The Conservative Denial of Reality: A Factual Guide to Annoy Republicans

paulryanrepublicanA line many liberals hear from their conservative counterparts is, “Liberals never use facts.”

Which I find ironic because it’s usually said towards something I’ve written that contains not only facts, but the sources to those facts.  It’s also humorous because often the individuals who say this never provide any kind of facts to counter what’s been said, just the simple statement of, “Liberals never use facts.”

It’s easy to understand why many right-wingers think this—have you seen where they get their “news” from?  Sources such as Fox News that constantly attack the “mainstream media,” which wouldn’t be anything worth mentioning—except they often brag about being America’s most watched cable news channel.

Nothing quite like attacking the mainstream media, then immediately bragging about being at the top of that mountain.  But being the most watched doesn’t mean they’re the best.  In fact, it just shows how controlled conservatives actually are.  They have the highest ratings because conservatives only trust Fox News.  While liberals will watch CBS, MSNBC, ABC, CNN—most Republicans only watch Fox News.

However, Fox News might not be able to make this claim for much longer—their ratings are plummeting.

But if the conservative claim that liberals don’t use facts is true, why is reality often on our side?

Many conservatives say the economy is getting worse, but it’s not.  We’ve created over 6.5 million jobs while Obama has been in office.  Our deficits have been drastically reduced, corporate profits are at their highest levels in years and stocks are at record levels.  If conservatives believe our economy is worse, or there aren’t enough jobs being created, that just means they’re admitting trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

In fact, the 1990’s showed with slightly higher taxes we could reach historic economic growth and balance our budget.  So why now is that suddenly impossible?

Many say Obama has made the United States less safe.  Really?  I could have swore we started 2 wars, and invaded 2 countries, to get Osama bin Laden (at least those are the lies the Bush administration told us)—now he’s dead.  In what realm of reality does killing the world’s most wanted criminal make us “less safe?”  If you want to talk about being “less safe,” the invasion of Iraq did that.  Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies.  Now Iran has a strong, and growing, presence in Iraq—something it never had before.

Let’s not forget those who say Obama is always on vacation and has gone “out of control” with his use of Executive orders.  I’ve already debunked this nonsense.  Truth is, he’s on pace to take fewer vacations, and issue fewer Executive orders, than both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Then there’s always their claim to be the party of “Constitutional values.”  That’s funny, last I checked:

  • The Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) was Constitutionally upheld—they oppose it.
  • Abortion was a Constitutionally protected right—they oppose it.
  • Much of the Arizona immigration law was deemed unconstitutional—they supported that law.
  • The Boston Marathon bombing suspect is an American citizen—they want him handled as an “enemy combatant”, denying him his rights as an American.
  • The Defense Of Marriage Act is based on the religious definition of “traditional marriage”—they support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, which violates our First Amendment.
  • They were the party which built, and originally passed, the Patriot Act—which has the potential to violate most of our Bill of Rights as it relates to due process.
  • They support stricter voter ID laws—which are being struck down all across the country by courts deeming them unconstitutional.
  • They’ve supported measures which would change the basic qualifications for what constitutes an American citizen—which violates our Fourteenth Amendment.
  • They opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which had prevented openly gay members of our military from serving—again violating our First Amendment.

How “Constitutional” of them.

And to wrap this up, the myth that Republicans are the party for a fiscally conservative government.  Really?  Quick, name the last Republican President to balance our budget.

Give up?  It was President Eisenhower, who served from 1953-1961.  In fact, let’s take a look at our national debt during the last 3 Republican Presidents:

  • Ronald Reagan 1981-1989: National debt increased from $1 trillion-$3 trillion
  • George H. Bush 1989-1993: National debt increased from $3 trillion-$4.2 trillion
  • George W. Bush 2001-2009: National debt increased from $5.6 trillion-$10.7 trillion

Now, if by fiscally conservative they mean they drastically increase our national debt every time they control the White House—then they’re absolutely right.

The only way Republicans are “fiscally conservative” is when it comes to spending money on the poor.  Then suddenly it’s “money we can’t afford.”  Of course, that’s only until the next tax break for the wealthy comes up for a vote, or they can increase our already bloated defense budget, then suddenly those deficit increases are “vital for the health of our nation.”

So spare me this “liberals don’t believe in facts” nonsense.  Especially when all conservatives seem to have on their side is right-wing rhetoric which almost always contradicts reality.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, inquiries, criticism or hate mail? You can email him as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jennifer Erdosy

    Thank you! The next neo-conservative who challenges me will be referred directly here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1178817737 Jerry Roach

    They still want to blame Obama for all this.

