Liberal ANALogies

I can’t help but post an additional thought after hearing all of the idiotic arguments for gun control. This post is not about gun laws or the second amendment. I’m not trying to argue anything about our gun laws. Many responsible gun owners follow these laws down to the tee, even Wisconsin concealed carry laws ( are rarely broken. These responsible owners may only draw their gun if it’s needed in a self-defense situation. In fact, my friend recently came across this Boberg XR Price New and Used information because he wanted to look for another firearm that could potentially help him in these types of situations in the future, but I’m not sure what he ended up doing. That’s why I don’t want to bring up the argument about gun laws. I simply want to point out the lack of sense from liberals. And I also want to point out an incorrect analogy that the president used when he was acting like we are all so stubborn for not caring about shooting massacres and for not letting him fix the problem by following his orders. That is another tactic of liberals, when you disagree with them they act like you are evil and don’t care about the problem. They act as though they have an obvious answer and that the rest of us just don’t care. Instead of accepting the fact that the reason why we don’t agree with them is because we don’t think their solution will solve the problem. In fact, we think that their solution will create more of the problem, which has been known to happen with liberal policies in the past. Yes, we all care. But I don’t have to let people get their way who say they can fix something just to prove that I care. I mean, how often do we hear politicians saying they can fix something? But how often do they actually fix something or even do what they say.

In this instance, I am reminded of the people we all know who spend five minutes of their life “tweeting” two or three ideas about global warming, racial injustice, and the growing disparity between the rich and middle class caused by George Bush. These people then take a shower, fix themselves up, and go to a wine social with the one percent from Wall Street. They then get on a private jet with the one “percenters” and hop to an exotic island where they exploit to the highest levels possible the inhabitants and resources of the island only to return home to their bed where they have a good night’s sleep feeling peace with themselves because they did their part to save the world by telling all of us with their twitter messages that we are the problem.

Starting with the president, this is a topic he’s talking about that also concerns me because it does seem like mass shootings have become an epidemic. And this is the one time where I actually hear both sides saying similar things in special moments; although, the media would never point that out. So when I give this example, please realize that I do not give it so that you won’t listen to the president. In this instance, we should have a discussion about what the president is saying and do some research. I am giving the example to illustrate bad analogies. However, I do refuse to have a discussion when it comes to the right of the people to bear arms, I am not referring to his gun law references that need discussing. I am referring to a discussion about what is causing these mass shootings and is there a way to avoid it without trampling the rights of a free nation. And remember that doing the research is so that better decisions can be made, not proof that you can force your philosophies on people. The role of the government is to provide better alternatives/opportunities for all equally so that people can avoid breaking the law and pursue individual happiness.

The truth of the matter is that the only solution is for localities to figure out measures they could take to prevent such tragedies, although I believe it is impossible to predict and prevent a random criminal act. But it should be the responsibility of local politicians to research and understand what is happening to find possible solutions that do not violate free will. I have no problem with the federal government helping and making suggestions, but a centralized location with centralized data should never make decisions for localities; a founding principle of our Country that has been lost and covered up. Anything the federal government provides should be helpful and accepted, not restrictive and forced.

[I’d start with the poor use of prescription drugs for mental patients or the fundamental changes regarding accountability in the education system or fundamental changes in our society regarding self discipline and/or accountability of one’s own actions, or the new irrational system our society has created that is driving people crazy but that is another conversation]

When people make statements about America it drives me crazy because you cannot make one statement that describes all of America. It is one of the most diverse places I’ve been. So when the government comes out with a statistic that supposedly represents all of America we should be able to understand it is crap. Mixing numbers from NYC with Mississippi will surely not give us any informative representation of either location. This is the reason it is better for localities to solve their own problems. Because you are lying if you think what is happening in Mississippi and what will work there is the same thing as what is happening in NYC and what will work there. We all proclaim to know statistics are jaded anyway. Everybody says they understand that averages don’t tell the story, such as one student scoring a 0 on a test while another student scores a 100 and the class average is 50. The average represents nothing about the class. We all say we understand this, so why doesn’t everyone start acting like they understand it and quit listening to the crap instead of pretending to be enlightened but still follow the crap. It is absurd for anyone to say they can use a statistic to describe all of America.

