Forget it. Going into gun shops and being treated to "panzer division re-enactment" posters. I'm just paranoid and ignorant.

Where do the birthers, and deathers, and people stockpiling weapons because omg tyranny's at hand, and people filling the ranks of the resurging militias, purchase their guns?

It's not just the south, but these particular flavors of paranoia and militancy do seem to be concentrated in rural areas.

 

[Netzach]

Where do the birthers, and deathers, and people stockpiling weapons because omg tyranny's at hand, and people filling the ranks of the resurging militias, purchase their guns?

It's not just the south, but these particular flavors of paranoia and militancy do seem to be concentrated in rural areas.

In this case, that assumption would have been incorrect. Remember, only 20 percent of us are rural at present time.

Which means a lot of people who *were* are no longer.

 

[ZRT]

Here's the original Obama quote, in full:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The observation he seems to be making is that people in small Rustbelt towns tend to turn to guns and religion and xenophobic wariness, as a means of retaining some sense of power or control when they feel powerless or threatened.

Politically, it was a stupid thing to say. But in terms of content, I don't think he's wrong.

Oh yeah, because Democratic administrations haven't given people reason to be concerned about gun control. Those silly hicks, it's all in their heads!

By all means, carry on with your holier-than-thou City Liberal schtick. We do so appreciate how y'all take up the white man's burden for us.

 

[WriterDom]

Here's the original Obama quote, in full:

The observation he seems to be making is that people in small Rustbelt towns tend to turn to guns and religion and xenophobic wariness, as a means of retaining some sense of power or control when they feel powerless or threatened.

Politically, it was a stupid thing to say. But in terms of content, I don't think he's wrong.

It's pretty fucking moronic if you ask me. No one "turned" to anything. There have always been guns primarily as a way to put food on the table in previous generations and there has always been a plethora of churches.

Obama is an elitist fuck who probably has never been in a Walmart.

 

[Netzach]

It's pretty fucking moronic if you ask me. No one "turned" to anything. There have always been guns primarily as a way to put food on the table in previous generations and there has always been a plethora of churches.

Obama is an elitist fuck who probably has never been in a Walmart.

Yeah. Raised by his mother and on scholarship to every school he ever went to. You really want to re-think that?

Douchebag elitists go to school on LEGACY. Try again.

 

[Netzach]

Oh yeah, because Democratic administrations haven't given people reason to be concerned about gun control. Those silly hicks, it's all in their heads!

By all means, carry on with your holier-than-thou City Liberal schtick. We do so appreciate how y'all take up the white man's burden for us.

Please tell me who, in the Democratic mainstream of the last 30 years has been coming for the deer rifles in butt pimple creek PA.

Additionally, if you're worried about the welfare of women, it's not the single unpartnered ones you have to worry about most. Our life expectancies are better that way. I'm most likely to be killed by my partner, and by a gun if he has one. If he's got a big thick mental health file, and it's maybe a little more work for him to get his deer rifle, I think my life expectancy may increase.

The discussions about control, when you're talking about street crime, seem onerous. But the idea that anyone who wants to put the option of controls on the table is just a control freak, well again it all depends where you stand.

WD has repeatedly said that most gun deaths in his area are domestics. I guess if you're not a woman it's a small price to pay for being a gun centric culture. Crimes of passion have always existed, but the more effort it takes to eliminate someone the more likely it is for them to escape or for the situation to go another way. Having a tool that snuffs me out in a fraction of a second lying around is a risk.

 

[WriterDom]

Yeah. Raised by his mother and on scholarship to every school he ever went to. You really want to re-think that?

Douchebag elitists go to school on LEGACY. Try again.

He was pawned off on the bank VP grandmother. Yes, that's Vice President, not drive through teller.

Didn't set foot in a public school from the 5th grade on. How did he get into Harvard? Why won't he release his college grades? Gore and Bush did.

 

[Netzach]

He was pawned off on the bank VP grandmother. Yes, that's Vice President, not drive through teller.

As opposed to the just the Vice President and President.