    • ME

      all this? so the country IS in trouble then? man i thought obama had everything under control?? hahahahaha. at least he can’t blame the PREVIOUS administration now. HE IS THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION ! HAHAHAHAHA

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Marra/1139453450 Jan Marra

        Wow, and you wonder why we think you’re nucking futs. You keep proving it, over and over.

      • Me too.

        This is the inane sort of reasoning that makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion with a republican.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Kat.a.weaver Katherine Weaver

        You must be a child, he was talking about “all this” as in everything that is in the article. The previous administration, which you probably don’t remember, was an illiterate fool who had no other reason to be in office other than to get back at Sudan Hussein for the fight his daddy started.Now go back to your parents and get more ‘legitimate’ conservative arguments before thinking your sticking it to liberals. You’re the reason why parents need to not talk about politics in front of kids.

      • Duane M Hansen

        Saddam Hussein darlin’, If you’re going to insult someone, get the name right.

      • Katherine Weaver

        It’s called auto correct. Someone who tries to convey a southern accent through the shorteningof words is not one to be condescendingly correcting someone. Please note I will not be replying to anything else regarding this as you have no

      • Michael

        Out of everything posted, this is what has piqued your ire. This is sad in so many ways.

      • Duane M Hansen

        Sad in so many ways? Have you read the mental vomit and blind rhetoric dripping, not only from the article, but the comments as well? Ms. Weaver demonstrates, on a grand scale, over-generalizations, ad-hominems–in multiple facets–and now, my personal favorite, a “holier-than-thou” fallacy, or moral high ground. Let me illustrate, Ms. Weaver blindly attacks username “ME” by calling him a child, insinuating his “conservative” claims to be illegitimate, and to go back to their parents whom she insinuates are also “conservative” and illegitimate. I call out her condescending message using the greatest amount of irony I could muster, which was to point out that if you’re being condescending and insulting to someone…make sure you spell things correctly. Ms. Weaver did not fail to rise to the occasion and spat back at my use of a colloquialism–darlin’– in response to her condescending post, by copping out saying it was “auto correct” and then again attempting to condescend me. Then, Ms. Weaver kicks it up a notch by claiming all I did was “attack” her and that my post had no point. This, for me, is the greatest display of irony yet, in that all her posts were was first, attacking “ME” and GWB and then secondly, myself.

        I also have a hard time with Ms. Weaver’s continued attack on “ME” by ending with, “[y]ou’re the reason why parents need to not talk about politics in front of kids.” As if we need more ignorant people raised and discussing politics. Notice I said discussing, not what we currently have which is a culture built on divisive rhetoric, red-herrings, and obstruction. Yes, that will cure everything.

      • MyStory Revealed

        and, back to the facts…..ANY response to even ONE?

      • meatwad_SSuppet


      • Neal Feldman

        Bless your heart!

      • PickAName

        stfu….will you?

      • Neal Feldman

        I prefer SoDamn Insane.

      • Bill46260

        Youre either a troll or a huge idiot. But I repeat myself…

      • MyStory Revealed

        Case in point on the idiotic response to facts. Anything…ANYTHING to say about the specific issues???…….crickets……Didn’t think so

      • Neal Feldman

        Are you retarded?

        If you think 4 years, even with a functional Congress, is sufficient time to fix all the problems caused by 3 decades of voodoo trickle down BS then you are even dumber than I take you for; and I assure you, that is saying something.

        I do not like Obummer much… as a centrist progressive I find his gleeful assumption of Shrub’s tools of the fascist police state to be anathema.

        He was going to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act; instead he has embraced and expanded upon it. Without that corrupt act the Dept of Homeland Security goes poof, as does the rightly despised TSA, the NSA’s unconstitutional domestic spying on US Citizens in our own country.

        He was going to cease the unconstitutional policy of ‘rendition’; he has expanded it.

        He was going to end the raids against medical cannabis; he has exceeded even Darth Cheney’s wildest dreams in the number and severity of raids since Obummer took over.

        He was going to end the wars; instead he has started a couple more, is working on involving the US militarily in Syria and continues to rattle the saber at Iran for having the audacity as a sovereign nation to have even one of something that we have over 6600 of. The height of hypocrisy. My son in law is still out in Afghanistan, somewhere we would not be having troops in if Obummer could ever bring himself to keeping his word to anyone other than his corporate benefactor overlords.

