Quantcast

The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show a Conservative

BoehnerCriesWhen you’re like me, and I’m assuming there are quite a few, sometimes you hit a point where you can no longer sugarcoat your political arguments.  As you hear the same asinine statements constantly repeated, you just hit a point where you want to stand up and say, “Look you babbling buffoon, let me spell it out for you very simply.”

Now, most times we can’t do this because the person who we’re debating is a friend or relative and we don’t want to be overly rude.

Well, I’ve decided to do it for you.

Here are a few of my simplified responses to the ignorance by many on some key topics being debated in our country (and probably others as well):

*Side note: I’m not going to cover most of the lies against President Obama, I did that previously here.

Gun Rights:

I love when I see Republicans showing off some image of a group of “good ol’ boys” holding shotguns and hunting rifles with some caption like “Want to take our guns? Good luck!”  That or someone holding a handgun with a caption along the lines of “Liberals, come and take this!”

Attention all Fox News Sheeple:

Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away.  He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons (a ban that every Republican President in the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has supported).

So, when you share these pictures, acting as if you’re “getting at liberal ignorance,” all you’re really doing is spreading an image around the internet that showcases how you–and any other Republican who sees it and thinks “EXACTLY!”–don’t know a damn thing about which you’re speaking.

We’re Out to Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage

Unless you want to make divorce illegal, don’t tell me about same-sex marriage “ruining the sanctity of marriage.”

Divorce did that long ago.

Marriage is a Sacred Bond Before God

Alright you religious radicals, I’ll take you on too.

Let’s assume marriage is a “sacred bond before God”.

First, that would eliminate any government involvement to define marriage.  So your push for a government “ban” on same-sex marriage would be pointless.

Second, there are millions of Christians who support same-sex marriage and many churches that would marry gay couples.  So isn’t that up to that particular congregation?

Or do you feel your congregation should control all others?

Which, if you feel your congregation should control all other religions (and rule every American), isn’t that a GIANT violation of the First Amendment, which gives Americans freedom of (or from) religion?

Then if you feel your religion should control all others, and all Americans, you then support a theocracy and apparently oppose the United States and our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

Because this country was largely founded to prevent, not strengthen, theocratic rule.

Same-sex Marriage overall

Honestly, I’m exhausted with the same-sex marriage “debate.”  There is no debate.

Procreation is not a requirement for the right to marry, nor are those who procreate required to get married.

“Homosexuality is a sin” comes from religion.

The term “traditional marriage” is defined from religious text.

Our country does not establish laws based on religion.

Therefore your “arguments” are invalid.

The end.

Republicans: The Party for Christian Values

ENOUGH!

If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ…

Start by helping the sick, the poor, the needy—not opposing programs that do.

Republicans are for Fiscal Responsibility

Not even close.  There hasn’t been a Republican President that’s balanced the budget since Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served from 1953-1961.

Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all drastically increased our national debt.

Republicans are the Party of Small Government

Big government regulations, they’re un-American!  They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!

Unless that big government regulates:

  • What language to speak
  • Religion to follow
  • When life is created
  • Who can marry
  • Who can serve in the military
  • Invasive health procedures on women
  • That we have prayer in school
  • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations
  • Corporations are people
  • The Patriot Act
  • Unions don’t have rights
  • When alcohol can be sold
  • The requirement of an ID to vote

Then those government regulations are just fine.  How “small government” of you, Republicans!

Abortion

Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right.  That isn’t debatable.

You might not agree with abortion, you might think it’s murder, you might think life starts at the moment of conception.

It really doesn’t matter.  Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right—end of story.

So when you, and the party that you support, openly attempt to infringe on that right (or outright says they want to end abortion) you’re supporting a stance that violates a Constitutionally protected right.

For more on the overall hypocrisy of the right wing’s “pro-life” stance, check out this in-depth article.

The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending

No, it’s not.  The debt ceiling is about our government paying our bills on money we’ve already spent.

But guess what?  Ronald Reagan raised it 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.

I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life!

Did you drive today?  Did you take your children to public school?  Did you enjoy a safe commute as you traveled thanks to traffic signals and signs?  Did you whisk through your city or state on an Interstate Highway?  Did you enjoy running water and plumbing that properly, and safely, disposes of waste?  Did you get a college degree at a public university because it was much cheaper than a private one?

Hey genius, that’s all government.

Tax Cuts Create Jobs

No, they don’t.  The rich don’t need more tax breaks, they want more tax breaks.

But guess what?  After you give them those breaks, they’ll want even more the next time.  Isn’t that what Republicans are basically saying now?  They had the Bush tax cuts for a decade, but now they want even more tax cuts.

Their argument will always be, no matter the economic climate, they “need” more tax breaks to create jobs.  Good economy?  “Cut our taxes and we’ll create even more jobs.”   Bad economy?  “Cut our taxes and we’ll create jobs and save the economy.”

Tax breaks don’t create jobs, demand creates jobs.

It’s an endless cycle, and it’s why Trickle Down Economics is a failure.

I’m going to stop there.  I’m sure there are more, and one day I’ll probably do another article covering those as well.

But I highly encourage any liberal/progressive/Democrat (or anyone that’s simply sick of right-wing rhetoric) to share this article so that those who’ve driven you to the brink of insanity when discussing these issues can see a simple counter to their Fox News-fed bullshit.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column, and an unapologetic Hillary Clinton supporter. 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.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Phil

    I couldn’t agree more… KUDOS

  • http://www.arkstories.com Kimberley Johnson

    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

  • http://FB L.R.Browne

    I am delighted to see these statements in print. Sick to death of the GOP/Teaparty nonsense. THANK you, thank you, THANK YOU!

  • JerryK

    Bravo – well put!

  • Tamara Griffith

    Excellent. Thank you so much for giving me an organized, succinct way to address the endless diarrhea conservative mouths spew.

  • civia

    Could you argue the welfare bums are ruining the country so all Liberals are bleeding hearts and want to give away the country?

    • Eli

      No, because that is simply not true. Please see the “be like Jesus and help the sick and the poor” section of the article.

    • Janet

      You do realize that most people on “welfare” (a catch all phrase for everything from housing assistance to food stamps) actually WORK? They work for places like Walmart that refuse to pay a livable wage so they are forced to supplement their wage with government assistance? Apparently you DON’T realize that or you wouldn’t have made such a stupid statement.

      If minimum wage was raised, if fair taxes were imposed on the uber rich, and if corporations were penalized for taking jobs offshore then things would start to turn around. Large corporations aren’t suffering. They are wallowing in the largest profits for their shareholders and the biggest salaries for their executives the world has ever seen. They don’t want to share any of that “ill gotten booty” with the people who helped them get there — the workers.

    • http://lavicky.spotlife.se Vicky

      This is so sad to read. My husband moved from MI to FL, got a job within weeks, worked 80h a week to support the both of us and our future family. Then he got fired, and to help us through we applied for welfare. Did we get it? No. Why? Because he hadn’t made enough the last year to qualify.

      If you don’t know how it is to be a ‘bum’ (I.E a hard working, contributing part of society) don’t open your ignorant mouth.

      • jeff

        bravo vicki! it seems that if you have a job, or ever had a job, you probably will be denied for food stamps or any kind of assistance. how do people that have NEVER had a job, but lots of kids qualify for kids, and someone who really tries does not?

      • Califa

        Didn’t make enough the previous year to qualify for welfare? What BS. That’s not how it works. I lost a job and then had to apply for welfare after making less than $20,000 the previous year. I had no income or resources and qualified and received benefits. I also had minor children living at home. You don’t mention any kids, that is probably one reason why you and your hubby didn’t qualify. Not making enough money the past year to qualify sounds like something the unemployment office would tell you (yes, they told me that) and not something you would hear from Temporay Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) otherwse known as welfare. Apparently you and the other person who replied to your post have no idea what you are talking about.

