Uh, General, I think some damned French computer hacker has corrupted your message. Don't you mean

"they can't beat us Republicans when it comes to coddling corporate criminals,..."

You don't want people thinking that them Demoncrats can beat us at our own game, do you?
PestilentSpawnOfCthulhu | 11.12.04 - 1:31 am | #

Thanks oh tentacled one.
patriotboy | Homepage | 11.12.04 - 1:43 am | #

General,

Why don't Democrats form a "rifle association?" Or at least co-sponsor one?

Now, wait a second, please hear me out. I understand the Democratic position and I also understand the NRA and Republican position. Each in their own way is conservative. Additionally, both claim the high-ground of having the best interests of our society in mind. I can see both sides, and actually the claims of both sides are equally valid.

So, why would Democrats forming a 'rifle association" bridge the gap between the two sides while undercutting all the Republican and NRA spin?

1) Action would be involved, not just words. Democrats are for responsible gun ownership. Strangely enough, the NRA web-site promotes gun safety classes, gun training classes, etc...you know, reponsible gun ownership. Democrats would instantly neutralize the Republican/NRA spin by taking the best of the NRA and incorporating this into our newly-formed "rifle association." This would also have the added effect of neutralizing the demonizing of the NRA (and it's members) by certain radical Democrats.

2) Since, essentially, the NRA has been the only game in town, many Democrats who are gun-enthusiasts are members. Having our own "rifle association" would give these Democrats, especially in rural areas, a chance to switch. And the money many gun-enthusiast Democrats gave to the NRA which was often then used to fight Democratic candidates would now go to a Democratic "rifle association" and used to help elect Democratic candidates.

3) Instead of confronting gun-enthusiasts at gun shows, Democratic "rifle association" representatives would have a booth at gun shows for signing up new members and helping gun-enthusiasts with their gun selection. In other words, we would instantly change our image from being divisive to actually being uniters, but responsible uniters.

4) Certain mis-perceptions about Democrats in general would be addressed. Now, the Republicans and the NRA have painted Democrats as being anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun, anti-family (protection), unpatriotic girlie-men. In other words, how can Democrats who are rabidly anti-gun possibly be trusted with defending our rights, or our lives, or our families? You see? Having our own "rifle association" would immediately negate this spin.

5) A Democratic "rifle association" would be a deterrent. Republicans, and the NRA, have been promoting the false idea that Democrats are a bunch of push-overs. In other words, we are the 98-pound weaklings being bullied and having sand kicked in our face, and the face of our families. Our own "rifle association" would go far to correcting this manufactured mis-perception. And yet, having a Democratic "rifle association" (DRA, let's say) decal on your car or home might just be symbolic, because DRA members might not even own a gun. To clarify, owning a gun is not a requirement of joining the NRA, just as owning a gun would not be a requirement of a DRA m
PaulTexas | 11.12.04 - 3:06 am | #

Dear General,

I also think this fine tradition of Marquette should be reinstated!
The underclasses would do well to mix with their betters, if only for their own improvement.
I believe that you are missing a twist though.
What with the Frenchie's constant call for Equal Rights for men and women, I think that the husband should get equal rights to Marquette when they marry.
This would teach male underlings the time honored technique of "Desk Diving" that is the main way that Republican businessmen get promoted, is it not?
Holy Jack | 11.12.04 - 6:29 am | #

One of the purposes of droit de seigneur (as it was called when it was a French custom, instead of a patriotic American one) was eugenics. You now, to help to improve the peasant stock by mixing some noble blood into the mix. I think this is another reason why the Democrats should propose it -- because if the factory owner spawned a bunch of kids on the wives of his employees, then said kids would have successful RICH blood in their veins, and so would undoubtedly never need welfare or unemployment benefits or any of those state-provided benefits.
s.z. | Homepage | 11.12.04 - 9:12 am | #

I bet that 100% Not Guilty Modesto Fertilizer Salesguy would have gladly given up his shrew of a wife.
Pete Scotterson | 11.12.04 - 10:31 am | #

And the concept was endorsed by one of our founding fathers - Thomas Jefferson.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the GOP already plans to put this in place. How else could you explain their fanatical opposition to gay marriage?
Mojo | 11.12.04 - 10:38 am | #

Another brilliant idea, sir. I believe the patriotic and God-fearing young women in this country will rally to the cause. How flattered they will be to have the attentions of a rich and powerful man, if only for the evening. Speaking as a woman, I must say that it would be a treasured lifetime memory.

But one thing troubles me -- the Twins. How regrettable if they were to miss out on this blessing. But their father is President, so who would do the honors? I'm thinking it would have to be Dick Cheney. Could that be right? I'm sure they're looking forward to it.

And what about the Mary Cheneys of this world? If they don't marry -- and of course Dear Leader won't allow such travesty -- then how will they be eligible for A Night with the Boss? I'm thinking that it would be a sad thing to leave them out. A romp with a manly CEO might be enough to save them from their hedonistic ways.

Is there some way Alan Keyes can get some of the action? He seemed so frustrated here in Illinois.
ZTP | 11.12.04 - 10:42 am | #

I just found out that my birthplace, Milwaukee WI, has an entire university for marquette. Can you imagine? Not only are people already following this practice, but there are some with a four-year degree in it. shudder
Gary Kleppe | Homepage | 11.12.04 - 10:45 am | #

General, sir:
I am my own employer. That, & I'm already one of the ladies. How shall I proceed on my wedding day?
Karen | 11.12.04 - 8:56 pm | #

I cut up my visa card from MBNA when I found out they were one of Bush's rangers. I never shop at Walmart unless I have absolutely no other choice. I am not suggesting a boycott of Bush's rangers, but I am suggesting we support and promote companies that contributed to the Democratic Party and were not, at least, a Ranger. We are 56 million consumers.

The right wing's heroes are all hypocrites. From what I understand: Newt divorced his dying wife for another woman. Rush is a drug addict who used his maid in his crime and is on marriage number 4. O'Reilly is divorced and a writer of dirty books. Kudlow is/was a coke junkie. 5. The Catholic church covered up and protected pedophiles and condemns us to hell because we believe in choice. Maybe we need to air and hammer on their dirty linen a little more often and publicly. How can anyone suggest we embrace or make concessions to this clay footed group?

I believe we need our own Karl Rove and Fox network, and Air America needs to get on the air in more places to counter right wing radio. IF we have monied interests in this Party, we need them to finance this left leaning commercial enterprise. I go back to we are not 56 million losing idiots. We are 56 million consumers and we could be a profitable market for someone and get our message out with more regularity.
Better Dead then Red | 11.13.04 - 5:48 am | #

Ya know, General, this was yet another occasion where my first response was to holler, "Stop giving The Enemy goddamned IDEAS!!!!!!

But, you know, I guess what it all boils down to is...

Sometimes it's GOOD to be the Old Maid.

Well, you know, until those black vans start circling the block...

Awwww, fuckitall, we're doomed.
Anntichrist S. Coulter | 11.13.04 - 10:36 pm | #