Yet Another High-Quality Pro-Gun Spokesman

[CO Liberal]

He ranks right up there with Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, and John Lott/Mary Rosh. With the emphasis on "rank".

If you're known by the company you keep.... - Wayne

* * * * *

John Ramsey greets voters at his campaign office with a
handshake, a free hot dog and a book that declares he didn't
kill his daughter.

The father of JonBenet Ramsey, the 6-year-old beauty queen
strangled in her Boulder, Colo., home, is running for the
Michigan House, despite the suspicions that continue to hang
over him and wife.

The 60-year-old Republican campaigns as an anti-abortion,
pro-gun, anti-gay-marriage conservative and a savvy
businessman. He founded Access Graphics, a billion-dollar
software company later acquired by Lockheed Martin.

http://corrente.blogspot.com/2004_06_13_corrente_archive.html#108743792748664188

[yellowcanine]

1. You really couldn't make up shit like this. Only in America would someone

use the notoriety of being a suspect in the murder of your own daughter as a platform for a run for a political office. People should vote for him because.........?

[LibLabUK]

2. Y'know...

the JonBenet Ramsey case was news even over here... Thing was people were revulsed not only by the murder, but by the "beauty pagents" that these people put their children into...

I remember watching a documentary about these pagents and thinking it was all quite sickening to see tiny children made up as adults, almost sinister infact.

[FatSlob]

3. I find nothing wrong with this.

I wish him the best of luck in all endeavors but elections. He has every right to run.

[CO Liberal]

4. It Figures....

...that someone would come to the defense of this asshole.

[FatSlob]

5. How is he an asshole?

It is because he has different opinions than you?

[Retired AF Dem]

6. I also don't recall him ever being

convicted in a court of law. I find it strange that on one hand some people complain about Bush holding prisoners and on the other call people assholes that have not been judged guilty by a jury of his peers. (OJ not included)

[FatSlob]

7. Perhaps there is a double standard

for people that hold a different point of view?

[OpSomBlood]

8. To be fair...

People who dress their three-year-old daughters up like whores and enter them into beauty pageants qualify as "assholes" to me.

[Wickerman]

10. thank Op

that was all I ever needed to see Mr. Ramsey and his twisted wife as a pair of assholes.

[iverglas]

9. damn, eh?

I also don't recall him ever being convicted in a court of law. I find it strange that on one hand some people complain about Bush holding prisoners and on the other call people assholes that have not been judged guilty by a jury of his peers.

I never noticed ________________ (okay, I won't say "Adolph Hitler", and you can fill the blank in with the asshole of your own choice) being convicted in a court of law either.

Guess s/he was a charming fellow, and if s/he were alive today we'd all be overjoyed to see him/her running for a seat in the Michigan House.

Odd how so many people seem so reluctant to recognize that there just might be a difference between the reality of something and whether someone has ever been held to account for it.

(OJ not included)

?

Surely you're not suggesting that an actual acquittal doesn't trump reality??

... Okay, turn off sarcasm now.

Btw, I'm not seeing an inconsistency between complaining about "Bush holding prisoners" and calling Ramsay an asshole. Can you explain it to me, in your best liberal voice?

[CO Liberal]

27. I Saw Him Interviewed Enough On Local News....

...to consider him an asshole.

And his wife, too.

[-..__...]

11. "If you're known by the company you keep"

Lemme get this straight...

He's an asshole because he's...

Anti-abortion.

Anti-gay-marriage.

Conservative.

Pro-gun.

I(we)can agree to disagree with his viewpoints on the 1st 3 issues.

However, since you chose to post this little tid-bit in J/PS... is it the "pro-gun" angle that particularly raises your hackles? Or is it some misguided effort to point your finger and say that just because he's a pro-gun "spokesperson" (and just who appointed or chose him to be a spokesperson), gun owners share some sort of guilt by association?

Other than his other political viewpoints, I see no reason to condemn the guy. Certainly not because the only court he's ever been convicted in is the court of public opinion... he was never even charged with the crime.

*************

As you posted... "If you're known by the company you keep".