      • William Carr

        You perhaps are not aware that when the GOP wants to force something like the Patriot Act extension through, they add it to a “must pass” Bill authorizing the payment of our soldiers?

        “It’s a Trap !” — Admiral Ackbar

        Refuse to sign it, and the Republicans attack you for it.

        Fail to get re-elected thereby, and lose the chance to replace the Conservatives on the Supreme Court that are warping our Constitution.

        It’s a simple matter of priorities.

      • Neal Feldman

        I am aware of that BS game… it should not be allowed.

        And Obummer got re-elected almost a year ago… should it not be time to drop his support of the USAPATRIOT Act if, as you seem to think, he opposes it.

        I do not see him opposing it… if he did Shrub and Co would have been tried and convicted by now.

        You are not so gullible, are you?

  • http://twitter.com/TPuschka Tillmann Puschka

    I try not to discuss anything with them if I can help it- it’s useless and a waste of time, and I’m going to be too happy to return to Europe year after next. How do you reason with someone who’s convinced the president is a Kenyan Muslim with a secret agenda to conquer the United States?

    Keep up the fight, Allen.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      I am as liberal as they come,,, and I DO NOT accept that forgery as a legitimate document. There’s a reason they had to make a forgery up.

      • Phyllis Perpendicula Masters

        Can you teach me how to make one of those tin foil hats? :)

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        As soon as you scan a piece of paper with lots of typing on it, and show me multiple layering in the result. Go on, I’ll wait.

      • Oh Please

        How dark is the basement you’re posting from?

      • Shanasmiles

        Your forgery delusion is bullshit. His mother is a natural American citizen therefore her child is an an American citizen. The United States recognizes citizenship ex terra AND ex sanguinus. Now, please do shuffle off to the basement, your mom is calling.

      • DrDenker

        Shana, that made me smile.

      • Neal Feldman

        They FAXED the document. You DO understand how facsimile technology works, do you not?

        Even if picked up it would be a COPY of the document, not the original.

        You DO know how copy technology works, do you not?

        Just cease the facade and admit you are a drooling racist teatard. No one is buying your BS.

      • Phyllis Perpendicula Masters

        I am guessing you use the extra strength tinfoil, the one for bbq-ing. :)

      • Oh Please

        Just goes to show that the far left can be as guilty of conspiracy theory garbage as the right. At least entertain us with your theory on the reason.

      • Gipper66

        He’s a Poser and too damn stupid to be a Liberal. Don’t buy into his BS.

      • AWAKE

        Explain his book biography where the inside sleeve says he was born in Kenya?
        Explain why no one speaks of his employment with the CIA prior to his seat career?
        Explain why we’re still at war for the crimes Bush created? Out with the old puppet and in with the new.
        By the way, I don’t identify Republican or Democrat. I’m just awake.

      • William Carr

        A pamphlet given out by the publisher of Obama’s first book mistakenly lists his birthplace as Kenya.

        It’s not a legal document. It’s not proof of anything but that publishers make mistakes.

        Obama never worked for the CIA, that’s a Right Wing Delusion. And if he had… they do pretty thorough background checks.

        The Bush Wars are being wound down. If we pulled out instantly, Iraq and Afghanistan would have just collapsed and been taken over by the Taliban.

        You’re not “awake”, you’re a Conspiracy Nut.

        People who ARE “awake” verify stories before believing them.

      • Gipper66

        Yeah yeah, if you are a Liberal, then W Bush was a Fabulous President! You need to take your bullshit and stupidity somewhere else, kid, as the Adults are busy here. Run along and go play with the rest of your right wing child friends now…

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Show me the adults ans while you are at it show me the multi layered copy of an official document. It can’t be done.
        Yes liberal, that knows a liar whe he sees one. The one payer plan was sold out to the profiteers of insurance. Libertarians would be onto something if they dropped their antisocial ways. Social security is looking better than the phony stock market after all, isn’t it children. Welfare, will prevent abortions, even child saved one will make it worth the costs. G.W.Bush as his Larry King pally pappy can go suck on clintons cigar. Barry ‘needs a forgery’ obummer can watch.

      • William Carr

        TeaTard. You start off with the conviction that Obama isn’t an American citizen, and then look for speckles on a scanned copy of the Long Form BC and claim it’s proof of your paranoia.