    • http://www.designs-and-images.com pamelawy

      That cracked me up! How many times have I heard those exact words or a slight variation of them?! I agree, a concise response would be helpful! In the meantime, a slightly altered version of one of the responses above might work – “If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ… Start by helping the sick, the poor, the needy—not opposing programs that do.”

  • http://www.theenlightenedchef.blogspot.com Julie Thigpen

    Thank you.. just… thank you!!!!!

  • http://www.inadaydevelopment.com/ Kenny Wyland

    “Tax breaks don’t create jobs, demand creates jobs.”

    I made a video a while back on this very topic:

  • J.T.

    Which amendment spells out that abortions are protected? The number, please. I’m not against a woman’s right to choose, but I don’t remember an amendment to the US Constitution specifically spelling out that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

    • Stacy

      The 14th. See Roe v. Wade.

      • Hal

        14th has nothing to do with abortion. Roe v. Wade is a Supreme court decision not a constitutional right. I’m 100% pro-choice but there is no constitutionally protected right to an abortion. If there was there would be no debate at all just like there is no real debate about gun ownership and probably never will be.

      • Sam

        The reason we have a high court is for them to interpret the Constitution and render a final judgement when contentious issues arise. The area of the 14th amendment the justices were interpreting in Roe v Wade was the Due Process clause. Basically, this part of the Constitution says that you cannot deny anyone life, liberty, or due process of the law. They went on further to say, specifically, that restricting a person’s body is a violation of one’s liberty.

    • J.D.

      Hey Genius!!
      Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health.

    • Sam

      A new amendment was not ratified specifically for abortion rights. The Supreme Court drew their opinions from interpretation of the Ninth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment regarding privacy rights in their 1973 decision in Roe v Wade. Therefore, the Constitution, as it stands, supports personal liberty as a right to privacy in governing one’s own corporal affairs.

    • http://www.plies.com D.Man

      Roe vs Wade. Now since you asked about it as if the guy in the post didn’t know what he was speaking of, I bet you feel really stupid. Stop defending those dumb ass Republican beliefs and just listen instead of arguing so much.

    • Evolouie

      Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health.

  • Paul molina

    About time someone said it just like i feel about things goin on in our country you hit the nail rite on the head keep up the good work im a fan

  • http://google ronald nowak

    i love these talking points. wish i could remember them when i’m talking to a right winged waco.

  • liberaldisease

    liberalism is a disease of the brain!!.. your missing a shit ton of points… anyone that doesnt follow politics will read this and go wow your right… but actually..this is far from the truth on the points conservatives make…PLEASE ANYONE WHO READS THIS.. THIS IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE POINTS CONSERVATIVES TRY TO MAKE… THE LEFT RUNS THIS MOTHERFUCKER… THEY HAVE HOLLYWOOD… THEY HAVE GOOGLE….LOOK WHAT VIACOM OWNS.. THEY TALK ABOUT CORPORATE TAKE OVER..WELL SHIT THEY RUN MOST THE CORPORATIONS.. THEY ACT LIKE THEY CARE AND JUST EXPLOIT THE POOR.. READ SOME HISTORY ON WHO STARTED THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND ENDED SLAVERY.. CONSERVATIVES ARE THE UNDERDOGS IN THIS FIGHT.. . THEY HAVE EVERY MAJOR MOVIE THAT COMES OUT WITH LIBERALISM BRAINWASHING SECRETLY IN IT..THEY HAVE OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM.. THEY LOVE BIG BROTHER..THEY ARE BIG BROTHER.. THEY MAKE MORE LAWS AND TRY TO REGULATE BEHAVIOR.. THEY ARE THE TRUE RACISTS.. THERES ALWAYS COMMON SENSE MISSING FROM AN ARGUMENT.. MY SCHOOL PREACHES SOCIALISM AND LIBERALISM.. I CALL IT BRAINWASHING.. ITS EVERYWHERE… WHATS WRONG WITH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? THE GOV’T HAS CREATED THE GHETTOS ON PURPOSE.. THEY CONTROL ALMOST ALL BLACK PEOPLE.. DONT TELL THAT TO THEM THO… THEY LOVE HAVING PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON THEM..THE 2ND A PERSON ISNT DEPENDENT ON THEM..OH WELL THEIR A TRAITOR OR UNCLE TOM.. every policy made by liberals just slows this country down.. they said with evil dicatators and say we should stay out of their business or culture.. okay…well lets let a million motherfuckers just die from genocide.. is that fine with you.. im of course all over.. but people need to wake up and think on their own and not by into this shit.. Liberalism is EVERYWHERE.. SECRET HIDDEN MESSAGES IN MOVIES FOR CHILDREN EVEN…watch lil kid movies… youll see subliminal messages that support liberalism and any left wing policies.. now thats power.. they RUN this bitch whether people like it or not.. Rush, Sean Hannity are all racists.. really? really? all they talk about is trying to help the black community.. the right ways.. not by just giving them their rent… which takes away pride and dignity..which creates ghettos and so on… im all over the place…and your of course going to see some really smart comments and “facts” by a liberal after my rant… cuz thats what they do..they are good at arguing and pursuading people… and im not rich at all.. stop with this class warfare liberals.. all this tax break stuff.. sorry..those tax breaks help me out when they go thru… its more money on my minimum wage paycheck… gov’t takes about 1/4 of my check… conservatives say give that person more of his OWN money that way he can pay his bills.. thats allllll it is…. we have the right to control our own money.. stop with the rich richer poor poorer bullshit

    • http://www.inadaydevelopment.com/ Kenny Wyland

      Your excessive use of capital letters has convinced me of the voracity of your point.

      I follow politics CLOSELY. I watch Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. I do my own reading in many different papers. I also read the direct legislation or court opinions at hand for various topics.

      The Republican/Conservative points made above in the original article are all things I’ve heard from SEVERAL Republican sources. They are not strawmen, they are real examples.

    • josh

      In all your words, i don’t think you mentioned one fact. yes those silly people and their facts- how persuasive they are!

    • Fred Bresser

      This is a reply to liberaldisease: What is wrong with you – that is the greatest babble of muddled conspiracy therories, ignorance and display of PDD.NOS I have ever read. It didn’t have one ounce of information, evidence, fact or ligitamate debate points in the entire rant. Makes one question a persons IQ – seriously.

    • Sam

      Please do not feed the trolls.

    • http://www.wwillie.com Walkin’ Willie

      Can’t believe that liberaldisease rails against the Democrats when he is an admitted minimum wage worker. So big daddy GOP is taking care of you? They have policies in place that are made to help you? I really feel sorry for this poor idiot – probably a southern white male but I’m being redundant. Well, if corporate profits are at a 50 year high and unemployment is at a 50 year high, please explain to me how tax breaks for the rich are creating jobs – i.e. explain to me how trickle down economics really work. All those tax breaks for the rich are doing nothing but making the rich even more rich and doing so on the backs of the poor and the elderly. And while you are at it, please turn off the caps lock – it just makes you look like you are about to blow a blood vessel. Oh and your spelling skills and use of grammar are poor as well.

    • Chomper Lomper Tawee

      Is that you Rush ?

  • http://forwardprogessives Linda S. Young

    Thank You!!!!

    • http://www.plies.com D.Man

      For what?? Hope you don’t agree with liberal disease’s post. If you do, then it shows that you are on the defense only because you hate Democrat beliefs. LOL. Good luck for you

  • antidote for ID10Ts

    You, sir or ma’am, are a delusional idiot. I suggest antipsychotic meds stat.