I guess it chaps your ass that people from less than optimal origins go to private school sometimes. I never set foot in one once, I'm even MORE elitist than Obama.

 

[ZRT]

Please tell me who, in the Democratic mainstream of the last 30 years has been coming for the deer rifles in butt pimple creek PA.

I'd love to give a coherent reply to this, but man, folks from places like Butt Pimple Creek just can't be expected to handle lots of syllables and stuff.

Wow, I can't see why people from such areas would be defensive, when they get so much respect from upstanding and compassionate urban elites.

PS- Among other things, the 'armor-piercing ammo' hoax perpetrated by the antigun crowd would've banned a shit-ton of standard rifle ammo. That does kind of impact the benighted heathens of Butt Pimple Creek. That, by the way, was Charles Schumer, Howard Metzenbaum, and Teddy Kennedy. The Clintons were strong antigunners, but I guess they don't count for mainstream. Dianne Feinstein? Nancy Pelosi?

So does that mean the very leadership of the Democratic party is radical fringe?

Additionally, if you're worried about the welfare of women, it's not the single unpartnered ones you have to worry about most. Our life expectancies are better that way. I'm most likely to be killed by my partner, and by a gun if he has one. If he's got a big thick mental health file, and it's maybe a little more work for him to get his deer rifle, I think my life expectancy may increase.

I'd be interested in a citation on the 'weapon of choice' in domestic violence situations. The last statistics I'd heard years ago was that strangulation and stabbing beat guns out in that category.

As for protecting yourself from domestic violence, your best bet in dealing with a larger, stronger angry male is to shoot the fucker. Hence why I advocate armed women.

As for a 'little more work', how would you define that?

The discussions about control, when you're talking about street crime, seem onerous. But the idea that anyone who wants to put the option of controls on the table is just a control freak, well again it all depends where you stand.

Yeah, that's just how I roll. I club anybody who proposes anything into the ground. Whatthefuckever. I ripped Sayyid's heart out yesterday and let the blood drip into his eyes while I was at it.

Here's what I object to: the notion that 'SOMETHING MUST BE DONE' without any coherent presentation on what should be done, done in order to stampede stupid legislation through the door. That and the fact that every issue the antigun crowd has adopted in the past thirty years has been based on lies and misrepresentations. I provided a list in the thread Mohegan cited of major issues that the Brady crowd presented, and the falsehoods in each. Nobody rebutted a single point on that list, or pointed out where there really was a valid concern behind the hysteria and fearmongering.

Fuck, there are people who think instant check or actually having to have a carry permit are bad things. I believe in both. But that doesn't count for shit, because I'm not bewailing the blood in the streets and inviting condescending assholes to disarm the public.

WD has repeatedly said that most gun deaths in his area are domestics. I guess if you're not a woman it's a small price to pay for being a gun centric culture. Crimes of passion have always existed, but the more effort it takes to eliminate someone the more likely it is for them to escape or for the situation to go another way. Having a tool that snuffs me out in a fraction of a second lying around is a risk.

Sure. We'll get rid of the guns. Then you won't have a damn thing to do about it when a large male just throttles the life out of you, or stabs you, or whatever.

Men, biologically, are stronger than women on average. Remove any force multipliers from the situation, and they'll be free to victimize women all they want.

 

[Netzach]

I'd love to give a coherent reply to this, but man, folks from places like Butt Pimple Creek just can't be expected to handle lots of syllables and stuff.

Wow, I can't see why people from such areas would be defensive, when they get so much respect from upstanding and compassionate urban elites.

PS- Among other things, the 'armor-piercing ammo' hoax perpetrated by the antigun crowd would've banned a shit-ton of standard rifle ammo. That does kind of impact the benighted heathens of Butt Pimple Creek. That, by the way, was Charles Schumer, Howard Metzenbaum, and Teddy Kennedy. The Clintons were strong antigunners, but I guess they don't count for mainstream. Dianne Feinstein? Nancy Pelosi?

So does that mean the very leadership of the Democratic party is radical fringe?

Sorry, I was too busy going over my house with white gloves and castigating the help.