The comment that the president said that I want to focus on as a bad analogy, a common habit among liberals these days, is that “we fix roads and have seat belt laws to prevent tragedy/make our lives safer” (I guess he means reduce risk, I’m not sure). And I disagree, and this is an example of democrats making analogies that seem related but really are something completely different. We have seat belt laws because of money and insurance companies, not because the government wanted to reduce risk for our safety. They came out with those statistics just so they could pretend like their agenda was necessary. We fix roads because it provides infrastructure to improve conditions for all and to have a prosperous nation. And yes, it makes sense to make them as safe as possible for all if there is a way; that is called being smart. But when we fix the roads there are no restrictions or regulations to my individual freedoms that come with it. We do have restrictions and regulations that apply to all when we use the road, but that is because it is a public place that we must all share. However, remember that I never have to give up any of my rights to use that public place, which is why I find it interesting that we have to give up our guns to go in city buildings when we conduct city business. [Not sure how I feel about this topic, but I would like to move on]. The point is that the president is acting like seat belt laws and infrastructure were driven by the idea of our government protecting people from themselves. One, that reason is not true. Two, neither ideas are the same thing as trying to prevent someone from breaking a law. Trying to stop someone from being a killer (or breaking any law for that matter) is not the same thing as trying to keep people from having accidents or make safer roads. An analogy that describes what the president is talking about better would be making 55mph the speed limit, and then trying to come up with more regulations to predict and prevent people from going over 55mph by taking away more freedoms from everyone. So when I say that his analogy is incorrect, these are my justifications.

I don’t think anyone out there is insinuating that we shouldn’t be concerned or try to understand how to reduce people from breaking the law (but if that were a possible task, I believe all of the jails in the world would be less populated). The question I have for the president is what are they researching other than gun laws? Now, I’m pointing the finger back at our government and asking what ideas have Democrats presented and pushed other than gun laws? Because the increased gun laws and regulations we have now sure don’t seem to be the solution. Why make more of something that doesn’t work? Most businesses will stop funding a theory and try something different when data suggests that a particular plan or idea isn’t working. However, most Democrats interpret this same data to mean that we need to increase spending and invest further into the methods that don’t seem to be working. Or they come up with bogus statistics to feel better about their failures. Bottom line is that politicians only talk, just like those “tweeters” island hopping. I’m tired of hearing about gun restrictions that won’t work, and I’m tired of hearing about how Obama cares but nobody else does. Start doing some real research and come up with some logical arguments about what can be done that won’t take rights away from law-abiding citizens. And by the way, I’ve never heard anyone say that we need more guns to solve the problem, although that is what Obama insinuated (people are simply saying that self defense is the best way to protect yourself and your family; another liberal tactic is to reword your argument so that it means something different than what was intended). He then says that the data shows that more guns is not working, but doesn’t the data show that more gun laws aren’t working either? And don’t give me a statistic that includes suicide either. That would be the same as taking Pepsi away from people and then bragging that statistics show people have less Pepsi related obesity just like you predicted, even though the same obesity is occurring with Twinkies. By God, if they only knew Math and Science they would know they have to show there are less violent gun crimes or less obesity in general. I know one thing, inner city Chicagoland has a lot of gun laws and I’m sure as heck not going to go walk around there no matter how much Obama tells me there is a statistic to prove it is safer.

I’m not saying Republicans, or anybody for that matter, has done anything better. But a common fallacy in our society right now is the logic that doing something and/or implementing change for the sake of fixing a problem we don’t like is automatically better than doing nothing. The current system could be limiting the problem better than the new system. Just something to think about before you start bossing people around.

An interesting side note is that automobile deaths are still slightly higher than gun related deaths. And if you take out suicides, I believe automobile deaths would be quite a bit higher. This is another example of people jading statistics to act like they can force their opinions on you. I also can’t find any data that shows a significant impact after seat belt laws took effect. So I’m just not quite sure what the president is talking about or what everyone’s point is with more gun regulations or taking away things that are risky, or forcing people to do things that are supposedly less risky for their own good. I’ll eat every Twinkie and drink every Pepsi I want just before I go to the gym, thanks for the info about Pepsi being bad for me though. I appreciate it.

But the most ludicrous argument I hear is from people who pretend that the government is more capable of protecting an individual, than the individual. A mass shooter has 15 to 30 minutes (I don’t know the actual numbers, but it has to be close to this) to kill before police arrive and have a shootout with the suspect. Actually, the mass shooter kills himself more often than the police actually ending the crime. Regardless, there is a long response time that gives the suspect 15 to 30 times as much time to carry out damage. And people applaud this system as though the professionals have done such a great job. When in reality it would take an armed citizen less than a minute to accomplish the same task, which I believe has happened more often than the authorities stopping the mass shooter (I’m not sure about this statistic either and I don’t feel like looking it up, but I know for sure that citizens in my home town stopped more crime when I was growing up than the police. The officials would always show up 30 minutes or so after the crime). An interesting side note is that liberals typically would scream, “If it saves just one life, we must try!” One armed citizen could save many lives, but I have a feeling that in this argument that philosophy would all of a sudden disappear until it is needed again (which make it a crappy philosophy). They would later say, “gun regulations could save just one life, we must take away freedom in the name of hope.”