    • antidote for ID10Ts

      @liberaldisease btw. Must be the bathsalts…

  • J F X C

    Loved the article but one problem”Divorce did that long ago.” that not true Divorce actually improved marriage Greatly as women were now able to leave abusive men. Marriage was extremely UNHOLY union prior.

  • marco A. Rios Pita

    Those bastards are happy that the president, alone, has been “on the ropes, getting punishment, covering nicely spaced and dropping Jap.
    Because ill win today?. Because the president does not launch the offensive and prevents you block all policies proposed in his inaugural address?.
    Because we only speak and / or write and, for action, we are paralyzed?
    I’ve seen that in less developed countries than ours, people take to the streets, because the milk moves climbed pennies.
    We know that, in addition, the referee of the bout (Supreme Court) is open and shamefully partial.And which gave victory to Mr.Obama, observe with astonishing passivity as received “straight right and cheap shots.”
    I am an immigrant and do not understand how in the name of democracy are trampled justice, the ideas, the truth and the welfare of the American people.

    • BobbieH

      WTH did you just say? I’ve read it twice and can’t figure out what your point is.

    • WBFD125

      Do you by any chance have an extra chromosome? Either that or you were home schooled by chimps because nothing you wrote makes sense. I’m an immigrant too, but that is no excuse for writing gibberish.

  • JC

    Interesting article with some good points. But keep in mind that the same constitution you cite to protect abortion is the same constitution others cite to protect gun ownership rights. In fact, in your paragraph on abortion, replace the word “abortion” with “gun ownership” and the paragraph makes perfect sense and would pretty much encapsulate the opinion many hold on the subject.

    The constitution is quite the double-edged sword at times, isn’t it. :)

    • dale

      actually no its not a double edged sword as you call it. if you knew english well enough to understand it you would see the 2nd amendment says nothing about military grade weapons or rocket launchers, tanks ect. ect. that is the gun nuts putting their own spin on things and making words up. really you people should learn to comprehend and read better

      • JC

        Calm down dale. You are correct that there are certainly limits to what a private citizen should own. The tension is where to draw the line- which is where we need thoughtful and honest debate. My only point was that you have to be careful how you cite the constitution. Allen suggested that the President only wanted to limit certain types of weapons, while abortion was simply a constitutional right and to “deal” with it. Let’s flip the logic. Would Allen support a bill from congress banning only “late term” abortions (definitely the most questionable) with the logic that they weren’t trying to ban all abortions, just the most ethically questionable? Would that be OK? Most pro-choice folks would reject anything that would inhibit abortions in any way. Do you see? No one wants any limits to rights they believe are guaranteed by the constitution.

  • Nancy

    BRAVO! Too bad more people can’t say this out loud, like on MSNBC or CNN (ha). I am printing this and will use every argument you’ve given as needed to my “friends” on FB. Well done!

  • RICHARD HEAD

    Stop Please Stop. You tell me that you have the solution to all of the issues but you really don’t hear the other side. Why don’t you really sit down and try to understand why conservatives believe the way they do instead of just trying to ridicule them. We don’t believe in abortion because it is truly hideous and quite frankly we don’t want our tax dollars going for state sanctioned murder. Why is that so hard to understand. Go ahead have your abortion but don’t make me pay for it. As for gun control you have been told over and over again that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting . It’s just not. They reality is that the second amendment is a natural right that the government couldn’t take even if it passed the law. Regardless of the government intervention I have a right to protect myself from you and anyone else. If you take away my gun then I am at the mercy of a perpetrator that is simply bigger or more numerous . Are you really going to tell me that you are going to solve that problem by teaching bullys to be nicer in school. I don’t have time for this . You are a horses ash.

    • Thatonedude

      Really? You go around carrying an assault rifle all day to “protect” yourself? Handguns and shotguns have never come up in the discussion of gun control, so if you need protection you can have it. But hey, maybe you’re right about needing an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine for protection. In fact why not carry a rocket launcher around just in case you get mugged?

    • dale

      i see as a conservative you really have no clue about the english language or constitutional rule and laws. any 2 year old reading your comment could point out to you just how stupid and ignorant you are. but lets begain shall we. 1. federal money is not used now or ever to pay for abortions. your kind has made this lie up to have something to cry about. 2, read the 2nd amendment again its more about militia’s and the states that had them at that time. not now . 3. you really are a waste of time, space and life as no matter what anyone says your limited brain capacity will never understand or believe the truth

    • Steve

      Richard, your taxes aren’t paying for abortions and haven’t been since the late 70′s. Thanks for giving women your permission to make choices about their bodies, though.
      Re guns: (pay attention now, ’cause you obviously haven’t been before) NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS OR PREVENT YOU FROM PROTECTING YOUR FAMILY. Joe Biden has actually suggested buying a shotgun. There are NO current proposals to take anybody’s guns. None.

    • Ron

      So you don’t want your tax dollars going for state sanctioned murder, eh ? Then you must also be shooting off your mouth to end the death penalty in ALL cases and end ALL wars and abolish the Pentagon. Show us where you’ve posted about that.

    • WBFD125

      You really are a special kind of idiot, aren’t you? First, no one is coming to take your guns (but in your case I think they should because it sounds like you’re having paranoid delusions). And second, your taxes have never paid for anybody’s abortion (but if I had been around, I would have happily paid your mom to have had one).

    • Margaret Mills

      Insurance or the person getting the abortion pays for it. YOU are not in any way paying for anyone’s abortion.

  • Thatonedude

    Awesome! Especially about the gun rights. I’m just wondering about the abortion thing. Where is it protected in the constitution? Some citations would be helpful.

    • WBFD125

      Try looking up Roe vs Wade

      • Thatonedude

        Ah, of course. Silly me.

    • Chomper Lomper Tawee

      Wow!

  • Steve

    ‘The term “traditional marriage” is defined from religious text.’ Well, no. The religious right wants to make that statement, but if you actually look at the religious text they’re fond of, you’ll see it condones or even mandates polygamy, marriage by rape, concubines, marriage by conquest, and a few other nasty things. The phrase “traditional marriage” as used in the 21st century means “marriage like my Daddy and Mama had.”

  • D

    please, poorly and wrongly argued comments which should be left to pros like Robert Reich and Bill Moyers or Chris Hedges.. Abortion is NOT constitutional but case law as any 8th grader knows..it is an almost a self defeatingly poor exercise here..just bad work. Although right on in his views..Well sorta..

    • dale

      abortion is legal as stated by roe v wade in the supreme court. end of story. if you had intelligence you would understand that you rerally shouldnt bother posting anything else as you dont have a clue

    • C

      It depends how you look at the Constitution to tell whether or not it would support the parents or the unborn child which was left to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the parents thus making abortion constitutional . You are politically ignorant “D”…

  • NOPE

    Actually ObaMao DOES want to take our guns. His little side step with the UN involving international gun control recently shows this. He just knows there is not enough support here. Democrats are all about Orwellian government with astronomical spending while trying to hide behind social justices. Simple as that. I used to support them because I didn’t know there was a party that just plain stays out of your business. Gay rights? Racial equality? No problem! Libertarians offer real freedom and real fiscal sense.

    • dragontech64

      No, Obama does NOT want to take your guns away, just limit what is on the market, deal with it.

      No, the libertarians are not about fiscal sense or freedom. They are about giving corporations unrestrained power to exploit and abuse the people that are forced into virtual slavery by lowered wages, no work place protection, no labor rights. Libertarianism is a pure bred lie.

    • Bruce McGlory

      Libertarians are anti-choice. See, Paul, Rand. That complete negates any claim to being against government intrusion.

