Having a bad night, Erick?

Good luck on your demands Kipling, especially your 5th! Since O appeared on Meet the Depressed it means that only laws apply to the lesser commons and he’ll sweep Gregory’s unlawful act under the table, as usual. I’d top you one that all the hypocrites give up their guns or armed protection and then we’ll talk gun control. Even Valerie Jarrett has SS protection!

I’m still terrified at the prospect of Hillary being elected in 2016.

Paul is honest (whatever the leftists may say about #LyinRyan and the Bush-era votes, but this is something his campaign will have to work on, and ought to be easy with his record of straight talk on the big and tough issues), sincere (most accept that he’s eager to get things through, at the very least), bold (the left will dismiss that with a stern warning of extremism and polarization), smart (though the left will try and slap him with a dorky image, and say he’s a Beltway creature who doesn’t really understand Main Street, and they’ll also hammer hard on foreign policy). His high name recognition means that he has an illusory advantage in the primary polls, but he’ll have challenges among independents, seniors, and the base, and struggle to wipe off the taint of 2012. Still,I like him most.

Jindal has a good balance of executive and federal legislative experience, and is religious (too much, the left will squawk), doesn’t have that much of a Bush taint, and has a firm grasp of policy development and implementation, especially in healthcare, and the base will love vouchers, and he’s also from a minority. On the other hand, his personal fiscal Conservative beliefs are not terribly clear, at least from Wikipedia, and Louisiana politicians always tend to get hit by unfortunate incidents like hurricanes or scandals and whatnot, though perhaps he got off lightly with just a disastrous speech, and then there was his recent clumsy attempt at grabbing libertarians (or liberals?) by allowing over-the-counter birth control. Not bad, overall.

Rubio, well, was a candidate much favored by the base, and definitely looks very nice on paper, but on the net, at least, there have been many rumblings. The DREAM Act may be smart policy and politics, ultimately, but Rubio bungled it by getting stuck halfway, with no one to push him forward. And I’m not sure his heart is really that far from the Bushes’. To say nothing of his image as an opportunistic lightweight. Sure, he tried compensating for it with his detailed speech at the Jack Kemp foundation, full of innovative policy prescriptions, but I still feel like he’s a drifting person with no substance and little actual style when we poke beneath the surface, doomed to talk about small and tired things. He’ll definitely be able to capture back a substantial portion of the Latino vote, but I just have this nagging sense of distrust that even Paul Ryan with his more heretical votes can’t stir.

In any case, almost any nominee will have to be prepared to make use of the primaries to check out the Appalachian region and other traditional Republican-leaning areas, where polls have indicated that Hillary would have massive pull among the white working class, and other areas where she won Latinos in the 2008 primaries, meaning a possible, even if improbable, landslide of epic proportions.

I think it’s pretty clear that Jeb Bush and Chris Christie and most others have little chance of emerging victorious, even if Rubio may make way for Bush.

We’ll have to fight hard, and we have to fight to win. And that means first fixing the message and machine to run a successful national campaign. In the end though, we ought to have some hope. After all, Hillary has the potential to remind Americans what they dislike most about Democrats- arrogant, entitled, extreme, corrupt, dishonest, unserious, and uncaring- in a way few on our side can do for our party. Only Republicans are able to talk straight and face up to the big issues, and bring people together to actually address them, in a civil and inclusive and pragmatic manner, while also sticking to enduring core principles. Was John Kerry’s problem that he flip-flopped on each individual issue? I don’t think so. I think it’s rather that he failed to stand for something, some key, longstanding values which people recognize and remember.

Maybe if the Hollowood morons who made this video were hit smack in the middle of their pocketbooks by being banned from making violent, trashy movies, they would shut their moronic traps.

What a bunch of phony baloney. They have their knickers in a twist over what guns are doing to children and yet they parade their drug and drink addled, sex soaked, abortion loving, homosexual loving, multiple divorce lives, around in front of the nation’s children and that is perfectly ok.

A bunch of hypocrites spewing a bunch of swill.

Well-said, though I would add a sixth: I demand that all celebrities appearing in this video disclose the number of armed security guards they employ, and that they commit voluntarily to eschew said armed protection.

Another excellent suggestion. I remember earlier in the year when Chris Rock assaulted a conservative journalist and then hid behind his armed security. Strip him of that and he would simply be a sad little man.

