Quantcast

Mocking and Debunking 10 of the Most Popular Conservative Talking Points

bill-oreilly-idiotIf there’s one thing about conservatives that never ceases to amazing me, it’s how easily they’re manipulated.  I’ve often joked that I really don’t even need to debate conservatives, all I really need to do is turn on Fox News, because they’re just going to regurgitate whatever is said on that network.

They’re built on talking points.  I call it bumper sticker politics.  If it’s too long and complicated to fit on a bumper sticker, then most conservatives really don’t seem able to grasp it.

So, I decided I’d mock 10 of my favorite conservative talking points to expose just how ludicrous and hypocritical many of these people are.

Let’s get started…

1) We’re the party for fiscal responsibility… which is true, as long as they’re talking about President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  You see, he was the last Republican president to actually balance the budget - in the 1950′s.  

2) We’re pro-life… as long as you’re talking about a fetus.  Otherwise they cut programs that help the poor, oppose universal health care so people can live longer and often brag about the number of executions their particular state performs each year.  Oh, and they love guns.  You know, the tools largely responsible for around 9,000 homicides in this country each year.

3) We’re for small government… until it comes to trying to restrict homosexuals from having equal rights or blocking a woman’s constitutionally protected right to have an abortion, then they love government.

4) We support our troops… by sending over 4,400 of them to die in a war based on blatant lies.  And by blocking veterans bills for the ones who do manage to make it home alive.

5) We’re for Constitutional rights… until someone with which they disagree is given rights they don’t think they should have, then they can’t stand the Constitution.

6) We stand for religious freedom… for Christians.  More specifically, conservative Christians.  Because if you’re a liberal church that wants to marry a gay couple in a state which currently still has a ban in place on gay marriage, then suddenly conservatives don’t care at all about that church’s “religious freedom.”

7) Our Second Amendment says our right to bear arms shall not be infringed… always amusing how they ignore the entire first part of the Second Amendment referring to “a well regulated militia.”

8) Abraham Lincoln was a Republican… yes, he was.  But let’s use a little logic here, shall we?  Practically every state that fought with the Confederacy also opposed a woman’s right to vote, desegregation and the Civil Rights act.  Those states are today almost all “strongly Republican” states.  Racism and discrimination that’s spanned well over 150 years and passed on through several generations.  Furthermore, did they suddenly forget about the Southern Strategy?

9) I don’t trust the “lamestream” media… said by people who worship Fox News, the most watched cable news channel on television.  Being the “most watched” defines what it means to be “mainstream.”

10) The government is corrupt and inefficient… said by people who continue to elect politicians who run on the premise that the government is corrupt and inefficient – and once elected do their best to see that it is.

A couple of honorary mentions:

This house doesn’t call 9-1-1… I sincerely hope they reconsider in the event of a medical emergency or fire.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people… yes, and they tend to kill one another far more often when guns are easily accessible within a society.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun… I’m fairly certain the first few victims the “bad guy with a gun” claimed before the “good guy with a gun” could identify and shoot him feel differently.

This nation was founded on Christianity… then why aren’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” written in our Constitution even once?

Wow, I could honestly keep going on and on.  Maybe I’ll do a part two.  Hit me up on Twitter and let me know what you think.


About Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

  • Jim Bean

    #7. That argument always intrigues me. It implies that for 227 years, the government forgot to enforce the law that was intended to limit possession of firearms to members of the government-regulated military. Equally intriguing is the intellectual capacity of those who can be persuaded to buy into that notion. Evolution is a painfully slow process, even in humans.

    • Brad Farnsworth

      Equally intriguing is the intelligence, or lack of is more appropriate, of those that keep boasting their right to bear arms allover the place.

    • surfjac

      When you get to the part about a “well-regulated militia”, it is for the security of the state, not the nation. It deals with slave posses so that the South’s economy wouldn’t be threatened by runaway slaves or slave revolts.

      • Nemisis

        That’s a reach…

      • surfjac

        No, it’s not. Look it up, it’s American history.

      • Nemisis

        I feel you, having made the claim, bear the burden of proof. Therefore link us to this history you speak of.
        My version is somewhat more obscured with details and commentary that do not concur with events as you have stated.

        Harry Turtledove would be jealous of your history.
        The 2nd, was not put in play to counter the hordes of escaped slaves. If anything it was put there to keep the peace between the 1st and 5th. The 1st allowing one to speak ones mind the 5th allowing one to be quiet.