Schwarzenegger Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backs extending the federal assault-weapons ban, which expires in September, The Hill reported June 3.

Schwarzenegger sent a letter to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urging the U.S. Congress to renew the ban. Feinstein is among the strongest advocates for the ban.

"As you are well aware, Californians overwhelmingly support the ban on these dangerous weapons," wrote Schwarzenegger. "The renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons is a prudent, common-sense effort to limit the prevalence and availability of dangerous weapons and protect public safety."

While campaigning for governor, Schwarzenegger spoke in favor of the ban, but has remained quiet on it and other gun issues since taking office. Some activists said the governor, seemed to align with Second Amendment supporters on some issues, while at other times siding with gun-control advocates.
More

[OpSomBlood]

12. It's so easy to call them "dangerous weapons"...

...it's far more difficult to clearly define exactly what about them makes them more dangerous than semi-automatic firearms not affected by the ban.

You can use the same "they are dangerous weapons" to endorse a pistol ban or a revolver ban. Sorry...to sell such a ban to me, you're gonna have to delve a little bit deeper than, "they look scary."

[iverglas]

13. I'm just curious

What on earth was (or did you think was) the connection between what you said and the post you said it in reply to?

[OpSomBlood]

14. The Schwarzenegger quote.

Sorry, no definitive proof that I'm insane this time.

[iverglas]

15. yes, but

The point of the post you were replying to was that if firearms control advocates were to be judged by the company they keep, they'd be judged to be Schwarzenegger-like.

(Of course, one might sensibly point out that firearms control advocates might differ rather significantly with Schwarzenegger on other aspects of firearms control, to the point that their position on firearms control is not "like" his at all, while one might be hard pressed to find many differences between the positions of firearms control opponents and the NRA on firearms control issues.)

I'm just wondering what you imagine your opinion about the assault weapons ban might have to do with the point that the poster was making. The poster's subject wasn't the assault weapons ban; it was the similarities between Schwarzenegger and firearms control advocates.

It really isn't necessary, or even useful, to reiterate one's opinions about something every time the word or phrase or concept comes up tangentially in conversation, I would say. (And it might be thought wise, or courteous, to refrain from doing so in the middle of a discussion about something else entirely.)

If it were, I might just be going off on a lengthy thesis about the nature and treatment of insanity in "reply" to your statement "Sorry, no definitive proof that I'm insane this time."

I dunno ... maybe the post you were replying to was just too damn long, and you skipped down until that "assault weapons" thing caught your eye ... or maybe you just didn't grasp its point at all ...

[OpSomBlood]

17. So now there are rules on what part of a post I can respond to?

So many rules. I'll never learn them all.

[iverglas]

18. tsk

Failing to make those distinctions.

Ramsay has every right to run for elected office. Why anyone would think his running for office was a good thing, or criticize anyone else for saying it was a bad thing (who never said that he should be prevented from doing it), is beyond me. Two different things.

You have every right to say any damned thing you want (subject to local rules that have nothing to do with me), so nope, there are no "rules" such as you inquire about. Why you would think it is a good thing to say something totally irrelevant in response to something someone else said (as you evidently thought it was, since you did it) is what's beyond me, you see. Two different things.

Life is just nicer if the Ramsays of the world stay out of politics and people stick to the subject in conversations. IMeversoHO, which I have no desire to enforce or intention of trying to get anyone else to enforce.

[OpSomBlood]

19. What I posted was not irrelevant.

I directly responded to this:

"As you are well aware, Californians overwhelmingly support the ban on these dangerous weapons," wrote Schwarzenegger. "The renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons is a prudent, common-sense effort to limit the prevalence and availability of dangerous weapons and protect public safety."

So I think your ire is more appropriately directed at D_S for posting it in the first place, not at me for responding to it.

Kthxbye.

[iverglas]

20. lordy, lordy, poor D_S

D_S really was trying to make a point.

And it really did have precisely ZERO to do with whether the US assault weapons ban is good or bad. Really. Precisely ZERO.

It had to do with whether firearms control advocates are "like" Arnold Schwarzenegger, because they "keep company" with him when it comes to the assault weapons ban.

One's opinion on the assault weapons ban really has precisely ZERO to do with whether firearms control advocates are "like" Arnold Schwarzenegger. Really. Precisely ZERO. Anyone's opinion, good or bad, of the assault weapons ban or of Arnold Schwarzenegger or of chocolate ice cream.

(I have to say I'd rather be like Arnold Schwarzenegger than like Ted Nugent, if I were forced to make such a choice, btw -- and actually on point, but said parenthetically here because this is not the subject of the present tangential discussion.)

If D_S had said that firearms control advocates were like Little Red Riding Hood because both parties have a nose and two ears, would you have graced us with a dissertation on sinus medications?

D_S wasn't talking about the assault weapons ban.

D_S was using Schwarzenegger's statements about the assault weapons ban to illustrate the similarities between firearms control advocates and Schwarzenegger, NOT for purposes of discussing the assault weapons ban.

Your "reply" had NOTHING to do with what he said.

I haven't yet decided whether you actually grasp things like this and just pretend you don't (in order to make yourself look really dim? and the percentage in that for you would be --?) ... or just don't.

[OpSomBlood]

21. I think you need to type some more on this.

I'm just not getting it.

[iverglas]

22. the sad thing is

I really think you aren't.

But the goddess helps those who help themselves, so y'r on y'r own for now.

[OpSomBlood]

23. You mean no more excessively lengthy criticisms?

Shucks. Being on my own is gonna suck.

[FeebMaster]

16. What do you mean if?

I thought you were known by the company you keep.

[slackmaster]

24. Let's compare Mr. Ramsey to me

He's a Republican. I'm not now nor have I ever been a Republican.

He's anti-abortion. I'm pro-choice and always have been.

He opposes gay marriage. I support it.

He's a conservative. I'm not.

He's supposedly a savvy business person. I'm not.

He's suspected by many of having something to do with the brutal murder of his own child. I've never been accused of harming anyone.

He's 60 years old. I'm 46.

I've never met the guy.

He's pro-gun. So am I.

I guess that makes us two peas in a pod, eh CO?

:argh:

[OpSomBlood]

25. Could pass for twins.

n/t

[iverglas]

26. straw a-flyin'

The expression used was a version of "we will be known by the company we keep".

Does this mean "we are the same as the people we hang out with"?

Nope. Because if we were, there would be no need whatsoever for the thought expressed in the saying. We'd just be known to be what we were, with no need to look at whom we were hanging out with.

The whole point of the saying is that although we be different from the people we hang out with, the appearance will be that we are the same.

And the implication is that if we hang out with bad apples, we will appear to be a bad apple.

And the point is obviously that if we don't want to look like a bad apple, we'd do well not to hang out with bad apples.

We'll always be free to say: look, I'm a good apple! Let me show you all the good things about me that are different from a bad apple. I'm just standing on the same streetcorner as all these bad apples!

But why not just stay away from bad apples? might be the response. If you like hanging out with them, doesn't that indicate an affinity for badness?


Now of course, there might be only one bad apple in that crowd on the corner of NRA Street and Republican Drive. True. It doesn't look that way in this case, though.

And one bad apple can spoil the barrel anyway, one must remember.

And we don't want to forget that if one lies down with dogs, one gets up with fleas. Just as spending too much time hanging out in the barrel with the one bad apple can induce badness in apples.


So, returning to our sheep, nobody seems to have suggested that anybody was a pea in a pod shared by anyone else. It's just damned odd to find something claiming to be a mushroom in a pea pod, isn't it? If it were a mushroom, why the hell would it want to be in a pea pod??


(And yes, DNR, it was advertent. And I, at least, found it amusing, even if not hilarious.)

[CO Liberal]

28. Refer to My Post #27

[slackmaster]

29. I know and trust you well enough to accept your assessment of Mr. Ramsey

Especially since my own observations and prior knowledge of his actions confirm that the guy has an assholic personality.

He's certainly not part of the company I would keep, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree with him on every single subject.