Chip,
I appreciate that you didn’t attack me personally.
However, if you have no interest in having a continuing conversation and “couldn’t care less” how people with a different worldview feel, then I doubt we have much more to talk about.
That being said, thank you for your honest dialog.

I love that video also, I’ve emailed and posted it widely since I saw it yesterday. Without debating the value of regulating it, Hollywood and the video game industry make billions on what I call “violence porn”. Such blatant hypocrisy needs to be ridiculed, and hard, like this when these moron celebidiots feel the need to shove their ignorant opinions down our throats.

Celebrities need to re-learn their place and relevance in society, i.e. none whatsoever.

I will have an open, honest dialogue with anyone who sincerely wishes to have one. You may be such a person, but the people in the video absolutely do not.

But in general, with respect to extreme, left-wing ideology, it is all academic until they go after the second amendment. It is the second amendment, and only the second amendment, that ultimately provides the means by which free people can defend ourselves against tyranny – and extreme, left-wing ideologues are tyrants who want to take away our means of defending ourselves, so that they can subsequently go after all the rest of the bill of rights, and the Constitution itself.

Progressives are no longer talking *theoretically* about the second amendment; they are making a real effort to erode the second amendment. With such people, I will have no dialogue, because they are beyond meaningful dialogue. Their ax is already lined up at the root of the tree of liberty.

This guy is just another head up his butt liberal troll. Run along Scooter.

Excellent plan(s).

I do not agree. The intent of the video is to expose the hypocrisy of the left and show why they have no credibility on the issue.

The Second Amendment speaks for itself. It is not the purpose of the government to define my rights, just to secure those rights.

As I said before, the leftists in the video do not want a conversation. They want confiscation. Not interested in dialoguing with them.

While I do not care so much for the language at the end, I am so glad someone made this. When I first saw this drivel of an ad, I was hoping someone would do this. Kudos to whoever did! They are exposing the abject hypocrisy of Hollywood for all to see. I truly hope this goes viral.

The reality is that deep down, if these individuals have any remaining bit of intelligence or intellectual honesty at least, they know they are a large contributor to our violent culture. But being the selfish cowards they are, they want to find another scapegoat so that they do not have to bear any responsibility for their own actions.

Viper,

I agree that Erick did not name the video.
It is my hope and expectation that Erick will have second thoughts about the wisdom of posting it.

Jack,

The only place I have seen either the modified or unmodified video is on right-leaning blogs.

For the record, I read the Daily Kos and Freerepublic and Foxnews and NBCnews and….

I see no value in posting to Daily Kos. I do not like to reinforce Group Think, especially in myself.

I do see value in understanding people with worldviews which are different than my own. I even like joining if discussions and, even, debates with said people.

Does it make me a troll? Possibly. But I haven’t tried to hide who I am or my opinions.

I honestly think Red State posts (Erick’s in particular) have been generally well done.

FYI, this isn’t a place where we host debates with leftists. If he’s preaching to the choir, that’s by design. If you want to have some quaint little debate about your left-wing POVs, go somewhere else. This is a site for conservative/Republican activists. Go join Toastmasters if you want a debate with Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Nope. Just leftist posters.

Care to respond to the real issues related to gun violence, as I so carefully pointed out above? Or do you think the problem can be solved hovering around the fainting couch because someone rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of the elitist, leftist, Hollywood morons?

The simple fact is that actors, rappers and their ilk have made a hell of a good living glorifying the type of violence they now say they deplore.

If they were so dead set against it, they would not be glorifying it. Simple as that. This is just another example of liberals urging us all to change our attitudes so they can feel good about themselves.

Norishman, you are completely and utterly wrong. Many actors have worked for 50 and 60 years in films and never once brandished a gun in any of their films. Violent, action-packed films make lots of money, and generally pay well known actors very well for their 2-dimensional portrayals–that’s why so many actors make the action films, but no one forces them to–they do it for the money (whores). But if you are going to make your living as a prostitute, don’t preach abstinence to me. If they had any real talent, they wouldn’t have to make these types of films. And if they intend to preach to the public that guns are a bad thing, they shouldn’t be pocketing millions for shooting up a scene with a Smith or a Colt.

