As we were saying…

 

Nattering Naybob: Hello Red Ranger and Happy New Year! I hope you and your wonderful family had a great Holiday season.

I guess it’s fair to say that it’s been a while since our last exchange of ideas. A lot has happened between then and now. I stipulate right here and now that the interruption in our little blog has been all my fault…. mostly. Let me explain. Since our start in July 2012, we were guilty of foisting, by my count, 79 separate blogs on our small but loyal (and re-forming) followers. Due to all the horrible, false, and scurrilous negative propaganda that The Red Ranger had spewed forth during this time, in this space, upon our dear and resolute soon-to-be departed President, I found it necessary to retire for eighteen months to a silent retreat at a monastery in a remote section of Kenya (none of the many elders I spoke to can remember anyone named Barack Obama being born there). Only after an intensive program of self-reflection, meditation, and study, was I able to clear my mind and overcome the deleterious effects of your often well-intentioned but wholly misguided analysis of our society and our body politic. So let’s hit the re-set button and light this candle again! There’s a lot to catch up on and there will be even more to talk about during the year(s) ahead. At the risk of getting sued for trademark infringement by ring announcer Michael Buffer…let’s get ready to RUMMM-BULLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!

The Red Ranger: Great day to start up Second Grade Minds again.  The President is clearly over stepping his bounds and acting as a dictator in his efforts to restrict gun purchases.  Much like when Hillary says Trump is the best recruiter for ISIS (or ISIL, if you are Obama), Obama is the best gun salesman.  His efforts will probably spur gun sales tenfold from what they would have been if no action had been taken.  Even my wife is seriously considering joining a gun club and perhaps purchasing a piece of her own.  Hopefully, it is not to take me out.  You do not realize what you have until it is taken away or is threatened to be taken away.

The biggest issue I have with Obama’s actions are the inability to come to some sort of compromise with Congress rather than taking Executive Action (EA).  His MO seems to be to refuse to compromise in any way and then take EA.  I know you are going to say it is the Republicans who will not compromise but he had a Democratic congress for his first four years.

That being said, I believe some of the changes (I do not know all of the aspects of the bill yet) are reasonable.  If you are on Social Security and unable to manage your own finances then you probably shouldn’t own a gun nor should you be able to vote or drive a car. So if EA is taken on voting and driving also, then I think it makes sense.

Just so many things to discuss my mind is a jumbled mess right now but this is the topic of the day. Glad to have you back to pummel.

Nattering Naybob: I am not sure when we became a nation of scaredy-cats where everyone has to go out and buy a gun to protect themselves from “varmints” in response to a proposal to increase common-sense gun safety. Obama has been in office exactly 7 years minus 15 days. Please tell me when, during that time he has enacted or signed into law, ANY restrictions on the sale or ownership of guns. To my recollection there has not been a single such act (which incidentally is a black mark against him, from my perspective). But to hear the Lunatic Right (i.e., all Republicans who are not supporting John Kasich for President), Obama has “taken our guns away”. Boulder-dash, I say!!

If your wife (whose name I obviously know full well, yet am withholding due to privacy reasons– would she really want to be associated with these rantings of ours?) has any plans to brandish a gun in your direction to help keep you in line, that is a use of a firearm which I think is totally reasonable and has my complete support.

But I digress. I see nothing has changed, Red Ranger. You continue to cling to the fantasy of the Republican-led Congress being willing to work with this President. They are not, never have been, and never will be. Secondly, your criticism that Obama should have rammed thru this kind of legislation while Democrats were still in control of both houses of Congress during his first two years in office, is patently absurd. You know darn well that HAD he done that, you and the rest of your band of anarchic progress-blockers, would be assailing him for being a dictator. So put that metaphorical gunpowder in your metaphorical gun barrel and smoke it, The Red “LaPierre” Ranger.

The Red Ranger: I do not believe that we are a nation of scaredy-cats, I believe that we are a nation of rational individuals who see an uptick in crime due in part to weakened policing efforts and an influx of illegal aliens.  Therefore, they are doing what any rational person would do to try to protect themselves when the government seems to be failing in that regard.

How can you honestly say that the Republican Congress is unwilling to work with the President?  Wasn’t it just a few short weeks ago that they approved the Omnibus bill to keep the government functioning.  Didn’t this bill include funding for that aborted baby part selling organization, Planned Parenthood one of Obama favorites.  As I say before I think it is the exact opposite that Obama is unwilling to compromise on anything and when he doesn’t get his way just takes Executive Action.

I see that during the absence of Second Grade Minds you have failed to broaden your horizons and continue to get your talking points from MSNBC (which I am surprised is still on the air).

Nattering Naybob: I think it may be useful to narrow down the reason why you think it is rational for a person to go out and buy a gun. Is it because President Obama shows indications of “taking away people’s guns” or is it because of your anecdotal claims that there is an uptick in crime due to “weakened policing and an influx of illegal aliens”? Or maybe a combination of all these reasons that you deploy strategically to fit the needs of whatever situation you are focusing on at the time? Do your Republican friends share any blame from you for sponsoring the bill you referenced below that you find so odious? Or is it all Obama’s fault as per usual?

 

 

 

Where do I begin?