    • Shade

      If you bothered to actually READ what the UN gun treaty does, it says explicitly in the preamble that that treaty CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT affect any nations right to regulate firearms in their own country. For those incapable of understanding this concept, its simple…the UN Gun Treaty can’t touch american gun laws. It can’t. Congress and the Constitution continue to be the final law on gun laws. That treaty is entirely based on the illegal international gun trade going on. Those lines were included in the preamble at request of the USA since we were the only country out of over 100 who didn’t want to sign it. Check snopes, check factcheck.org, check politifact, they all have the preamble directly written for you to read.

  • Brandon DeAngelis

    This is not the right venue for this glorified Facebook post. This is not forward thinking, it’s just small-minded people bashing. Venting is okay, as long as it is understood that derivative posts such as this one only further the separation between political parties based on archaic definitions. This tells me that some of us are moving in the wrong direction.

    Not too mention, the arguments within are oversimplified. Which is also a problem.

    • Bruce McGlory

      It has to be kept simple, because we’re talking about trying to reason with faux news watchers. Which means, trying to reason with people who actually believe the shit that comes out of faux news. Which means, deliberately and distinctly misinformed. There was nothing “people bashing” about this – its about being sick of the bigotry, lies, and stanky bullshit that comprises the sum and total of the republican platform. And no longer giving all the bigotry, lies and stanky bullshit undue respect or deference.

  • Don

    This is exactly how Obama got elected because of stupid stories like this. If you believe the crap above I dare you to do you own research and find out information by yourself not drummed up spun out of control BS like this..

    • Thomas

      If you have any actual rational fact-supported arguments to refute the “spun out of control BS” of this one article, we’re all ears. Otherwise, save the rhetoric for the sheep at your little rallies.

    • D-Frz

      Obama didn’t get elected because of articles like this. He got elected because Mitt Romney is a BUMBLING DOLT who doesn’t give a flip about “47%” of this country. His words-no Liberal, “spun out of control BS” HIS OWN WORDS!

      • richard head

        I do believe that he was exactly correct in stating the fact about the 47 percent. We all know it, even you.

  • Ishmael

    While everything Mr. Clifton says may be very true, it is as pointless to try an present FACTS to your average conservative as it is to argue with a goldfish. If they were interested in facts, we would not be in this political mess in the first place. It is time we liberals faced the facts. Our brothers-in-law and their families are permanently in in the “Party of Stupid” from which there from which there will be no redemption. Anyone who regularly listens to Fox News, talk radio, Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh has closed their minds to reason or the truth. For the last 50 years conservatives have been told that every word that comes out of our mouths is a conspiracy or a lie. When is the last time any of your knee-jerk relatives ever read a book or even attempted to talk intelligently about a religious or political issue with you? They haven’t and they won’t. Like spoiled children, when the game is not going their way, they simply will pick up their toys and go home. I HAVE, however, reached that stage in my life I refuse to put up with their selfish, bigoted, hateful, lying BULLSHIT any longer. No longer am I going to give ANYONE a Free Pass on purposed misinformation. Hate on someone? I am gonna call your hand on it. Make up a quote and attribute it to a dead President to try and give weight and veracity to your indefensible political point? I am gonna call you out on it and back up my exposure with facts. Only talk in racist generalizations, or sweeping accusations that go unsupported or undocumented. I am going to bring it to yours’ and every relative and friend who reads your Facebook page, that you are the uninformed lying bastard that you are. I have seen enough hate, having grown up in the Deep South in the 1950′s and 60′s to last me a lifetime. We have come too far, yet we have not come far enough. I am NOT going back. I KNOW they are frightened. I know the world is changing far beyond their comfort zone, but as Rhett Butler famously quipped, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

    • Becks

      Well said sir!

    • D-Frz

      Couldn’t have said it better myself! Here! Here! Bravo!!!!

      • richard head

        As far as I can see there are no facts presented in this article. Only your opinions.

      • GPearl

        There are absolutely no facts. This is an emotional, touchy, feely article that gets the liberals all choked up, but no facts.

  • JenniferT

    You have it pretty much all right, except fro your crude, uninformed portrayal of people who use ‘assault’ rifles for competition and hunting purposes, and have good, reasonable use fro high capacity magazines.

    *I* use an AR 15 for competitive shooting activities. I have a nerve disease that makes it painful for me to reload magazines, so my family loads my high capacity magazines before we go to the range, and I can shoot longer before having to nag them to reload them for me again. The AR 15 provided high accuracy with lower recoil so that I can compete on a level playing field with ‘normal people’, which is pretty important to cripples like me.

    I have friends where wild hogs are a big problem. They aren’t easy to put down when they are charging at you, determined to do bodily harm. The ability to take down a herd of them by yourself when they are determined to gut you with their tusks is a live-saving tool for people in these situations.

    I’ve had these rifles since I was crippled 8 years ago. I haven’t killed anyone, or even threatened anyone with them. But I *have* pulled my handgun out on a drunk on my own front porch, who was soon after arrested for rape of three women in the neighborhood. Restricting MY rights, when I have proven to be a law abiding citizen will prevent exactly HOW MANY innocent deaths?

    • Drew

      You are a special case. And even so, you COULD use lower capacity rounds. It would just be more of an inconvenience to you and your family who helps you. You do not NEED high capacity. You WANT it. You’ll be able to keep your handgun.

      • JenniferT

        I’m certain I am not that original. Certainly there are plenty of others in my same shoes. And that still doesn’t address the needs of people who might be out maintaining their fence line or otherwise caring for their property and come face to face with a herd of wild boars.

        Again, taking the survival tools of some rural families or the equipment form intelligent sporting shooters won’t save a single life. All it will do is let a bunch of uninformed, inexperienced people pat each other on the back over vessels of expensive liquor.

    • Darryl

      If it saves one innocent life, then it’s worth it.

      • JenniferT

        Point is, Darryl, it WON’T.

  • Nate

    Taking away assault rifles from the public may be one of the first steps a tyrannical government would take. It is not unfathomable that the purpose of this is to subjugate the American population so that if the day comes when we as citizens have had enough corruption in our government (which is rampant, by the way), or if our government has gotten so out of hand, our single-action hunting rifles and shotguns will do little against the jack boots with automatic rifles and 40 round magazines. Those with power don’t let it slip away so easily.

    Why does nearly 90% of Switzerland’s general population have fully automatic SIG 550′s? Besides from mandatory military service, this notion is understood to be a symbol of solidarity with the people and their government. Switzerland’s government gives its citizens fully automatic rifles. U.S.A.’s government files motions to restrict them. Red flags anyone?

    • Darryl

      Yes because we all know that a group of well armed hillbillies can take on the US military, right? Look how well the Iraqi Army did.

      • JenniferT

        Darryl: Problem with your argument is two-fold. Firstly, a few wily farmers with muskets handed the British their asses. Secondly, I can’t imagine the government would be able to convince many of the troops to fire upon fellow Americans, so the military forces the government would have at hand would be greatly diminished. If no one mans those military weapons, they don’t shoot. Oh. Made another point there, with no intention to. Guns can’t harm anyone if there’s no human behind them, so taking a properly used tool from ethical, law abiding people won’t stop killings. If *I* was intending to kill a large number of people without getting caught, I’d bomb them, and not even be in the vicinity when it happened. A gun would be a bad idea because there might be a law abiding armed citizen there to shoot back.

      • richard head

        What makes you so sure it will only be the hillbillys?

      • GPearl

        There are plenty of ex military out there who would probably resent being called hillbillies but can operate heavy weapons with deadly force. Darryl still thinks the second amendment was written for hunters.