There's plenty of badly-written overly applicable legislation on everything known to man. It lends itself to hysteria on the part of people so inclined and rational petitioning on the part of those so inclined. Bullets are in good company with a whole shit-load of regulated 3-d and 2-d objects.

However the reactions that come in on this issue are interesting. You didn't find porn producers chanting death to the government and crying out to the heavens over 2257, and I consider my livelihood pretty freaking important, more so than possible home invasion on a 10,0000 to 1 or whatever basis. Oh, wait, only Democrats come up with nanny-state livelihood and lifestyle killing legislation. I realize that a 25 year old camgirl doesn't make people want to put their hand over their hearts like dead animals do, but - government comes up with some bad ideas. No shit.

It doesn't trigger a gird your loins for Armageddon response among most 25 year old camgirls.

There are also plenty of people on my side of issues like CPSIA and lead in jewelry laws who I would absolutely describe as paranoid delusional whacked out and insane. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that lead is bad, rather than think "you know this isn't the best way to regulate it."

The shoe is fitting plenty of the time for a lot of people. You can reduce that observation to stereotyping all you want if it makes you feel good, but as people prefer to leave the mooring of reality behind, I don't understand why policy needs to be whatever they want, and why they need to be handled with precious kid-glove cuddles and lollipops.

I'd be interested in a citation on the 'weapon of choice' in domestic violence situations. The last statistics I'd heard years ago was that strangulation and stabbing beat guns out in that category.


As for protecting yourself from domestic violence, your best bet in dealing with a larger, stronger angry male is to shoot the fucker. Hence why I advocate armed women.

Is she supposed to keep it up her cooch where he doesn't know about it? I'm talking about her husband, current partner, whatever. The fact is, when a gun resides in the house, there is a significant statistical jump in likelihood that that woman may die from being shot with it by her own partner. As it's more likely that that's who's going to kill her.

He - or she, hell, it happens - is not going to opt for bathtub drowning if there's a gun in the nightstand most times, I don't think.

This still hasn't addressed how stricter policy in obtaining guns, rather than regional bans, might cut down on the numbers of times someone depressed takes his family out before himself with a gun. Do you think there's no hope of an inverse relationship between those things? The frequency with which this kind of thing happens is high enough that I don't think most people don't know someone where this happened or know someone who knows someone. It's like a two-degrees-of-separation thing. If the ability to carry was going to save all those women and their kids, it would have.

As for a 'little more work', how would you define that?

Like if I have a mental health file that shows I've been in treatment for depression on an ongoing and chronic basis with suicidal ideation, I'll have to rely on pepper spray. Just like if I have grand-mal seizures every few months, I can't drive a car. No one's crying over the injustice of that. Not every single person who wants to drive a car, a basic general right for anyone who can pass the road test, is allowed to do so equally. Your night vision's not up to snuff grandpa, sorry. It's a deadly piece of equipment.

Constitutionality doesn't mean that every single instance that could possibly arise is covered. It is not constitutional for human sacrifice under freedom of religious assembly.

Yeah, that's just how I roll. I club anybody who proposes anything into the ground. Whatthefuckever. I ripped Sayyid's heart out yesterday and let the blood drip into his eyes while I was at it.

Here's what I object to: the notion that 'SOMETHING MUST BE DONE' without any coherent presentation on what should be done, done in order to stampede stupid legislation through the door. That and the fact that every issue the antigun crowd has adopted in the past thirty years has been based on lies and misrepresentations. I provided a list in the thread Mohegan cited of major issues that the Brady crowd presented, and the falsehoods in each. Nobody rebutted a single point on that list, or pointed out where there really was a valid concern behind the hysteria and fearmongering.

Fuck, there are people who think instant check or actually having to have a carry permit are bad things. I believe in both. But that doesn't count for shit, because I'm not bewailing the blood in the streets and inviting condescending assholes to disarm the public.

Sure. We'll get rid of the guns. Then you won't have a damn thing to do about it when a large male just throttles the life out of you, or stabs you, or whatever.

Men, biologically, are stronger than women on average. Remove any force multipliers from the situation, and they'll be free to victimize women all they want.