      • was*thisjustin

        I agree with you that surfjac should cite his evidence. However, your assessment of the second amendment is ridiculous.

      • surfjac

        I’m not gonna’ ask you to cite yours that mine is ridiculous the same way I wouldn’t ask you to prove snow is white or grass, green.

      • was*thisjustin

        You misinterpreted what I wrote. I was stating that Nemisis made a ridiculous comment. Not sure how you thought I was stating that your comment was ridiculous.

    • Nemisis

      Amusing, yet accurate point.
      However, I contend that “Well regulated” has nothing at all to do with regulation in essence to laws. I believe that the use of those two words are meant to mean total number of people and who is to defend the state. Regulated to mean a person as in regulators.
      Militia to mean civilians tasked with defense.

      I base this on the definition of the words used at the time they were used. Especially in light of the context they were used in.
      Bearing that in mind there should also be meetings of the militia for training purposes. I can’t find one unless you go to the national guard but then that is a formal military unit and no longer a militia.

      To me. The 2nd has no bearing on hunting, and points directly at defense. The 2nd coupled with the Federalist papers clearly indicates that the intent was to prevent anything that would take the government away from the people by whatever means. I am a firm believer in the statement that ” Without the second we can have no others.” The fact that it was second and not first only demonstrates that that Not only free speech, but freedom to chose or not chose a religion was far more important than the right to a gun. I concur because, to me, the 1st is designed to bring all religious preferences together, the 2nd is to ensure it’s viability.

      Those that use ridicule in their arguments clearly do not have faith in their arguments and use such to mask their doubt or insecurity.
      I may be wrong, but I am just as likely correct when I assume our
      founding fathers chose language based on their times, and in doing so may have chose words that they could not predict would have meaning and usage change over time.
      To that there are many pre-20th century laws that restrict gun access and they are not considered as violations of the 2nd. As communities are given some lee-way in what is permissible.
      For example Tuscon in the 1880′s banned the carrying of deadly weapons. That was not just guns, but guns were included.

      I feel the argument should not be whether or not we have guns, it should be about when, and where, and by who.
      Ie: gun nuts fine, nuts with guns not so good.
      Ball pit at Chucky Cheese, no. In Church, fine.

      • Jim Bean

        Our founding fathers were British citizens who used their access to firearms to overthrow their own government. The notion that, once they achieved that, they wrote a charter that included provisions to ensure the same thing couldn’t be repeated is beyond absurd. Nuts with guns is an issue but there are inescapable realities blocking the path. People who aren’t nuts today can be nuts tomorrow. People who are nuts aren’t necessarily too stupid to acquire a gun illegally, nor are they necessarily too stupid to know that seeking treatment for mental health problems could render them ineligible to possess firearms under Nemisis’ grand plan. Its like with automobiles. They kill people. We don’t need them. But we accept the deaths because we want them.

      • Nemisis

        I’ve never made a grand plan.
        I simply said nuts with guns is bad.
        I’ll let history stand for itself on that.

        The constitution was formulated to allow the people to dismantle and rebuild the government through a non-violent process thus rendering any violent overthrow as unnecessary.

        Your absolutely correct people who have guns and are responsible with them can become irresponsible. People who should not have guns can come into possession of a gun. Criminals with no regard for the law will certainly acquire a gun by any means. I do not dispute this and my comments have never alluded otherwise.
        I am not against guns, gun ownership by responsible people, or even laws designed to protect those not interested in owning or using guns.
        I do believe in moderation and self-discipline when guns are involved. That goes for either side.
        I don’t adhere to the thought that a good guy with a gun is the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun philosophy as there is evidence that shows a good guy could be shot by the bad guy. That is because most people who own a gun should not.
        They lack the training, and the capacity to use a gun properly and effectively. I am a strong advocate of gun education regardless of a person’s future intent to own a gun. That training would be gun type specific. IE no glock with unless your trained on semi-automatic pistols, no AR-15 unless you’ve been trained on it. That training is built of a deeper core training that is all about gun safety, and proper use of the gun. I’m not talking about a 2 hour video either. Gun registration would be less about the gun and more about the user/owner of guns. IE Is this person allowed to own guns based on completion of the course yes or no. That is the extent of it. Does that prevent unlawful use of guns? No and neither does eradicating guns. England can tell you they have no gun crime but the reality is they do.
        I think the stat is that 16% of gun crimes committed involve LCM’s. My response is so what, 84% of gun crimes are committed without. Quit chasing the tail of the problem. History has shown that through education great things can be achieved.
        How many gun deaths could be prevented just by adding biometric locks? Criminals are smart and can figure out how to defeat that, but could a four year old? So why is the NRA blocking it?
        Education would be my grand plan.