Nattering Naybob: Frankly, I expected that coming up with my inaugural topic for this little blog of ours would be simple. Not so. The list of foibles of the Modern Republican party is simply too long to choose just one. I am reminded of the proverbial donkey who had in front of him two equally appealing bales of hay, could not decide which one to eat, and so starved to death. Not wanting to be that donkey (although I have been called a jackass once or twice in my day) I will simply provide a bullet point list of some of the themes I will be exploring over the coming weeks and months, at least in the “Politics” component of our mission statement:

-Modern Republicans suffocate us with their talk of Christianity yet propose policies that are in fact anathema to true Christian values.
-Modern Republicans actively seek to suppress voter turnout in the name of preventing “voter fraud” which has never been documented or proven to be anything more than statistically miniscule, if that.
-Modern Republicans lie (that’s right, you heard me The Red Ranger) when they say President Obama is a reckless tax-and-spender. In truth, both taxes and spending have declined since 2009.
-Modern Republicans proudly pander, and anoint as Party “thought captains”, such figures as Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, Wayne LaPierre, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin.
-Modern Republicans consistently dismiss and demonize non-partisan data that disprove their shop-worn economic theories.
-Modern Republicans vote to prevent women from receiving equal pay for equal work.

I could go on. And, Red Ranger, I will.

The Red Ranger: Well, I see that Nattering Naybob is living up to his name as he has rolled out the standard Democratic talking points regarding the Republican party. I was hoping for a more pointed analysis complete with supporting data rather than bland statements that have not stood up to review. In many of these points I could easily change “Republicans” to “Democrats” and could include that as one of my topics. Maybe my next topic will be the following:

– Modern Democrats consistently dismiss and demonize non-partisan data that disprove their shop-worn economic theories.

The last item in your blog is one that is particularly troublesome as it clearly displays your inability to grasp the nuances of complicated economic realities. The Democrats roll out a number that says something to the effect that women earn 75% of what men make. While this is true in the aggregate when looking at all jobs across the entire employment spectrum, it fails to mention that when looking at the same job with similar responsibilities women earn similar pay to men somewhere in the range of 95% with the variation in pay normally due to experience level.

Nattering Naybob, do you really believe that companies keep two pay scales one for men and one for women? If so, please provide examples of these companies and I will be sure to boycott them. I believe, although I could be wrong, that when this bill was voted down it was because of many other items in the legislation and it was not just about equal pay.

Nattering Naybob: I thought Republicans hated the nuance of complicated situations. The Republican Thought Captains are always carping and complaining about how long Democratic bills are (they have this weird obsession with citing the page length of bills introduced in Congress). Your Vice-Presidential candidate of 2008 regularly dismissed nuance, in fact that was one of her main calling cards. I think she was naturally suspicious of anyone who had an education past the 7th grade. She seemed to think they would have been better served quitting school to learn some “Real American” skills like skinning and dressing a moose in under ten minutes, or shooting foxes and wolves from helicopters. But I digress. Regarding the bill that contained the latest “equal pay for women” clause, I have tasked the legislative working group of my crack research team, to determine what else was embedded in the equal pay bill. They are probably running their text recognition software right now as we speak. I should have the results shortly. Although in regards to this topic I should just simply invoke what I call “The Bugliosi Rule”. In my reply I will explain what the Bugliosi Rule is.

The Red Ranger: I find it funny that you always portray the Republicans as being the uneducated ones when in actuality it is the Dems who as a whole have the lower IQ’s. Outside of the few educated elites who run it, the Democratic party tends to cater to high school dropouts or illegal immigrants as their largest support base. These are the groups that rely on the government for their very existence so the Dems are all too happy to lock them into a lifetime of governmental support rather than letting them become self-sufficient.

I don’t know why you think Sarah Palin would have advocated dropping out of school when she herself was a college graduate. Once again you are making statements that have no basis in fact.

I think this is the second time you have mentioned your crack research team. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence of any research in any of your postings. Did you mean to say your crack smoking research team? Now that would be more likely coming from a Democrat as your leader is an admitted drug user.

Nattering Naybob: Glad you think I am funny. Mitt Romney supporters need all the laughs they can muster lately. Regarding your insults comments, many Republicans are themselves college grads yet they ridicule the idea of attending college (see “Santorum, Rick”). This is just another symptom of the GOP’s collective paradox, their collective illness, as some (me) would call it. Now, as for the “Bugliosi Rule” I referenced earlier. This is my name for the theorem advanced by Vincent Bugliosi, who of course prosecuted the Manson Family, and was an outspoken critic of the OJ Simpson trial outcome (the first one). He claims that certain facts are so obvious that even a minimum effort need not be wasted to prove them true. Such is the case with the fact that Republicans in Congress do not want women to receive equal pay for equal work, and, by extension, are anti-mother and anti-wife. In fact, on second thought, I am not going to bother to prove this, I have given my crack research team the rest of the week off, so they can go out into the community and spread the message of Obama-Biden 2012. Closing thoughts, Red Ranger?

The Red Ranger: I think you are trying to use the “Bugliosi Rule” to allow yourself to make unsubstantiated claims without having to provide one shred of evidence to support them. Republicans are anti-wife and anti-mother are just ridiculous comments since women are Republicans too.

So wraps up another installment whereby Nattering Naybob provides off-topic fictionalizations while The Red Ranger provides astute analysis.

Nattering Naybob: Boulderdash. I will leave you now to wallow in your Red Ranger-osity.