Let's just make it less work for him and make sure he's got a gun.

 

[Sayyid]

You could argue the entire classic Leather presentation is fascist, and I heart it.

I don't know about that. When have Nazis been knowing for wearing leather, as opposed to brown uniforms and jackboots? I thought the leather community derived from the motorcycle subculture.

 

[Netzach]

I don't know about that. When have Nazis been knowing for wearing leather, as opposed to brown uniforms and jackboots? I thought the leather community derived from the motorcycle subculture.

Look at the militaristic cuts of the cover, vest, boots, etc.

Fascist. Not Nazi per se. Oooh, authority, drool and slurp.

 

[Etoile]

The Men of Discipline logo has always struck me as quite militaristic.

 

[ZRT]

Sorry, I was too busy going over my house with white gloves and castigating the help.

There's plenty of badly-written overly applicable legislation on everything known to man. It lends itself to hysteria on the part of people so inclined and rational petitioning on the part of those so inclined. Bullets are in good company with a whole shit-load of regulated 3-d and 2-d objects.

However the reactions that come in on this issue are interesting. You didn't find porn producers chanting death to the government and crying out to the heavens over 2257, and I consider my livelihood pretty freaking important, more so than possible home invasion on a 10,0000 to 1 or whatever basis.

There are also plenty of people on my side of issues like CPSIA and lead in jewelry laws who I would absolutely describe as paranoid delusional whacked out and insane. The shoe is fitting plenty of the time for a lot of people. You can reduce that observation to stereotyping all you want if it makes you feel good, but as people prefer to leave the mooring of reality behind, I don't understand why policy needs to be whatever they want.

It's nice that you live where that's not a greater than 10,000 to 1 danger.

The rural bumpkins get antsy when people use fallacious arguments to attack constitutional rights. How utterly unreasonable for them to take issue with something that is important to them and not focus on the porn production that they don't engage in.

That cuts both ways, basically.

As an aside, I do find that liberals tend to have this Madonna/Whore complex about the commoners. It's all about 'fighting for the little guy' until the little guy doesn't go along, then it's all 'Fuck Middle America'.

Is she supposed to keep it up her cooch where he doesn't know about it? I'm talking about her husband, current partner, whatever. The fact is, when a gun resides in the house, there is a significant statistical jump in likelihood that that woman may die from being shot with it by her own partner. As it's more likely that that's who's going to kill her.

He - or she, hell, it happens - is not going to opt for bathtub drowning if there's a gun in the nightstand most times, I don't think.

And if she has access to the weapon, she can shoot him, too. It's a bit fairer fight than if you take the gun entirely out of the equation, because then she doesn't have a damn thing other than being able to run fast.

This still hasn't addressed how stricter policy in obtaining guns, rather than regional bans, might cut down on the numbers of times someone depressed takes his family out before himself with a gun. Do you think there's no hope of an inverse relationship between those things?

Is the whole murder/suicide rampage thing anything more than a statistical blip, compared to regular crime? That's another fallacy of the antigun movement- grabbing on to the rare and sensational and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of guns in the country are used in safe and legal fashion.

But by all means, legislate to the outliers. No sparrow shall fall. While we're at it, let's eliminate sexually oriented forums on the basis of the fact that pedophiles and sex offenders can use them to find their victims.

Like if I have a mental health file that shows I've been in treatment for depression on an ongoing and chronic basis with suicidal ideation, I'll have to rely on pepper spray. Just like if I have grand-mal seizures every few months, I can't drive a car. No one's crying over the injustice of that.

The reason that pro-gunners are wary of this is because it threatens to create another unaccountable government bureaucracy which can regulate a constitutional right. Today, depressives, tomorrow... what? Any sort of regulated mental health treatment?

How much do you trust the government? Personally, I trust it to be inefficient, petty, and a necessary evil at best. Bureaucrats scare me more than the depressed guy down the street.

Let's just make it less work for him and make sure he's got a gun.

Nah, cool, let's take the guns out of the equation. Prior to guns, a woman's only defensive against hostile males was other males of hopefully better intent. Let's get back to that by all means.