Any time a logical person raises the argument that armed citizens can protect themselves better, the liberal will start screaming, “We don’t live in the Wild West!” Unfortunately, they are correct that we don’t live in the America that used to be so great. However, they are incorrect in relation to the argument. Another liberal tactic is to say something that is correct and true that has nothing to do with the argument. It makes them appear correct about something and it confuses the person they are debating because the person agrees with the statement but it takes the person time to realize the statement is unrelated. So, the liberals start saying that armed citizens will lead to Wild West shootouts and society will become a bloody, crazy shootout. At this point it is difficult to argue with these people because they ignore the fact that we already have a blood bath on our hands. Some crazy “A” hole is already having a Wild West shootout. The only difference is that now the innocent people are helpless. And these liberals also ignore the fact that when the police show up they are going to have a Wild West shootout anyway. And we’ve all seen how many random bullet holes police shootouts produce. Much more than the armed citizens who have taken out mass shooters immediately. I can’t write anymore about this because I don’t understand how this particular rebuttal could continue.

It is a fact that there used to be less gun regulations and more common day use of guns. There was a time when people would go to high school with guns hanging in the windows of their trucks. And it is a fact that in those days, there were less mass shootings. I know how to interpret the correlation, but the reality of what it means I don’t know. This would be a fine lesson for liberals to follow, because correlation doesn’t prove anything and it doesn’t mean the understanding of why the correlation exists is known. I do know that I love being American and if you don’t like the Wild West it seems like you would move. I also know that if America becomes like the rest of the world then I can’t move somewhere to be American. If you’re scared to live free, say you’re scared and move to the confines of security. These walls can be found all over the world, Berlin, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc.

And before I forget, Europe and America are two completely different places. So don’t use their societies as proof for what we need to do. Although, that doesn’t mean we can’t get good ideas from them. But in reality, good ideas can be found anywhere.

UnAmerican Football

American football is a perfect example of how rules and regulations have ruined America. Our society has mirrored the changes that have been brought to the game, or the game has mirrored our changes, that have led to something crappy for both. This post is quite simple; I don’t like watching American football anymore because it’s not really American football. I can’t believe people continue to watch a sport based on forcefully tackling the opponent that now has subjective rules and regulations that punishes a team for forcefully tackling; and the people remain silent. It seems like the team who tackles the best can arbitrarily be punished, while the other team is rewarded and becomes a winner without having to actually do anything. The rules in football today would be the same thing as disqualifying a boxer for punching a defenseless boxer in the face. That’s the thing with America now. We have all these systems that worked 100 years ago, and now we’re making changes to the system that contradict the whole purpose for the existence of the system. And then we wonder why we suck.

[We could have a long discussion about this and what our courts and laws have done related to equality, assistance/infrastructure, and the way we assess whether our systems are working]

People say they want to protect the players. If you really wanted to protect the players, you wouldn’t give them a helmet and tell them to run into somebody hard enough to knock them over and cheer.  Ironically, the injuries continue. Then the judicial system says it’s the league’s fault. But the players don’t have to play the game. Since when did one person’s chosen actions become the responsibility of somebody else. Getting sued all the time and losing will definitely force you to change.

I find it interesting that people who demand a separation of church and state use morals as a reason to impose regulations on others. Separation of church and state simply means that your church doesn’t make decisions for the government. It doesn’t mean that people with similar beliefs can’t combine morals with logic to make a better community for all. The philosophies of the community should be very dear to the heart of the decisions the local government makes. Separation means we don’t simply follow the church. We elect officials; and yes pastors can be officials. Separation of church means that you can’t exclude people because they don’t follow your pastor and you should never force people to follow your pastor. However, it does not mean that people who don’t like your church can force the community to change or force the pastor to be silent. If it did, then it would mean I could force football to become American football again because I certainly don’t like what it is now. If you like a community that prays but you don’t pray, that’s fine. You can live there as long as you follow their laws. Separation doesn’t mean they have to stop praying, it just means they can’t force you to pray. Groups of people specifically traveled across the Atlantic Ocean so they could pray together the way they wanted, and now they can’t do it. And people somehow think this was the whole idea of separation of church and state and what the original people wanted. If the original people had wanted to end prayer and God, don’t you think they would have done it since they were the ones making the rules? So don’t try to act like you know what they wanted, all we know is what they did and how they lived.