      • Jim Bean

        That’s a lot. Lets do it piece by piece. What part of the constitution enables the people to non-violently dismantle the government should those in power elect (as they always do in such cases) to use the armed military might under their control to block the dismantling?

      • Nemisis

        The vote process, the segregation of powers, and finally… the 2nd. Even without the 2nd, I seriously doubt that there could ever be a zero gun state in the US. The fact that the military is sworn first to the constitution and then the president is important.
        As congress can attest when you seriously screw the vets they have a way of showing displeasure. (IE: 1933 “Bonus Army”) The military would not support any actions that are contrary to their oath. If they were ordered to do so, they could refuse and in turn, turn their guns. I don’t argue against the 2nd. Especially the where I do believe that it’s design includes local tyrants as well as not so local. In addition, I feel that regular citizens should be able to obtain military grade weapons if they so chose and can afford them. I think they need to be educated in their use.

      • Jim Bean

        BTW, I edited out the ‘grand plan’ part of my comment. Its was snarky an tacky.

      • Nemisis

        I’ll leave it in my response as I think education should be everyone’s grand plan. :)

      • Jim Bean

        No other country falls under the jurisdiction of our constitution. Again, the idea that anything written there was intended to regulate the behavior of another country or someone in another country is preposterous. “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
        – George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

      • Nemisis

        Not sure what you are saying here.
        I don’t believe I stated our Const. was or is designed to apply to anywhere but our own country.

        In the anticipation of use of the military to seize the country. I can only quote The Federalist #46.

        “The highest number to which, according to the best
        computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one
        hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the
        number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States,
        an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be
        opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
        their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their
        common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their
        affections and confidence. ” ~James Madison 1788, the other father of the BOR.

        I feel George Mason was directing the equivalence of today’s “Talking Smack ” at a few politicians that dissented with the thought that the average citizen makes up the militia and that only the military should have arms. Madison’s statement reflects my thoughts that the 2nd also intends that the average citizen be armed. For defense of State, from enemies from without and from within.
        Madison specifically states that the militia is the counterweight to the Army and by sheer numbers would prevail. Neither men would have conceived a tank or an aircraft carrier, however I feel they would have included them as the use of arms rather than firearms is used. At the time arms included swords, knives, guns, cannon, bow and arrow, hatchet, club and etc etc…

      • Jim Bean

        My original comment was directed at author and the hoards of liberals who think – or at least try to sell the notion – that the well-regulated-militia verbiage means the framers intended to restrict the right to possess firearms to those working for the government.

      • Nemisis

        Aye, sometimes we all walk the same halls.

  • Sandy Greer

    When things just ain’t right – go Left.

    ^^^There’s a bumper sticker for you.

  • was*thisjustin

    ‘The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun… I’m fairly certain the first few victims the “bad guy with a gun” claimed before the “good guy with a gun” could identify and shoot him feel differently. ‘

    I don’t understand this statement. Please explain. Thanks.

    • Jim Bean

      Perhaps your favorite trusted news source inadvertently forgot to report on the Darby PA psychiatrist who used his personal firearm to stop the crazed psychiatry patient/gunman who opened fire in the medical center and killed two on July 25th? Or possibly, that news was evidence that directly contradicted the narrative that your trusted news source wants to advance so they deliberately kept the information from you.

      • was*thisjustin

        Actually, no. My favorite trusted news source reported the incident to me. Actually, I can tell you, from memory, that it happened on July 25th. So whatever point you were trying to make with your snarky comment failed.

      • Jim Bean

        What is your favorite news source? Sounds like a good one and I’d like to try it out.

      • was*thisjustin

        NPR

      • Nemisis

        Mine is the Onion, I then distill it with Fox news.
        Somehow it sounds just like NPR… You have to rotate the dial these days just to get all the news. NPR is a good litmus test.