    • D-Frz

      “our single-action hunting rifles and shotguns will do little against the jack boots with automatic rifles and 40 round magazines.” Did you really just say that???? Your high capacity AR-15′s would do little against a tank, fighter jet, or a bomb!! What are you people thinking??? Sing a new tune, please!!! The whole “Obama’s-gonna-send-all-white-people-to-slavery” crap is just silly and old.

      • Nate

        When did I mention that I was anti-Obama or anything of that nature? By the way, take a look at how the Syrian rebellion is unfolding. The rebels ARE fighting tanks, planes and bombs, and guess what? They’re winning.

  • Kitty

    Wow, great and truthful article but as you can tell by the conservative responses on here, they don’t understand simple truth or facts!!……..1+1 + 3 with them, they live in a fantasy world of their own making!

  • heather

    Love it. Simply said, easy for idiots to understand. Perfect, now if I could only get every damn conservative I know to actually read it. Maybe I’ll memorize this. It’s a keeper!

    • richard head

      Why would you bother to memorize the opinion of some else. These are not facts. Only opinions. i would encourage you to get informed about the issues and form your own opinions.

  • Jelley

    I am not remotely defending Republicans, I cannot stand them, but… Abortion is not protected under the constitution, it does not mention or even imply abortion.

    • Steve

      Well, what you need to know is that “constitutional” doesn’t always mean “appears in the Constitution.” The point is that the Supreme Court cited the 14th Amendment in their ruling in Roe v. Wade. Of course, that means it was an interpretation of the Constitution. And, that interpretation can change. But until that happens, we must– for LEGAL purposes– consider abortion protected by the Constitution.

      • Cat

        The article reads “you might think life starts at conception” yet asserts that abortion is Constitutionally protected. If you actually read the ruling on Roe v. Wade you will note that the justices were conditional in their ruling. They stated that the ruling would be overturned if the personhood of the developing baby were established. Thus, if you believe that life starts at conception, you would believe in the personhood of the foetus and therfore that, according to the wording of the ruling in question, abortion is, in fact, NOT a constitutionally protected right. People with religious convictions are not necessarily stupid and neither were the justices who wrote the Roe v. Wade ruling morally bereft.

    • SLA

      Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion.

      Yes, it IS a Constitutionally protected right, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

  • Ray W

    Guess what, you didn’t change my mind on Gay Marriage. I will trust God and the Bible way before I would trust ANYTHING a Liberal scumbag says. You are following Obama “Right off the cliff” and you will find out what he REALLY is trying to do to us, and it’s not going make ANY DIFFERENCE if you are Democrat or a Republican. The only way will be convert to Islam and live by their rules and laws. This includes Women to get the same treatment as Islam women get. This will include the female surgery to remove the you know what. Is this really the way you want to end up? Let him keep going and you won’t have anything to say about it.

    • mike

      Ray W,,,, augh, you are not only incredibly ignorant but amazingly WACKO right out of your Gourd. WOW !!

    • Kyle M.

      Thank you. You just gave me the best laugh I’ve had in a lo-o-ong time. “Support gay marriage and you’ll have to convert to Islam and chop your clit off!” Baaahahahaha. Love it!

    • Ray W is an idiot

      Really? I honestly cannot believe you are that stupid. My goodness, where are you getting your news from? Faux News? Honestly, show me ONE SHRED OF PROOF that Obama is Islamic or that he wants to cover everyone to Islam. NEWS FLASH: HE’S A * CHRISTIAN*. I am sure that you are very surprised but it is the true. *I* can cite multiple sources that PROVE he is a Christian and I bet you can’t find a single source to support your ridiculous claims. Have fun drinking the Republican Kool-Aid, Ignoramus!

    • Patrick Hughes

      Hi-LAAAAAAAAR-rious!

    • SLA

      Our country does not establish laws based on religion.

    • Steve

      I sure hope Ray lives under a bridge. ‘Cause if that ain’t trollin’, it’s psychopathic! Dude, you’re free to believe and worship any way you want. And you’re free to vote based SOLELY on those religious beliefs if you choose. All Mr. Clifton is saying is that you’re outnumbered at present. So deal.

      Also, genital mutilation is something we got from Judaism more so than Islam– Muslims do NOT engage in clitorodectomy. Look it up.

  • I dawg

    This article is way off base on abortion….how can it be “end of story?” Is the author even aware that the Supreme Court could overturn roe v wade? How can it be end of story?

  • James M

    A constitution is not fixed forever. At this point in time the Roe vs Wade decision is part of the constitution.

    • Jelley

      No it isn’t, it is part of US law but it has to be made an official amendment to become part of the US Constitution

      • Steve

        Nope, you’re wrong. Laws are bills passed by Congress and signed by the president. Neither of those branches weighed in on Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS ruled that abortion (prior to viability) is protected under the 14th Amendment. That’s the Constitution, not a law.

      • Jelley

        There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution, and not one about abortion. If something is Constitutional, it cannot be changed i.e. slavery can never be re-introduced. Roe v Wade can be overturned, it is not in the Constitution. All I’m saying is he’s wrong, it’s not ‘end of story,’ I doubt it’ll ever be resolved

      • Jelley

        Maybe we’ve just got a difference of terminology here, I’m going by what is IN the Constitution, but maybe they include all law as ‘Constitutional’ until it is repealed. For me, the law changes but the Constitution is the heart of the Country. It is one of my favourite things about America as a Brit.

  • Theo

    Really, this just sounds like a rant.

    Just a couple of points:

    1. Constitutionality is defined by whatever the current Supreme Court says is Constitutional. Whether it be abortion, gay marriage, or what have you. Just because it’s Constitutional now, does not mean it will be Constitutional later (e.g. slavery). Nevertheless, just because a court says something is legal does not make it right.

    2. This country was founded by deeply religious men who wanted freedom to practice what they felt was right. They did not legislate religious values into the Constitution in order to allow for that.

    3. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Governments make legislation based on that union out of convenience really. Webster (and dictionaries in general) could theoretically balk at needing a court to re-define a word.

    Most people wanting equality want equal rights attached to marriage, e.g. insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. In a non-theocratic government, it’s perfectly acceptable to give hetero- and homo-sexual couples the same privileges. There’s no reason to call it “marriage” though. A “civil union” is just fine. BUT, homosexual couples WANT the social, political, and normative “goody-ness” of the word marriage. However, this “goody-ness” comes from favor from God for a Biblical union, which is not to be found in a civil union.

    And yes, some churches allow for homosexual “marriages”. Just because they’re misled doesn’t make them right. The Nazi’s believed Aryans were better than all other races yet no one seems to believe they were right.

    4. Donations to the poor are admirable. That does not mean that you should coddle the general public, or create a system that promotes laziness. Many of the current policies (e.g. unemployment) can be – and frequently have been – abused. In other cases, there have been people who intentionally committed a crime because it was better to be in prison than to be homeless on the street.

    In iterations of the Dictator Game, you will see that people will defect whenever they can. Give the average human the opportunity, and they will be lazy. What’s the point in doing work if there’s no incentive?

    5. But yes, I agree that government spending and tax code is quite screwed at the moment. The basic math of CREDITS – DEBITS = TOTAL seems to be lost on our legislature and executive branches. And following the example of other nations, taxing capital gains does not seem to hinder economic growth, though it may grow at a [slowly] steady rate rather than by leaps and bounds (and troughs?).

    • Theo is an idiot

      It’s very sad that you are incorrect on pretty much all of your points.

      1) Yes constitutionality can change; however, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not abortion is “right.” The option to getting an abortion is A RIGHT. Learn the difference. In your point of view, abortion is wrong but MANY people DO NOT share your point of view. Who says whether or not it is right? No one. The Supreme Court has declared it A RIGHT.