The media tried to attack Dr. Ben Carson for making the statement that a Muslim shouldn’t be president. I can only ask the question, would we all be fool enough to vote for leaders who have openly admitted they don’t believe in our faith or philosophy of government? It would not make sense to elect a candidate from the communist party to run a system based on natural law and capitalism. It would not make sense to elect a Nazi bigot to run a system based on free will and equality either. The beautiful thing about America is that both of those candidates can live in America with their beliefs and make agreements with people of similar beliefs, as long as they don’t break required laws. It is ok for a community to pray together as long as they don’t force people to pray with them. Anybody who doesn’t like the moment of prayer is free to leave or get elected to office to create change. I just don’t think I want to elect someone who openly admits he/she wants to eliminate Jesus from my community. People who question Dr. Ben Carson either never read our founding documents or don’t understand them. Our founding documents and system of natural law are clearly based on the teachings of Jesus. Whether you call it morals or logic, why would I want to elect someone who fundamentally disagrees with my community’s way of life? This is not an attack on Muslims as I have met many intelligent, peaceful Muslims. But I should not have to pretend that their vision of social law is different than mine. The reason faith matters are that character and fundamental beliefs will influence logical decisions and understanding over social laws.

To me it was a loaded question to ask somebody whether a Muslim should be president. If you think about it, Christianity means many different things to many different people who interpret the Bible differently. Allowing people to interpret Christianity and live together the way they wanted was the real reason for people coming to America. I do know that one huge difference between Muslims who came to America a hundred years ago verses Muslims who come to America today (all immigrants for that matter). Muslims used to kiss the ground and be thankful to be in such a welcoming place that would let them live in peace. Immigrants used to be excited to assimilate themselves into the American way of life. Now, there are immigrants who come with hatred and want to change the American way of life. Am I supposed to pretend that I don’t see Muslims preaching hatred against the “infidels”? Do not forget that at one time in America people feared electing a Catholic president because of the corruption associated with the Catholic church that sent the pilgrims across the ocean in the first place. So yes, your faith and beliefs or non-beliefs do matter. If people say things that disagree with our philosophy of government and their beliefs are different than ours, then yes, I would be a fool to vote for those people. The problem is that just because they say they are Christian or Muslim doesn’t mean they really are practicing the definition of the Christian religion or Muslim religion. That is why the goal of this website is to create a way that communities can identify political leaders by their character, achievements, and political policies instead of by their religion or political party.

One good thing to be taken from this discussion is that a black man, Dr. Ben Carson, now knows what it feels like to be an honest, hardworking successful white male. America has come a long way since slavery. Ben Carson made a logical comment on the spot because he was trying to have an open and real discussion. His statement was then analyzed by a lot of people who made assumptions, who then drew conclusions about his character rather than question and debate his statements. All of a sudden Ben Carson  became a bigot, but I guarantee you that if we judge his character by his past actions in life (which would make more sense than a few statements he made during a discussion) we would see something quite different than a person who commits prejudice acts. Yet, people are making these statements about his character as though they are facts.

The purpose of America and this website are to realize that just because you are Muslim or Christian doesn’t mean you will be a good leader. The goal is to create a way of electing the best people who will follow our philosophies/morals. The problem with the discussion is that the word Muslim can have many different meanings regardless of its textbook definition. This is why people normally have to discuss things to understand what they mean. Some people view “Muslim” as though it is an ethnicity and then get all offended. Others view it as radical Islam, while others view it as a slightly different version of Judaism or Christianity. And you are right; we shouldn’t judge an official based on his/her religion. But if a particular religion has specific philosophies that contradict our laws and someone professes to have these conflicted views, then no we shouldn’t vote for her/him. I think this is all Dr. Carson was trying to point out. I find it interesting that no one would question us if we said that a KKK member should not be our president, even though technically the founding principles of the religion were actually peaceful and well intended. How do we know whether he/she is a practicing member, or exactly what parts of the KKK philosophy she/he follows? I suppose the answer would be to actually look at his/her past actions and accomplishments. I do find it interesting that one thing that the Muslim religion and the KKK have in common is their self-proclaimed supremacy, whereas the Gospel of Jesus is focused on acceptance. Also, I have seen groups of Muslims chanting ideas in direct conflict with my way of life and our laws. So I do believe that Dr. Carson has a leg to stand on when he questions whether or not we should elect a Muslim official. Wouldn’t the people attacking his statements just love it if we all voted someone into office who would change our laws to fit their beliefs? Being tolerant doesn’t mean that I have to condone the acceptance of someone who wants to change me; that would be called being a gullible fool. I suppose the better way to approach the situation would be to just focus on what a person has tried to do and has accomplished when voting for him/her. Because the truth is that I really don’t know what it means to be “Muslim”, which is why the question should have never been asked. You give a smart man a stupid question and he tries to answer it honestly and somehow the smart man gets critiqued instead of calling out the reporter for his/her irrelevant question. We should be questioning whether or not the reporter should be a reporter for formulating such a poor question. And Dr. Carson never said we should make it a law or do religious testing for political office. He is just referring to the fact that the voter does have the right to vote for someone who shares similar philosophies of life, especially when those philosophies make up the societies laws.