        Ann Dunham, Obama’s mom, was an American Citizen, and it wouldn’t matter if she’d given birth on the Moon, he’d still be an American.

        These delusions you people have… I think it’s because of the leaded gasoline America got scammed into using.

        Lead causes birth defects and brain damage. And we got leaded gasoline because the same chemist that later invented CFC’s wanted to get rich.

        He invented a substitute for using Ethanol to prevent “knock”, and promoted it despite being warned that the lead in the exhaust fumes would harm children exposed to it.

        Crime rates started to climb when some children exposed grew up angry and easily confused.

        Eventually, we banned Leaded gasoline, and 18 years later the crime rates started to drop.

        That means that the Tea Party is going to run out of recruits — you’re running out of gas as we speak.

      • Owen

        You realize layering is something that automatically happens with many older document/screen scrapers?

        It isn’t like they scanned the image as a JPEG. It is a government agency that has templates for this stuff — you scan the document with a document scraper, the scraper distinguishes text from things like splotches on the paper, and then re-creates a digital image from the recognized text.

        Just because they used old technology doesn’t make it fake.

      • Neal Feldman

        Then you are a certifiable moron.

        What ‘forgery’?

        Yeah, you’re a liberal… LMAO!

        You are clearly pure teatard through and through.

        Make sure your tinfoil hat is on securely. Reality is NOT a friendly place for you.

      • gentry

        …his mother is an American citizen…that is all that should have to be said…unless you are a moron as well as a liberal

      • William Greeson

        Sooo, the president of the united states, arguably the MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON THE PLANET released a fake document that you could tell from looking at it on camera? You mean with his position in the government that he couldn’t even be bothered to make it look authentic?

        Right there is where logic breaks down, you make it sound obvious when your reasoning sounds like someone explaining that there are lizards in control of the UN. It’s insanity, and your insane for arguing it. Try basic logic to your argument and it falls apart every time. This is why I’m scared of my own country.

      • William Carr

        Well, to be fair… there ARE lizards in control of the U.N.

        {sorry, I couldn’t resist}

      • William Carr

        It’s not a forgery. What the tin-foil hat brigade insist is proof of forgery is just the effects of the reproduction process.

        Photoshop, in other words.

        Think for just one second, if you can. Suppose the CIA forged a document.

        Do you ACTUALLY believe that some amateur on the internet who’d never SEEN the actual document could detect the difference between a CIA-level forgery and an actual document?

        Because, come on… these people are EXPERTS. You’re a drooling moron.

        I am confident the CIA could produce convincing documents saying Santa Clause is an American Citizen.

    • Neal Feldman

      It is like trying to teach a pig to read… it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  • http://www.facebook.com/steven.pursley.75 Steven Pursley

    Keep speaking the truth.

  • pixeloid

    I don’t bother interacting with conservatives. There’s an old saying: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    • EdEKit

      I almost always take advantage of any opportunity to interact with conservatives. I don’t try to teach pigs to sing. There’s no point in annoying pigs, but annoying conservatives is the highest calling I can imagine.

      • pixeloid

        Well, it’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Fortunately, the only place I ever have to deal with them is online.

  • http://twitter.com/gop_lies GOP Lies Exposed

    GOP voters and supporters don’t have a high standard for Excellence in their candidates or representatives. They are the party of the stupid and will be until they get candidates more in touch with the voters of America. You have a party with no new ideas and will do everything in their power to make it harder to vote. This is a party that will only stay relevant through the means of cheating and lies.

  • Josh

    just to lend some clarity to the word “marriage”:

    throughout history it has been a word developed as the union of a man and a woman. this is just simply what the definition means. attempting to say it’s a constitutional violation is not understanding the word.

    marriage has never been “fully” associated with the word “love”.
    look at how nobility handled it during the middle ages.
    it’s simply the formal union of man and woman, not necessarily the “love” between man and woman. so it’s not violating anything by the use of the word in the sense of what it forms.

    i believe the constitution should acknowledge the union of same sex partnerships. in fact, the government should step away from the word marriage all together, and its historical baggage. the government should simply develop definitions of lawfully recognized partnerships. european countries follow this approach, since government isn’t in the business of defining love, they simply define legal partnerships. the use of the word is key here.

    instead of trying to reform a word – we should actually understand a word for what it is, without social zeal. and look into how we define what we’re progressing towards.

    im all for recognizing same sex partnerships, and i can’t tell someone who they can or can’t love, but let’s understand a word, before wiping the slate clean; something our world has a tendency to not do today. current impulse is to simply change something based on social zeal – with a short site towards the past and narrow focus on the future. a consequence of the affirmation generation.

