Tuesday, August 4, 2015

A leftist tactic.

Using Ronald Reagan to play "gotcha."

Here are two examples. The first is on granting illegal aliens citizenship.


It's clear that many true conservatives do not support Amnesty. What does the left do to implant the "Isn't-ironic-that-your-god-Reagan-thought-differently"? Note what Reagan said in support of the Immigration Reform and Control of 1986. Fair enough. But so what. I suppose in the right's stubborn, bigoted and antiquated world view, according to the left, that those who do not support Amnesty should seriously re-think their position because their beloved Reagan had opposite feelings.

Yea, no. Reagan had his thoughts and reasons and those who do not support Amnesty have their thoughts and reasons. The non-supporters of Amnesty did not make up their stance out of a vacuum whose foundation, as the left truly believes in, is based on the lack of compassion and not respecting the dignity of the illegal alien to become a "first class citizen" (it's the same fat that underlies the social justice warrior's heart as they feverishly supported same-sex "marriage")

The second is on gun control, most particularly the ban on so-called assault weapons. Enter Pierce Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro.


Transcript (10:12 mark) :

"Why did Ronald Reagan want these assault weapons removed?
"You know, I don't why Ronald Reagan wanted these assault weapons -- "
"You like Reagan, right?
"I like Reagan in many ways. He's not a god. I don't agree with him on everything."
"Do you agree -- "
"He also believed in the progressive tax rate. I don't believe in that."
"Did you agree with him about assault weapons?"
"Um, if, um, I believe what you're saying, sure. I don't believe ... I don't agree -- "
"Did you know his position on assault weapons were?
"I don't know what his position on assault weapons was. Why don't you tell me."
"Well let me read the letter in full. This is a letter he penned alongside President Ford and Carter in 1994 to Congress ... (reads letters - Morgan puts emphasis on "statistics prove" and the appeal of "we urge you") ... That was Ronald Reagan."
"Okay. So? I mean I can disagree with Ronald Reagan."
"You keep framing it as a left-right debate. I'm putting it to you that one of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me."
"So?"
"So it's not left or right is it?"

- Morgan says stuff about how the NRA through the years have framed it as a left vs right, the left attacking the Constitution; tells Shapiro that he arrogantly comes in and brandishes "his little book" (holds up pocket size version of Constitution); Shapiro takes offense on how Morgan calls the Constitution "little book" and reminds him that it's the Constitution, Morgan says he knows what's in the Constitution and states he's been debating this subject for many years -

Is it a debate between left vs right? Yes and no. Yes because those who tend to support the ban are on the left and those who don't support the band are on the right. The right always appeals to the 2nd Amendment being violated while the left appeals to inaccurate, skewed statistics (science and facts are on our side card) and the dead bodies of those killed by gun violence (emotional appeal). No because I'm not sure how clearer it can be stated that gun ownership, assault or not, is an actual right of the US citizen for defense (you need to be aware of US history starting from its colonization). There is no appeal to the 14th amendment as a back up.

Let me be honest: Those who do support the ban on assault guns usually come from it out of fear. The don't like how guns look (they aren't 'cute' and 'beautiful' like two people of the same-sex kissing, holding hands and both wearing wedding gowns or tuxes). They don't like the sound a gun makes. They attribute the guns with the military and the left tends to see the military as hired murderers by the rich, white 1%, sent out to invade and kill innocent civilians for oil. This is how the left usually views guns, the military and war. This is their worldview. This is not anywhere near inaccurate or exaggerated.

Note that Pierce's attempt to refute the left vs right narrative; that it is, instead preferred, a "those-who-are-civilized-not-Neanderthals" narrative. The left's tactic to remove left vs right is the same thing to cast doubt on right vs wrong, no such thing as a country's border, no such thing as a baby in resemblance of a fetus, that the connection between marriage (between two people of the opposite-sex) and child should be regulated to antiquity standing - that the child has the right to choose its own parents, preferably non-biological (in great favor same-sex guardians), as it always should've been according to one California law professor. 

Also keep in mind that what Pierce did is the same tactic the same-sex "marriage" supporters did to those who oppose same-sex "marriage." Replace Reagan with "your non-straight friends/family member/police officer/teacher." Replace "little book" with the Bible. The "I read your book" is the same thing atheists and social progressives say when dismissing any social conservative stance.

It's the same play in the same playbook just with a different issue.

Next up, abortion and transgenderism.

No comments :