 

[Netzach]

It's nice that you live where that's not a greater than 10,000 to 1 danger.

The rural bumpkins get antsy when people use fallacious arguments to attack constitutional rights. How utterly unreasonable for them to take issue with something that is important to them and not focus on the porn production that they don't engage in.

That cuts both ways, basically.

As an aside, I do find that liberals tend to have this Madonna/Whore complex about the commoners. It's all about 'fighting for the little guy' until the little guy doesn't go along, then it's all 'Fuck Middle America'.

Currently it is. It's nice. Re: considerably more risk to my person on a daily basis, been there, done that. Till I got chronically ill dxd'd, right up to about that.

Because of this, I don't have any more of a problem than you do with the second, concealed carry, etc as a practical antidote to the fact that there are plenty of places the police don't even bother to come mop you up.

However I also don't see it as a panacea, I don't think it has so many untrammeled upsides that there aren't legitimate and critical problems that you're trading in for. I see it as a lateral move, and in regard to DV scenarios, significantly more problematic.

Guys tend to frame things in terms of street crime. I can't blame you. You are much more likely to die a violent death as the hands of someone you do not know, more likely to get into violent confrontation where a gun in the mix will help you.

It's much more ambiguous with the way DV actually plays out. Believe me, if some fucker comes picking the lock, I want a gun.

Rational statistic analysis says that it's going to be someone I know, trust, probably drinking, and probably non-premeditated who's got my name on him. (Or her, it happens) The gun in question could be my gun or "the gun."

If you've ever spent a long difficult night talking to a suicidally ideating person who opts not to off themselves by sunrise, if they're maybe ideating, maybe serious, you sure the fuck can't tell --- don't you think that the whole thing could take a radical and sudden turn in the presence of a firearm? It's a very volatile situation. It's a very common situation.

Personally, I think the answer to this is in increased access to mental health treatment, mental health parity, cultural sea change in perceptions of depression and illness. Prevention. All that socialist horseshit.

But a lot of people seem very eager to dismiss the "couple of domestics" that might be more likely to happen as a minor cost in the upside of total liberty and on-demand firearms. I think it's a price we could stand to lower.

Is the whole murder/suicide rampage thing anything more than a statistical blip, compared to regular crime? That's another fallacy of the antigun movement- grabbing on to the rare and sensational and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of guns in the country are used in safe and legal fashion.

I'm not talking about school shooters and watchtower snipers and really good theatrical bloody mass killings that people like to manipulate in various directions to argue pro and con. I'm talking about the kinds of things you see in little tiny national news bylines where someone "shot his wife and turned the gun on himself" and I will bet you I can literally find one of these *every week.*

There's a gun in the equation. How many times do you read "his wife returned fire and is recuperating from her lacerations in the hospital, the children are unharmed."

There's a gun in that equation.

Better in some instances, lateral in others, worse in others.

But by all means, legislate to the outliers. No sparrow shall fall. While we're at it, let's eliminate sexually oriented forums on the basis of the fact that pedophiles and sex offenders can use them to find their victims.



The reason that pro-gunners are wary of this is because it threatens to create another unaccountable government bureaucracy which can regulate a constitutional right. Today, depressives, tomorrow... what? Any sort of regulated mental health treatment?

How much do you trust the government? Personally, I trust it to be inefficient, petty, and a necessary evil at best. Bureaucrats scare me more than the depressed guy down the street.

There are significant enough parts of the populace that would like to see me converted, dead, silenced or shipped off. Pick any of a multitude of reasons, and I'm not even that oppressed a demographic. I'm not first in that line, it's not a persecution complex, but skepticism.

The law is what prevents that from happening. The people who uphold that, on the populace side and on the governmental side are flawed and dependent on one another to function justly in a delicate house of cards manner. Populace is watchdog of government, government is watchdog of populace.

It may be my ethnic heritage that I'm never willing to bank unshakable faith in that house of cards holding up in any country or political system.

In short, it's much more necessary than evil. It's done pretty good by me on paper, but only when it's been flexible and when it's been willing to remind the vox pop that we're not mob rule.