    • No Joshing

      And I would argue that language–like life itself–evolves and changes. The word republican, for instance, used to represent progressive government.

      • Josh

        i understand what you’re trying to get at.
        language does evolve, but it does not necessarily change.

        there’s a difference here: evolution is a constructive development of something over time, be it language or a biological species. change, in the way it’s being used, is detached from what builds and forms it.

        change is not the way we approach this.
        an evolved approach is more appropriate.

        also note – words defining political parties tend to not fully adhere to the definition of a word. republican simply means someone who supports a republic. a democrat is someone who advocates democracy. yet a republican can support democracy and a democrat can support a republic. the “political party” associations do not fully get at the definition of a word.

        but ultimately, with the constitution and what we declare as constitutional, we must know language. evolve it appropriately, but not change in a way that dissociates from the formation of it.

        we should be giving correct form to what we’re trying to define. not ignorantly wipe slates clean.
        devolving language by ignoring what forms it – and blindly using it – just takes us down a road we don’t want to travel.

        and this isn’t just a semantic game.
        what i’m trying to get at is fundamental to how we view our world.

        basically: ignorant social zeal versus appropriate social agenda

      • No Joshing

        I guess one could argue, also, that gay marriage is a constructive development. How about the word gay? That’s a word that’s evolved. Eventually, with time, gay marriage will not have the “gay” label. All marriages will be simply that, marriages. It will be okay.

        Your point that, historically, marriage did not necessarily go long with love is valid. But that’s history (at least in this country). Marriage and love in today’s culture go together like peas and carrots.

    • Bryan

      Marriage has traditionally, throughout history, been a legal contract between two consenting adults. Ancient Greek marriages didn’t differentiate between men and women at all. In fact, the point in time where marriage specifically began to denote a union between a man and a woman was right at about the same point in time where Christianity began to become the dominant religion in the western world. In other words, the stipulation that marriage must be a union between men and women is strictly a Christian principle.

      • Josh

        you are correct in noting that the greeks did not necessarily conceive of a distinct sexual orientation. they mainly viewed passive and aggressive roles in gender.

        but the ancient greeks had a tendency to be appolonian in the form they gave things, and dionysian in their lives.

        they understood “life” to be somewhat chaotic, or tragic (hence “the odyssey”) – dionysian.

        when they gave form or structure to something, it tended to be ordered, and known (such as their views of the polis) – appolonian.

        all of the ancient greek authors, from Homer to Plato, had a view on marriage, and they all differed. so to generalize ancient greece as a single entity of view on this type of union, is far from correct.

        narrowing ancient greece’s view of marriage to be a “versus” of the christian view of marriage – merely sets up an argument. it’s not accurate.

        the word marriage does only trace back in the english language to the 1300s, so that explicit meaning of the word does coincide with christianity.

        but the union between a man and woman is not just a christian principle.

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Then any law about marriage is a law which openly violates the intent of the first words in the bill of rights.

    • caffeinedelusions

      In western culture, it has throughout history been used to represent a property transaction between one man (a father or patriarch) to another man (a husband, or aspiring patriarch), of a woman. In western society, until relatively recently in historical terms, women were considered at least partially to be property. In eastern countries, however, the definition of marriage has been more fluid. Many Buddhist countries actually have a historically long (if not overly prominent) history of gay marriage. Given that America is a melting pot, and we -have- Buddhists here, telling them that they must abide by a European definition of marriage is a direct assault on their religious freedoms.

    • Michael Albright

      Bad reasoning. Nothing that predates the construction of “marriage” as it relates to American law is directly relevant to the discussion of whether marriage equality ought to be entered into US law, unless it can provide a compelling reason not to. According to US law in all 50 states, marriage is a contract that confers benefits and institutes liabilities on the interested parties. There is literally nothing in any legal definition of marriage (save for the state constitutions that do identify it was a “union between a man and a woman,” which are themselves subject to the bounds of constitutionality) that prohibits or necessarily excludes same-sex couples. There are only a handful of things that exclude groups of more than two, for that matter, but sticking to the task at hand: if there is no clear reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage benefits, then denying them those benefits is discriminatory and unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    • SolusLupus

      For the vast majority of history, “marriage” was purely arranged. We redefined that.

      In the Bible itself, polygamous marriages were extremely common. We redefined that.