      2) Obviously you have never actually studied the founding fathers, most of which were NOT religious! A surprise for you, I’m sure. The founding fathers were Deists, meaning, they believed God or some higher power created the world and then left the world alone after that. The founding fathers saw the tyranny created by religion. They wanted to prevent religious persecution because it is wrong.

      3) *Sigh* Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman but WORDS CHANGE THEIR DEFINITIONS OVER TIME! Many words have MULTIPLE definitions. For example, an “ass” can refer to the body part, a donkey, or an ignorant person (look in the mirror buddy!). There is NO reason why a marriage must stay between a man and a woman. Marriages have existed outside of religion for years and you DO NOT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO GET MARRIED! Therefore, God is not a part of marriage. Marriage ceremonies occur in many religions, perhaps the God you are referring to is not your God but perhaps another, like maybe Allah? There is also NO REASON why homosexuals should not enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals. “Goodness in marriage”? Huh. I wonder if that include the SKY HIGH divorce rates. Especially the COUNTLESS weddings that ended WITHIN MONTHS, SOMETIMES HOURS! Those marriages must be full of that “goodness” you are talking about.

      4) Yet another idiotic Republican thing to say. Laziness? Really? Many people work EXTREMELY hard to stay afloat and yet they CANNOT EVEN AFFORD TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES. Do you understand how employment works? You don’t just get to sit around and get a paycheck. You are REQUIRED to search for work and PROVE IT! You also don’t get to sit around on unemployment forever. Every system is abused. You know the “goodness” of marriages that you were talking about? Many people get married in order to scam the government, either by becoming citizens so they can stay in the United States or so they can reap the benefits of marriage.

      You should do a bit more research next time before you make a fool out of yourself. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Maybe you’ll actually learn something.

  • http://scoroncocolo.com Steven J Henderson

    Hey Allen, thanks for the fantastic talking points. Your words are eloquent and your arguments are, in my mind anyway, indisputable.

  • Sheri Meckler

    Hey Ray – Your comments are definitely not the dumbest thing you’ll say, because I’m sure
    you’ll keep talking.

    • Steve H

      Wow, Sheri — THAT’s your “rebuttal”? I see you learned you debating skills in second grade.

  • Martina Dinale

    Mr. Clifton , Sir , I ……I think I love you. No worries , Allen’s spouse or partner or what have you , purely platonically . In fact I love your brisk , bracing , no-nonsense ARTICLE so much I am awful sorry I cannot stuff a PIE through the computer to thank you for it ! [ This retired cook's thank-you note of choice . ] Apparently computers don’t do that yet . Stupid technology .

  • http://facebook Gayle

    As much sense as you make, this article will not enlighten one so-called conservative, as they all practice the me me me form of government, and fuzzy math.

  • Crystal

    Great article..I totally agree. For the sake of devils advocate. Our ‘bottom line’ on Abortion.. Is very similar to their idea of what Obama is doing for gun control. Fox, has made them think the bottom line is taking away their constitutional rights to bare arms. (we all know thats not the case) I shared this on FB a minute ago and i am waiting to hear back from the 3 repubs I keep as friends because I love them, i just hate their politics.

  • Smitty

    Your first glaring mistake …. The one I can’t let pass. The roads, the public schools for kids and your other examples of what the government has provided FOR us. Nope, we have provided it for ourselves by having the government steal our hard earned money and then tells us how lucky we are to have this all given to us from our government. And here you are repeating what you’ve been led to believe. THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!

  • Adalberto Cervantes-Rodriguez

    Do we need to replace CEOs from American Companies for Fortune millionaires from the BRIC countries?
    The economic development of USA is threatened by politicians and high top directors of the 500 Fortunes American companies that are not looking any more the high productivity of their Companies.
    Carlos Slim in Mexico will teach them American accounting and American models like the ABC technique to them, using reengineering is capable of start buying USA companies assets in bankruptcy to make them more productive and after selling them in a much higher price. For him, the ERP is only a tool and it is not the way to increase the productivity per se. He had showed how to eliminate AT&T out of the Mexican market using our own productivity techniques.
    On the other hand the Indian origin IT owners will show how do to offshore and outsourcing ideas and services around the world without given any result at worldwide level but selling projects to the American Politicians directly using high school consultants to resolve our low productivity besides not paying the correct taxes in several countries. China will teach us how to convince everybody at all level with only money, selling everything they can do in their foreign markets without quality and productivity but in the name of the States using our own channels.
    There is a need for American CEOs especially in Public Corporates to be again focus in productivity instead of cooking accounting books using the ERP, and lying themselves. The only way to continue our economic development it is increasing the education at the highest level, and increase the productivity reducing the deficit of our country. Today we need new Dreamers, especially because the devastation of small and medium size American companies in this unfair global competitions, in which there are no business rules in the Cool and Free Trade wars now-a-days.

  • Lisa B

    This is wonderful!

  • Mark M

    I hope the author realizes it is not republicans blocking gun control legislation. It is conservative democrats up for reelection in 2014 !

    • Howard R

      Hmm hmm. right. Republicans don’t block gun control legislation. Gads.

    • Sue C

      Because there are too many Republican voters in their states who will be whipped up into a frenzy if they support gun control legislation.

  • Louise R

    Most of those Conservative folks have closed minds and being reasonable and logical isn’t part of their thinking…

  • Neil

    Most of those conservatives are close-minded and mist liberals are self-righteous douchebags who think that nobody is reasonable but liberals. Most liberals’ ideas about gun control reflect the naivete conservatives see in liberals and most conservatives’ ideas about same-sex marriage reflect the bigotry and ignorance liberals see in conservatives. It’s all totally bunk nonsense. Here is the real political spectrum: Socialism————Individualism. Neither term is a dirty word and both extremes are toxic almost all the time.

  • JDR

    The more you know, the more you know you don’t know. Only people that are dedicated to learning know this. Life is complicated.
    It takes a curious mind to question the status quo. Keep learning, and keep growing.
    Most people just don’t have the capacity for change. Cultivate those that do.

  • LWeed

    YAY!! The End

  • Victor Black

    Color me impressed.

  • marsha adamson

    I am not worthy, Mr. Clifton, I bow down to you! Love this and your article on the lies about President Obama.

    • Jim

      The author of the article isn’t adding anything new. He has read all of this stuff elsewhere. What we see here is someone expounding on all the talking points of the progressive left.

      Many of these arguments are logical fallacies. The entire argument is a straw man. There is appeal to authority and guilt by association with the Reagan/Bush stuff. Divorce argument is a red herring. Sanctity of marriage is just slippery slope and straw man. Abortion as a right is just proof by assertion, it is merely legal not a right. States can restrict abortions to varying degrees and defining when life starts and a fetus is viable is one of those.

      The whole tax cuts don’t create jobs is basically framing. They do not create jobs directly, but they influence job creation. If a person is taxed for all their wealth, then they would have no money to pay for workers. If a person is taxed for none of their wealth, then they would have money to pay for workers. It doesn’t mean the WILL, just that they have the OPPORTUNITY to.

      Most of this article can be discarded.

      • richard head

        Don’t waste your time explaining economics to liberals. It weakens their power base therefore, economic principles are disregarded.