America is a place where people can take risks if they want. Yet, I don’t believe that people could agree to play an old game of American football without somebody being wrongfully sued if an injury occurs. The new rules of football are immoral in the sense that they are hypocritical and contradictive to the purpose of the game. They result in one team winning a game without ever really achieving anything over their opponent. In fact, the team who hit the hardest is most likely to lose. Sadly, this seems to be a pattern in American society as well. Your beliefs or non-beliefs should never prevent a group of people from playing an old game of American football if they want. A person who shows up to the game and doesn’t like it should never be able to change the game. And if somebody shows up who believes the rules of football should be changed to the rules of soccer, then I would be stupid to vote for that person. If they want to play a different game, they can go somewhere else and play it. The thing that kills me is that people will participate in this new game that is just like soccer, but continue to call it football. Come to think of it, the rest of the world does call soccer football, so it appears that America is becoming more and more like the rest of the world everyday. The unhappy people who showed up have changed the rules of American football with the help of the courts. The rules have changed so much that I’m no longer watching American football. If you want to play a game with less risk (like soccer), just say so and go do it. The whole idea of America is that I can take my own risks, live my life the way I want, and solve my problems the way I want. We made an agreement that allowing each to solve their own problems and take the risks that they want would be the greatest freedom every experienced by a society. Additionally, it used to be common knowledge that a government is lying when it says it can protect you from the risks that this life brings us all. It would be the same as the government professing it could protect you from death and taxes. Rules and regulations never have and never will be able to end risks that we must all face from birth on in this world no matter what Obama or Bernie tell you. Obama trips me out every time there is a mass shooting and then he starts shaking is head and speaking with a condescending tone as if he could really stop these tragedies if we would just do what he says. All liberals are like this; they speak as if they have a message from God about what needs to be done to solve unpredictable acts but that we are too stubborn to just do what they say. Funny thing is that normally what they want to do has already been done and proven not to work. Creating more regulations for people who don’t follow the law really doesn’t help. People are confused about what is the law and what is a regulation to prevent/predict who will break the law. I don’t want to live in a world where proven idiots are predicting if I will break a law. What I don’t understand is that I was here first and now that I’m complaining people are telling me that I just have to accept it. How come the people who showed up complaining didn’t have to “just accept it” too?

I’m not saying gun regulations are unnecessary, especially if they are used wisely and effectively for the right reasons. It just ticks me off that liberals act like they truly without a doubt have the solution to stop mass shootings. When has any liberal idea ever worked? I honestly don’t see how more gun regulations can have any effect. We have more regulations now and less common daily use of guns than years ago when there didn’t seem to be a problem, so something is not adding up. In many aspects the US and Mexico have more in common than the US has with Europe. And Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws; yet, they have much more gun violence than the US. Fact of the matter is that if you get rid of suicide statistics, the gun violence numbers drop quite a bit in the US. And I really don’t see how someone deciding to shoot himself/herself with a gun can be the government’s problem. It seems like if I wanted to kill myself and you took my gun away, I would just use a rope or something. How many things can you take away in the name of risk?

If you want to live under the European umbrella, by god go live under it. If you don’t want to eat American beef, then don’t eat it. But why on Earth can people not understand that forcing me to not eat American beef for my own “so called protection” is the kind of oppression the original Americans fought against. The government will never be able to protect you as well as yourself, your friends, and your community. At one time, Americans knew this and it is the reason they made the original agreement to face risk head on and live free. I have no problem with the government warning me, advising me, and certifying things for me in all of our interest. However, the government should never be able to restrict me in the name of risk, especially when they use the same methods to protect me that they claim I can’t use to protect myself because its too risky. If I want to be a boxer, or play a good ole game of American football, or eat good ole American beef then I can, and I will be responsible for any risks that come with my free will choice.