      In many cultures, a marriage would be dissolved if the woman was infertile. Now babies are optional.

      Only in 1215 did the Catholic Church decree that partners had to publicly post notices of impending marriage in a local parish, so as to prevent “invalid” marriages… and the Catholic Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980. Even then, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple’s word that they had exchanged marriage vows.

      Let’s also ignore that this idea that marriage only means “one man and one woman” is not true across all cultures.

      So really, what IS the “concrete” definition of Marriage again, that has not been changed in the past?

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      Okay, in the traditional sense, the laws about marriage just between a man and one woman is a religious concept which violates the first thought in the first amendment, thee more important thought by those old men that wrote the bill of rights. Remove all laws and policies having anything to do with marriage then.

  • Greg Maxxwell

    John Dean nailed the conservative insanity several years ago with his detailed analysis in “Conservatives Without Conscience”. Right wing authoritarians are in complete control of their followers. Not too long after John Deans revelations, Charles P. Pierce went deeper in his book “Idiot America” where he detailed the mechanisms authoritarians used to keep their followers hypnotized. There are excellent road maps available to combat this idiocy. It’s time to go on the offensive.

    • MyStory Revealed

      I have said dozens of times on dozens of boards….WHAT exactly is the Dem’s strategy (or offensive as you say). If you’ve been attacked from the Right by Crazy and Corrupt umpteen times, you can probably expect it to happen again, and again and again…The Dem’s seem hopelessly oblivious to this or woefully inept at developing a counter-strategy. I thought the House is FULL of attorneys, both sides of the aisle…Why are the Repugs the only ones who seem to be able to pull endless “legal tricks” out of the bag at the last minute, catching the Dem’s with their pants down over and over and over….Gee, who could’ve known they might try to pull a fast one???

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.posner Joshua Posner

    George H.W. Bush should not be mentioned in this article. He may have been a conservative GOP President, and yes, the national debt increased under him, but he wasn’t as bad as his son, or worse yet, Nixon. Although I’m now a Democrat, I would take the kinder, gentler and elder Bush over many others. The Presidents of the last 100 years have all made major mistakes. Nobody’s perfect.

    • EdEKit

      GHWB lost his bid for a second term because he was not “Republican Enough.” And, Clinton won a second term because he was more Republican than Jimmy Carter.

    • MyStory Revealed

      Learn about the neocon agenda

  • Karen Churchill

    Utah Phillips, may he rest in peace, said it best: “Talking to a conservative is like talking to your refrigerator… You know, the light goes on, the light goes off; it’s not going to do anything that isn’t built into it… And I’m not going to talk to a conservative anymore than I talk to my damn refrigerator.”

  • rich

    Mr. Clifton, You start this article by saying you always cite the facts and where they can be found but in the article you make many statements but do not note your source of where one can find these facts. You sound like your idol Mr. Obama who says ” people who won’t answer questions are people with something to hide”

  • Bill

    So I take it you think yourself to be a liberal. I doubt you are, judging the way you describe a conservative.
    You clearly don’t know what a conservative is, as witness by your referring to Paul Ryan as being a conservative. He is what conservative call a neo-con or a fake conservative.

    • cdub

      I think he is referring to the fact that Ryan and the GOP claim to be the conservative party. Not that they fit the description of what it used to or ideally means.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Dr.MikeButler Mike Butler

    It doesn’t matter. The Republic voters don’t argue, they merely parrot vaguely relevant bullet-points, that still have no bearing on the topic at-hand. It’s like arguing with someone who is retarded.

  • Postulant

    I see the “I’ll pick and choose who and what to believe” is still going strong. The real facts are that there will never be any real facts presented. Just propaganda, hyperbole and dismissive satire. We are given whatever “facts” suit those who benefit most would allow us to explain our hopeless useless lives so that we can feel as though we are knowledgeable and thus in control. The only life I control is my own. I define a desire within myself, for my own reasons and I affect my surroundings to create it’s reality. THEN I BLOODY WELL ENJOY AND APPRECIATE IT!
    It does not take an economics major to figure out that if something is not created or produced nothing can be removed without diminishing something else. There are balances. If more are able and motivated to produce, there will be more to remove (consume). Production; however large or small is necessary to any economy. Only then, can excess be skimmed to assist others and it behooves those others to then produce in return.
    You want a truth.
    Argue with that one.