  • GPearl

    Whoever wrote this article is a complete idiot:
    1. He said Obama doesn’t want to take our guns. Obama said he supports gun control measures that include a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. He wants to take away those weapons, so he “did” say he wanted to take our guns away. Reagan did not support such a ban. In fact, Reagan said, the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” He wanted the bad guy targeted, not the guns.
    2. Marriage is not supported if divorce is legal? I don’t even understand that logic. Big Government should have stayed out of marriage to begin with. Is this guy saying we should outlaw divorce and force people to stay together if we support marriage? What is he smoking? It was big government getting involved in matrimony to begin with that was intrusive. Now, the same party who wanted big government is mad because big government requires each to be a different sex. Logic? I don’t think so.
    3. Republicans are the party of Christian values and he says they should begin by helping the sick, the poor, and the needy. Government has hurt those groups by making them dependent on big govt. The only way this idiot wants these groups helped is by seizing money from the very people who can really help them, creating a massive bureaucracy to distribute it, so destructive, that it limits the actually help these groups get. Government can’t help anybody without conservative’s money. He insinuates the poor, needy, and sick would be better served if money was seized by the government.
    4. Fiscal responsibility. He’s right. No conservative has balanced the budget in the last 50 years. Neither has a democrat president without the help of a republican congress and the internet boom. And by the way, the budget was never really balanced by Clinton.
    5. Republicans are the Party of Small Government
    Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
    Unless that big government regulates:
    • What language to speak – It’s not regulated by anybody. Who is regulating this?
    • Religion to follow – Republicans do not follow a religion. Where did this come from? oh yeah, an idiot.
    • When life is created – It’s only regulated by democrats
    • Who can marry – Big Government Intrusion
    • Who can serve in the military – Military is run by govt and as an employer, can make that decision.
    • Invasive health procedures on women – Only if that woman wants to kill another person. Now Obamacare will be much more invasive.
    • That we have prayer in school – Not regulated by federal govt.
    • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations – Not regulated by federal govt.
    • Corporations are people – Not believed by republicans.
    • The Patriot Act – supported by both parties. Introducing, drones!
    • Unions don’t have rights – Unions have rights, but they don’t have the right to disallow a person to work if they don’t join a union.
    • When alcohol can be sold – isn’t this a democrat law? By thew way, this is regulated by local municipality.
    • The requirement of an ID to vote – Because an illegal vote cancels a legal vote. Democrats require ID’s for a whole lot less. Food stamps and welfare should not require ID?
    6. Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. The supreme court has no right reinterpreting our constitution and allowing the death of millions of babies. This was never an intended function of the SC. Btw, Where in the constitution does this idiot find the words that abortion is ok?
    7. The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending – paying our bills is more important than cutting spending. I say we default before we have nothing left. I want to scream at this idiot. Raising the debt ceiling is needed only because we spent too much. Why else would we need to raise it.
    8. I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life! Then he asks if we drove….first of all, driving is regulated by each state which is ok by the constitution. Public schools is not a part of the constitution. It was a big government directive, and pushed to an all time high by that idiot Dewey who thought the government could do a better job schooling our kids. Now look at our kids. We have some of the lowest scoring kids in the world and now they grow up and vote for socialists.
    9. Tax Cuts Create Jobs – It has been proven. 2007 was the highest revenue ever recorded to our treasury dept through income taxes, with 4 years of Bush tax cuts. A democrat congress took over the finance and banking committees after that year and the rest is history and we never recovered.
    This idiot actually believes his own lies and lives in a world of no logic.

    • Andy

      GPearl, I think the point of many of the points presented here is to show the hypocrisy of the right’s position on the topics. While you dont have to agree with them, to dismiss them as on idiot’s opinion is just as idiotic.

      • GPearl

        This article shows the hypocrisy of the right? it doesn’t even state any facts whatsoever but rather sounds like emotional babbling. I assume he wrote it, hoping nobody would require that he explain his comments. He is truly an idiot.

    • http://www.facebook.com ALEXANDER NANOS

      thank you sir, im so glad someone crushed this post right away. most ridiculous thing i have ever read hahaha. and bush pushed and succeeded to let the Clinton assault weapons ban expire. do these people even know what an assault rifle is? hhmmmm NOOOOOOO…..

    • Vince

      The sad thing GPEarl is that you honestly can’t see a good argument when it is presented.

      Your rebuttal actually makes no sense, and in some areas is just factually inaccurate.
      #1 Reagan did support assault weapons ban. Here’s a link to a republican web pages explaining why they think he did, but even conservatives admit this. Do you not know how to look this up or are you just lying? http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2013/01/17/reasons-why-ronald-reagan-supported-an-assault-weapons-ban-in-1994/

      #2 There is nothing illogical about the argument about divorce. Sadly you just don’t understand his point. That doesn’t make it illogical, it makes you not that smart. You can disagree, but illogical? No.

      #3 The conservatives red states are the poorest in the country and the ones receiving the greatest amount of support. So its funny that you talk about conservative’s money. Blue states subsidize red states that’s just fact. Outside of TX and FL they are just sucking off the teet of blue states. So be honest about that criticism at least.

      You can disagree with the decision of the supreme court but you cant argue that that is not what the supreme reads as a right to privacy. The constitution doesn’t say the government cant randomly read your email, but our constitution allows for the supreme court to determine that email is included in right to privacy (as least since the establishment of judicial review).

      Let’s default? Yea that’s a conservative approach. Hilarious. Poor uneducated southerns vote republican not for dems. The big highways you drive are actually paid 90% by federal govt and 10% by state. And PS state government is also government.

      You completly missed the point of #5. You literally can’t follow the argument. It is hilarious.
      Why spend the time you actually aren’t even bright enough to recognize a good argument. You can disagree, just get your facts straight. “Who can serve in the military – Military is run by govt and as an employer, can make that decision.” What ???? That is just dumb. What the heck is the rationale for this exception. Your same argument can say that any federal agency the government is the employer so they can hire as many people as they want to. It is just bad logic and sadly you can’t even see how bad your logic is.
      Again this isn’t about disagreeing with you its about you not being logical. So it really funny to see you criticize someone else’s logic.

      The sad thing is you likely don’t have the capacity to recognize illogical arguments so what are educated progressives to do with you. Sad sorta.

      • GPearl

        Did you not expect me to read your reply? Did you think you could simply follow the lead of this idiot who wrote the post and state no facts whatsoever?
        My rebuttal makes perfect sense. A person who does not use logic, but rather “feel good”, emotional methods to think would make the statement you made.
        Reagan did not support the gun ban. Would you like me to paste a couple of thousand links? Or would you rather just read his speeches and his actions. I have already presented one of his statements pertaining to gun control. Liberals will try to use Reagan against conservatives, every chance they get. It never works. Liberals are haunted by Reagan, the last true conservative who has run for President. Look it up, it’s easy to find the facts.
        By the way, using the word “sadly” to explain your argument only reveals your emotional thought process. You are apparently sad that I explained it logically, and you cannot process this. Why don’t you state specifically what is not logical, rather than making an emotional statement.
        The red states are the poorest? Take a look at every ghetto in this country and tell me what party runs the government. My guess is, you won’t respond to this comment. If you think, the liberal philosophy of taxing Americans out of existence improves the economy, take a look at our future by observing California. (hate the logic and real facts, of course you do)
        I do disagree with the decision of the supreme court. They have no right to interpret the constitution the way they see fit. The constitution created the SCOTUS, not the other way around. The right to privacy is not even an argument because there is another human life involved.
        Yes, let’s default. because we are broke. We are broke. We print money. We are broke. We will never pay our bills. So the answer is, raise the debt ceiling? Then you say that raising the debt ceiling is not because we have spent too much? Where is your brain?
        The remainder of your comments are just hate rhetoric and not worth addressing. I should not have wasted my time responding to the most ridiculous post on here. But liberals have to be schooled somehow, even if they process this emotionally.

      • richard head

        Your mistaken . Blue states do not subsidize red states. big states subsidize small states. the blue northeast receives as much as the rural red.

      • richard head

        The military is charged with fighting wars and generally securing our borders from outside threats. Consequently, the government is still allowed to draft whoever they need to fight wars and secure borders regardless of sex, age, disability, or even sexual orientation. If one is too young or to old to fight the generals (who are more able to make the decision than me) make that determination. They make that determination based on personal experience. If they choose not to allow the very young or the very old fight in battle then should they not also be allowed to not allow someone else that they deem to be unfit?

    • Jimmy

      The author of the article isn’t adding anything new. He has read all of this stuff elsewhere. What we see here is someone expounding on all the talking points of the progressive left.

      Many of these arguments are logical fallacies. The entire argument is a straw man. There is appeal to authority and guilt by association with the Reagan/Bush stuff. Divorce argument is a red herring. Sanctity of marriage is just slippery slope and straw man. Abortion as a right is just proof by assertion, it is merely legal not a right. States can restrict abortions to varying degrees and defining when life starts and a fetus is viable is one of those.

      The whole tax cuts don’t create jobs is basically framing. They do not create jobs directly, but they influence job creation. If a person is taxed for all their wealth, then they would have no money to pay for workers. If a person is taxed for none of their wealth, then they would have money to pay for workers. It doesn’t mean they WILL, just that they have the OPPORTUNITY to.

      Most of this article can be discarded.

  • Katherine

    Was there going to be something in the article about Conservatives vs Liberals, or was this just another “We hate Republicans” rant? The title is a little deceptive.

  • Pam Randolph

    Thank you for the clear, common-sense discussion of these talking points. I have copied the article to save for further use. Thanks again.

  • Pam Randolph

    Katherine, I didn’t detect any “hate” in the article at all. It was just countering the ridiculous arguments and hypocrisies put forth by the Republicans, Tea Partiers, etc., and it did an excellent job of that. It all makes sense, and is obviously based in fact. Besides, none of us “liberals” actually “hates” Republicans, etc. We just don’t like what their actions (and in-action) are doing to this country that we love.

  • Susan

    Why are conservatives and/or republicans so damn angry all the time? Methinks they feel threatned by logic, common sense, compassion, ability, democracy, etc….just sayin’.

    • SusansBrain

      It’s sad that instead of refuting anything “angry conservatives” are saying, you just call them stupid. Because YOU are stupid. Say something, anything, refuting them. You can’t because you don’t know jack about politics, just what you read on your Facebook stream.

  • Bill Paris

    First you disassemble the 2nd amendment, then you stand behind the 14th amendment. You cannot pick one or/over the other. Both are there for you, as are the rest, granted unto you, by the Constitution.

  • aris

    Where in the constitution does it say that “abortion is a constitutionally protected right?”

    • http://FACEBOOK BEVERLY JALBERT

      THE FIRST ADMENDMENT, RIGHT OFF THE BAT , THE RIGHT TO RELIGIUS FREEDOM…ENOUGH SAID!!!

      • Amelia

        So, abortion’s a religion?

      • KiTA

        Can you express a reason to prohibit or restrict abortion that is NOT religiously motivated?

        Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion. As in, those who don’t agree with bronze age cults don’t have to have their lives dictated by them.

      • aris

        Well, actually there are many atheists, such as the atheist superstar Christopher Hitchens, that would argue that the concept of abortion is flawed from a moral standpoint for a number of reasons and implications it bears, devoid of any reference to religion.

        If we can have this discussion on the common ground that laws governing our life and freedom in this country are based on universally acceptable morals (such as freedom of speech, religion, property rights, etc.), let’s have this discussion. If we have this discussion devoid of morals, well then ok, everything goes out the window and anything I do should be permissible on the grounds that I don’t subscribe to any societal framework because my freedom of and from religion invalidate the morals that all laws are based on. I do not believe that you are making this argument, for it would give license for me to kill people on the grounds that their rights to life and freedom really stem from “religiously motivated” laws.

        Further, regardless of when life starts, an embryo, as it were, is an autonomous entity reproducing cells. If this fact was meaningless in a discussion on whether or not this cell reproduction can be stopped by abortion, where do we draw the line? You may answer “after the completion of the third trimester” or “abortion should be allowed if the woman was raped”. How did you choose this demarcation and extenuating circumstance?

        In the first case, I think anyone can agree that the first trimester standard is man-made and does not solve the problem we run into that it really renders pregnancy as a whole meaningless (fingers, toes, a head, a heart, already exist by the end of the first trimester). In the second case, the stance is really: A hurt B, so C can be stopped from living. What did C do to B? Now we are in a situation that really give grounds for euthanasia.

        “The right of a woman to choose” is really a euphemism for a the woman’s right to euthanize independent life in her body. In this context, I believe it is very interesting to note that Heinrich Himmler wrote a letter to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in the 1930′s congratulating her on her contributions to eugenics. Today, we disguise a right to euthanasia with the florid term “a woman’s right to choose”. 70 years ago it was treated as “life unworthy of life must be exterminable”. From a standpoint of principles, the two are one and the same concept.

        If the first and 14th amendment have no bearing on abortion, I’d love to hear other arguments for why the constitution protects abortion as a right. Remember, an argument is not an opinion. It is one or multiple premises that support a conclusion. We can disagree on the validity of the premises that lead to our conclusions, but calling people names is not an argument. So, let’s have a discussion.

      • Ben Peeler

        Any process that takes place inside someone’s body is nobody’s business except that person. You cannot force me to have liposuction because I’m fat, you can’t force me to deposit my sperm in a manner that will impregnate a female. Likewise, you CANNOT FORCE a female to become pregnant nor carry her pregnancy to term. its just not your right. It is her rights we are speaking of.

      • eh

        Thank you, Ben. No one could have said it better.

      • GPearl

        you forget the baby. Everybody has freedom until it harms another person. When a woman decides she wants to kill another human being, it is no longer just her business.

    • Jimmy

      The 14th Amendment

    • http://Facebook D.Taylor

      At the time of Roe vs. Wade. The question was not the legality of abortion. They all knew that they would never win that fight as 90-95% of the population was against abortion. The remedy was to call it a freedom of speech/expression issue. abortion itself is not Constitutionally Guaranteed.

  • Anon

    |”He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons (a ban that every Republican President in the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has supported).”|
    The federal assault weapons ban was instituted in the Clinton administration and died without renewal in the Bush administration. U wot m8?
    There’s no logical argument that can be used to support a ban on high-capacity magazines or “assault weapons” they all boil down to appeals to emotion rather than logic. http://www.assaultweapon.info/

    |”If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ…

    Start by helping the sick, the poor, the needy—not opposing programs that do.”|
    Jesus was not an advocate of theft, which is what social welfare programs are. They are not asking you if you want to give money, they just take it and tell you it’s going to a good cause. I’m supposed to sit back and assume that my money went to help someone?
    Jesus supported the community coming together to help the less fortunate, not a single entity taking money on the behalf of everyone else and assuming that they’re okay with it to spend on the poor.

    |”Not even close. There hasn’t been a Republican President that’s balanced the budget since Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served from 1953-1961.”|
    Implying that the Republicans got to implement their actual ideas as President and didn’t have to bend around a partisan congress.

    |”Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. That isn’t debatable.”|
    No you dimwit, the part that’s debated is when life begins. When that baby growing in a woman’s belly gets defined as a human with human rights, that’s where the problem begins.

    |”So when you, and the party that you support, openly attempt to infringe on that right (or outright says they want to end abortion) you’re supporting a stance that violates a Constitutionally protected right.”|
    lel, you just contradicted yourself. You call Republicans out for attempting to violate your constitutionally protected right to an abortion and then tell them to calm the fuck down when y’all try to violate our constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Keep trying buddy.

    |”The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending”|
    We’re counting Tea Party ideas as mainstream Republican ideas now? Then why not throw in the stupid crap the Green party and other non-mainstream Democrat parties ideas out there?

    |”Did you drive today? