There are 2 comments.

1. Member
   Arahant

   @Arahant

   6:51 AM PST ⋅ Feb 28, 2018

   Your friend, Mr. Hook, seems a capital fellow.

2. Inactive
   contrarian

   @Contrarian

   2:27 PM PST ⋅ Feb 28, 2018

   1. Play by the rules – ‘if this were National Review or Commentary…’ It’s about whether you see rules as merely an imperfect means to promote what is right (which means you’re predisposed to find liberal ideology attractive), or whether you believe right and wrong are defined by rules. The latter doesn’t necessarily lead one to be conservative but makes it impossible to embrace contemporary progressivism
   2. Trump & Judge Curiel – Yes. This was ugly and disgraceful, but may be necessary. After 2012 I realized the left would never stop using identity politics as a bludgeon until someone used it to clobber them a few times. That’s Trump’s job. He’s chemo for political cancer. It’s supposed to make you nauseous. That means it’s working.
   3. Pre-crime – A lot of people on the right want to redirect from gun control to mental illness without understanding what they’re saying, just like liberals who don’t understand guns but know guns are the problem. A mental illness is a very specific thing and it’s not correlated with being a danger to the well. The well are a far greater danger to the mentally ill than vice versa. Shooters are psychologically unwell, but that’s as different from being mentally ill as a semiautomatic rifle is from a machine gun.  Mental illness is not in itself a justification for stripping someone of their rights. History of and/or imminent threat of violence and not mental health should be the focus of prevention.
   4. Pro-life Democrats – They were wiped out because of Pitts-Stupak. It’s not much of a loss. ‘I’m personally pro-life,’ just means you’re pro-choice but you frown when you think about abortion. The word ‘personally’ negates what it modifies like ‘artificial’ in ‘artificial leather upholstery.’

   Imagine an early 19th-century pol saying, “Personally I’m opposed to all violent treatment of the fairer sex. However, as a matter of law, I believe in the principle of coverture and a husband’s right of chastisement. Spousal correction is an intensely private matter, and the government has no business seeking to interpose itself into the sacred relationship between a husband and wife.”