    • uhhhh

      I am so tired of people pretending Ayn Rand had a valid point by belting out words they think sound impressive. So what you’re saying is that since people disagree on what facts are, and that is not remediable, therefore we get to make them up however we want, and are responsible to nobody. So we are all out for ourselves (because we only can trust our own local impact on our environment/society to serve us. Welcome to nihilism, by the way. You go on to justify this by saying that since we have to have things to sell them, and have to produce things to have them, and can only serve ourselves on our own terms … what, exactly? Is the next argument that we are wisest to make and take whatever we can get our hands on, because nothing works without “producers?” Hogwash. In any society there is an inherent social contract between citizens. Break all the rules and corner the market, and … well, just ask the Romanovs how that tends to turn out. Oh, wait … they were all gunned down by the Bolsheviks. Ayn Rand should have known betteer. She came from that country.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jamie.wallhauser Jamie Wallhauser

    I count conservatives among my friends and family and trust me, there is no point at this point in trying to argue facts. Like most bullies, after bullying they claim your defensive reaction of offering facts is — bullying them. There’s just something wrong with their wiring.

    • MyStory Revealed

      There is seriously something “different’ with their brains. Several studies have demonstrated this lately. A Google search would provide interesting info on the subject.

    • Adam E Trumper

      It’s projection.

  • http://www.facebook.com/comicwatcher Comic Watcher

    I often feel that arguing with republicans is like playing chess with a Pigeon:”it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” — Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

  • YouKnowMe

    What income the Sucking South actually EARNS comes mostly from military installations and defense contracting. So naturally those can’t be touched, even though they’re a feature of the Dang Gummint Cain’t Do Thing One Right. They’re testosteronic activities, you know: making bombs is manly, making solar panels is pussy. We get it.

    Somehow the right wing forgets that the military is the biggest gummint welfare program on earth. Right down to personal welfare in the form of three hots and a cot. It’s also a socialisticalistical organization too, where you have to wear the same outfits, live in standardized housing, and mow your lawn to spec, as well as think like the higher-ups think (that is, if you want to move up and get the REALLY pimped-out benefits the Brigadier General Whores with braids on their shoulders get).

    • William Carr

      “Making solar panels is pussy”.

      And I thought my opinion of Solar Panels couldn’t GET any higher, but now I want to figure out how to make my own.

  • Woods and Water

    Conservatives don’t wish to ‘conserve’ anything like resources, the environment, our fisheries…what they want to do is ‘conserve’ their status quo, the white male paradigm…power over, rather than empowerment.

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      Today’s conservative is more of a Con Server.

  • Joshua

    I thought you were talking about “conservatives”. Just a couple items down in the list, I realized you were talking about “people who disagree with me”.

    “Constitutionally upheld” is legaleze for “unconstitutional, but passed through the supreme court, as SCOTUS interprets the constitution to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly states in plain English, but just abusing the language is easier than calling for a constitutional convention, which is what is ACTUALLY required to alter the constitution.

    • anthony fries

      Oh so that is where people get their numbers mixed up from. I keep hearing from Anti-obama that the debt is really bad, while others are saying the debt is shrinking.

  • Donald

    The more relevant fiscal metric is deficit, not debt. Otherwise you validate their argument about Obama and his fiscal record.

    I’m sure you know this, but I felt the need to point it out. And just to highlight the point with regard to President Obama.

    The fiscal 2009 deficit as of January 2009 was 1.2 trillion according to the CBO.

    The fiscal 2013 deficit is 650 billion.

    This represents a massive improvement in our fiscal situation from the day Obama took office to now. However, if you look at debt alone, Obama took office with a debt of about 10.6 trillion. It is now roughly 16.7 trillion.

    I should also note that deficit is more relevant than debt not because of it’s appearance with regard to Obama. However, Obama is a good example, because a president who takes office with such a staggering deficit will almost certainly be incapable of keeping the debt increases low. Thus, the change in deficit is clearly more appropriate in determining any particular president’s impact on our fiscal situation.

    • MyStory Revealed

      Thank you for this info. I did not know the differentiation. Now, did you factor in the assumption of the cost of the wars by the Obama Administration that had not been accounted for by the war criminals that started them?

      • Donald

        Yes. Although I think there is a misconception about that. It is true Bush and that White House kept the wars ‘off the books’, and they did it regularly by essentially acting as if it was continuous one-off emergency funding as opposed to putting it in the budgets. What that allowed them to do was claim that projected deficits were smaller than they actually were. However, I’m fairly certain that after the fact deficit calculations by the CBO still took that spending into account. In projections the CBO might not have considered that spending, but in year-end reports it would have. And thus, if you look at historical deficits by year per the CBO, that war spending would be factored in.