Nah, cool, let's take the guns out of the equation. Prior to guns, a woman's only defensive against hostile males was other males of hopefully better intent. Let's get back to that by all means.

I never said anything about taking them out of the equation. Let's just make sure there's one in every house because in fantasy world she always gets to it first when things go south. Let's not look at the reality of what usually happens when there *is* a gun in the equation as it stands now.

 

[Sayyid]

Look at the militaristic cuts of the cover, vest, boots, etc.

Fascist. Not Nazi per se. Oooh, authority, drool and slurp.

Okay then, we can generalize it yet more to authoritarian, I guess.

 

[Netzach]

As an aside, I do find that liberals tend to have this Madonna/Whore complex about the commoners. It's all about 'fighting for the little guy' until the little guy doesn't go along, then it's all 'Fuck Middle America'.

Because no liberals are commoners.

Or poor.

And only Middle America contains "the little guy."

Certainly not the Bronx.

I have a very clear concept of "the little guy" and if Middle America wants to fuck him/her then fuck them is right.

 

[Sayyid]

Their problem is with the reactionary attitudes of such people, not their economic status methinks.

 

[Netzach]

Their problem is with the reactionary attitudes of such people, not their economic status methinks.

Or even region, much as I'm being painted as the foaming regionalist.

I see it as "helmets."

There are people for whom we have drafted, in many states, a law that says you will be fined if you do not wear a helmet on your motorcycle. MN has no such law.

My point is that there are people who actually make this necessary. Goddamn it, government isn't going to regulate this really commonsensical keeps my head from splatting maybe maybe thing.

There are people who are the reason we have that law. Again, they go to Harvard and have help, they're as likely to as not.

It knows no class, region, race or gender.

And I'm being told I'm a raging asshole if I'm not entirely comfortable with the helmet-law-necessitating population being left to regulate itself in blissful liberty, when it comes to the fact that every week someone offs wife, (kids), and self in that order with a legally obtained firearm in a situation that might have looked better in the morning with a less expedient way to kill everyone in that chain.

 

[WriterDom]

As opposed to the just the Vice President and President.

I guess it chaps your ass that people from less than optimal origins go to private school sometimes. I never set foot in one once, I'm even MORE elitist than Obama.

No, it's just this notion that Obama was brought up poor. He wasn't and as far as I know he never had a part time job to pay for his pot habit or his cigarettes.

 

[BiBunny]

Here's the original Obama quote, in full:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The observation he seems to be making is that people in small Rustbelt towns tend to turn to guns and religion and xenophobic wariness, as a means of retaining some sense of power or control when they feel powerless or threatened.

Politically, it was a stupid thing to say. But in terms of content, I don't think he's wrong.

You may not think he's wrong, but as someone who's lived in a rural environment for the good majority of my life, I certainly think he's wrong. And I consider myself fairly liberal, definitely more so than most people from my area.

I don't know why I allow myself to get suckered into these discussions.

 

[Netzach]

No, it's just this notion that Obama was brought up poor. He wasn't and as far as I know he never had a part time job to pay for his pot habit or his cigarettes.

Oy vey.
Middle class. Comfortable to Normal to very comfortable.

You, me, Obama, Michelle, Paul Krugman after his Nobel Prize, Bibunny, and three tenured UIC professors, all combined are probably still making less money than the Bush dynasty.

 

[Netzach]

You may not think he's wrong, but as someone who's lived in a rural environment for the good majority of my life, I certainly think he's wrong. And I consider myself fairly liberal, definitely more so than most people from my area.

I don't know why I allow myself to get suckered into these discussions.

I think the only "wrong" part was in characterizing it as a rural phenomenon.

It's very "in." Xenopobia and fuck the bottom of the rung, where's mine?

In fact, if I were to pinpoint this, the most societally destructive current I think we've got going, it lives in the 'burbs much more than in the rust belt.

And people treated the market like Dominionists treat God, but that's OK? There are a lot of really messed up ideologies to cling to, and a lot of frustrations to go around.