Sure – let’s test it. Let’s say Hollywood made movie after movie about the glories of being a bigot. Let’s say actors lined up for those parts and were paid well for doing them. Let’s also say that musicians who hang out with actors write song after song about the culture of bigotry, and make millions doing it. Then, suddenly, there is a rise in bigotry in America, and the same actors that lined up for parts glorifying bigotry make a little video telling us all how bad bigotry is, and how we should ask others for a plan to deal with it.

Would you take them seriously? Or would you suggest to them the same thing the video above is suggesting?

So let’s take break down the events of what you detailed here an relate it to what is happening in reality:

1) The movies are glorifying violence.
I can’t argue there.

2) Actors are taking parts in these movies.
Again, this is true.

3) Musicians are buddies with actors and make songs about violence
This is kinda slippery logic; I’m not too sure there is a direct correlation between the music industry and the movie industry. Best to keep that part simply a conjecture, and not part of the actual argument. I’ll leave it as true for the basis of this example.

4) There is a rise in violence in America.
This is where we disagree. If you look at the numbers, the aggregate amount of violent crimes in America has been in a general decline since 1991 (there was a huge spike in violent crimes leading to that year and in that year, and 1992 was the first year to see a decline, so that is why I chose it as a starting point).

In 1991 the total violent crimes in America was 1,911,770.
In 2011 the amount was 1,203,564 (a number so low hasn’t been seen since 1979).

There are a few years where the total increased between 1991 and 2011 (3 or 4) – but if you average the differences you come out to about 35,410 less violent crimes per year (over 20 years).

If my math is correct – I’d certainly call that a decline.

Unless you mean the severity of the violence – but I’d have to do more research on that, unfortunately… By the way, the data was from “the disaster center” which tracks these things. Forgot how to link, but the data I looked at was for the entire US (using data from the FBI, etc, so it’s a pretty respectable source).

We’ll have to see if this was a bad year or something, but I don’t think a trend should be ignored. I’m just glad I live in a society that is generally becoming a safer place for all of us.

5) Violence projectors claim to be against violence, but are hypocrites because they are to blame for the increase in violence.
And #4 is where the argument falls apart; without an increase in violence, there’s nothing to be a hypocrite for.

If what you are saying were true, I’d definitely not take them seriously – however, the idea that we are becoming a more violent society is only true in our perception (and definitely in the average American’s personal life). In terms of interactions, it’s becoming increasingly less pronounced…I’d rather have that than than the opposite, personally…

I would suggest to the actors and actresses to think carefully about how their actions can be used in politics. I would also tell them to start a movement indicating what you said; have the actors rebel against the movie writers. Wouldn’t that be funny to watch? Better than most movies today, I’m sure.

Can you name some? I’d like to know how much “many” is.

I’m not saying that they aren’t greedy (there probably are some that are) – merely that the word “hypocrite” isn’t correct here. They’re job is to be things they aren’t – that undermines the semantics of the word in this context.

Your reaction also strikes me: “if they intend to preach to the public that guns are a bad thing”…really? When did this happen?

Have you seen the original video? I did – and I don’t think I heard them say the word “gun” – or even “shooting.” In fact, the video itself didn’t even propose a specific plan…

All it said was “demand a plan.” I don’t see anything wrong with this – I’d like to see a plan as well.

I will not do your research for you: imdb.com is free to anyone with internet access.

In regards to your claiming that the actors are not wanting a plan that includes banning weapons, there are none so blind as those who will not see. I have seen the original, uncut promo. Can you not see what the implications are? Subtlety is lost on you, isn’t it?

Ok – maybe THIS video is somewhat “neutral” in the strict sense. But I think I’ve heard at least half of these people use the words “gun control” at some point in time, so, in my mind, their credibility is shot, even if their words were very carefully chosen for this particular exercise. I’d venture to say that if you interviewed a random sample of the public on the street, a majority, if not all, would say this was a call for “gun control” of some sort – if for no other reason, guilt by association with a few big mouths. Obviously, “gun control” means different things to different people but Hollywood stars are generally known to be liberal, with a few exceptions, so my first reaction is still my opinion: what a bunch of jerks. And I agree with he posters above – these people shouldn’t be taken seriously until they put their kids in public schools and give up their own private security. That goes for the current occupant of the White House too.