If I were going to think of an internet identity which would show bad taste and general ignorance for a pro-gunner, I could come up with some obvious ones relating to Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK, or Reagan.
Using Teddy Roosevelt comes in there as well (and ties into McKinley). In fact, Roosevelt might be a better (worse?) choice for someone who is advocating "pro-gun" policies.
First off, TR became President due to McKinley's assassination in 1901
Secondly, TR survived an assassination attempt on 14 October 1912 when:
John F. Schrank, a saloon-keeper from New York, shot Roosevelt once with a .38 caliber revolver. A 50-page speech folded over twice in Roosevelt's breast pocket and a metal glasses case slowed the bullet. Amidst the commotion, Roosevelt yelled out, "Quiet! I've been shot." Roosevelt insisted on giving his speech with the bullet still lodged inside him. During his speech Roosevelt stated, "It takes more than one bullet to bring down a Bull Moose" thus further perpetuating Roosevelt's image as a larger than life President and the nickname of the Progressive Party, the Bull Moose Party established in June 1912 after Roosevelt responded to reporters questioning his health stating, "I am as strong as a Bull Moose". He later went to the hospital, but the bullet was never removed. Roosevelt, remembering that William McKinley died after operations to remove his bullet, chose to have his remain. The bullet remained in his body until his death in 1919. Schrank said that McKinley's ghost had told him to avenge his assassination. Schrank was found legally insane and was institutionalized until his death in 1943.Fortunately, bullets in the good old days pre-nitro powder weren't as powerful as they are now, or Ruffy would be in seriously bad taste territory, as opposed to just bad taste territory...
And if you don't like "Libruls", don't idolise TR:
Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party (GOP) toward Progressivism (AKA Liberalism), including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase "Square Deal" to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair share under his policies. As an outdoorsman and naturalist, he promoted the conservation movement.
Don't forget the big one - Teddy Roosevelt was a HUGE advocate for national health insurance. It originated in Germany in the 1880s, caught on there around that time.
ReplyDeleteOther developed countries have had some form of social insurance (that later evolved into national insurance) for nearly as long as the US has been trying to get it. Some European countries started with compulsory sickness insurance, one of the first systems, for workers beginning in Germany in 1883; other countries including Austria, Hungary, Norway, Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands followed all the way through 1912. Other European countries, including Sweden in 1891, Denmark in 1892, France in 1910, and Switzerland in 1912, subsidized the mutual benefit societies that workers formed among themselves. So for a very long time, other countries have had some form of universal health care or at least the beginnings of it. The primary reason for the emergence of these programs in Europe was income stabilization and protection against the wage loss of sickness rather than payment for medical expenses, which came later. Programs were not universal to start with and were originally conceived as a means of maintaining incomes and buying political allegiance of the workers.
In a seeming paradox, the British and German systems were developed by the more conservative governments in power, specifically as a defense to counter expansion of the socialist and labor parties. They used insurance against the cost of sickness as a way of “turning benevolence to power”.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php?page=all
It makes us all MORE FREE and makes the various nations that have universal health care stronger by having a strong and healthy population, and minimizes problems with illness destabilizing individuals and communities, and by extension the country.
It is also the right thing to do. Claiming such a health program, which is more efficient is LESS FREE (what free to be sick, injured or dead?) is stupid, wrong, and anyone who thinks that clami makes sense is silly.
Every nation that is ahead of us in rankings of every measure except incarceration is more socialized than we are, demonstrating that it works. We cannot claim to be "the most free society" in the world with more sick people, more people dying for lack of health care and more people locked up. Ditto the society with the most people dying from being shot - especially children - just because we have a lot of stupid people who have guns. The metric is wrong, guns do not make us safe and they damned well don't make us free --- which good old Teddy knew well.
"Conservative" is a misnomer for SKKKrotalMurKKKinPatriotiKKK Front types. What they are is "reactionaries". In post-1917 Russia they would have been called counter-revolutionaries. I prefer to think of them as selfish, whackjob fucktards. And yes, there us GINORMOUS overlap between them and Gunzloonz Nation.
ReplyDelete