        I’m fairly certain I’m accurate about all that. But I’m by no means an expert, just someone who likes to read a lot and stay informed.

  • Bill46260

    “However, Fox News might not be able to make this claim for much longer—their ratings are plummeting.”

    Point of order: Since when have Fox “News” or Republicans in general let the fact that something wasnt true stand in the way of them saying it again and again

  • KishinD

    Why is it so easy for humans to deny reality?
    Why is it so hard for us to look at it without bias?
    Does our educational system promote gullibility and logical fallacies?

  • jeffsalzberg

    Defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman violates the Equal Protection clause, not the first amendment. Doing so “because the Bible says so” is what violates the first.

  • fafhrd

    I really get a kick out of liberal facts. “We’ve created over 6.5 million jobs while Obama has been in office.” That’s why there are fewer people working now, than when Obama was first inaugerated. “Our deficits have been drastically reduced,” after having raised the first year deficit by over $1 trillion in ‘Stimulus’. “If conservatives believe our economy is worse, or there aren’t enough jobs being created, that just means they’re admitting” that this government has introduced so much regulatory and tax uncertainty that companies are sitting on cash reserves rather than trying to grow.

    “Then there’s always their claim to be the party of “Constitutional values.” That’s funny, last I checked:The Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) was Constitutionally upheld—they oppose it.” So the Supreme Court made it Constitutional by declaring that the individual mandate is a tax (which the Administration said that it wasn’t), and if it is a tax, it fails the Constitutional test because it didn’t start in the House of Representatives.

    I can actually agree with the facts about how much the debt has increased under the last three Republican administrations. Facts are facts. Those facts also show that Clinton raised the debt by $1.4 Trillion in his 8 years, GW Bush wasn’t a fiscal conservative, and Obama has increased the debt by $6 Trillion in 4 years compared to GW Bush’s $5.1 Trillion in 8 years.
    I could tear apart each of the rest of Mr. Clifton’s ‘facts’.

  • Snarfleberry

    Discussing “facts” with a conservative is much like teaching a pig to sing opera: the results are dubious and it annoys the pig.

  • meatwad_SSuppet

    Do not ever forget, before “don’t ask don’t tell was thrown away as BS, it was very EASY for a foreign nation to black mail many of the homosexuals in our military at all ranks and sensitive positions. Now they can’t black mail them.

  • Edward Baker

    I watch fox for Baseball games and two and a half men reruns …Never the news …

  • http://www.facebook.com/vcaione Vincent Caione

    Please don’t forget the GOP convention where they ncouldn’t find 1 minute to thank are troops .

  • Budd

    I’m all for most of his domestic policies, but at the same time, let’s not claim how divergent Bush and Obama have been in foreign affairs. Also, I feel the executive order thing is a comparison we simply can’t make since we have no idea how many could be classified/unknown. In any case, love the site & post.

  • Bob Doll

    Bob Doll, Bob Doll, Bob Doll……bob doll…

  • Mike

    The Boston Bomber isn’t an American Citizen, he’s a Registered Alien (legal immigrant).

  • agent8699

    As a traditional Republican, reality is sinking in. Mostly due to the assault on public education. What I don’t understand is why Obama supports Arne Duncan, who is selling out to corporations to privatize education? I truly don’t understand. This is creating a greater divide between the social classes. Inner city schools closed, and a higher drop out rate because now children are labeled as failures… it is testing gone mad. I pray our country wakes up and sees the truth.

  • whitecrane123

    Our close friends had 2 children when they were stationed in the Philippine Islands. They lived off base, and the children were born in a hospital in Manila. They are U.S. citizens since both parents are U.S. citiizens. It is the citizenship of a parent that matters…..ask John McCain.

  • MyStory Revealed

    Thanks Donald. I sure wish there were more people like you who DID make a commitment (of any sort) to read and stay informed. It’s nice to be able to have a dialogue and learn from others, without rabid responses, constructed entirely of off-point slurs, insults and ad hominem attacks. I learned something from your post, thank you.

  • Racnad

    Have you ever tried to discuss with a conservative how the Bush administration deceived the public and the world about Iran’s weapons of mass destruction? It’s as if it never happened to them. Until they acknowledge this fact, they have no credibility pointing their fingers at Obama.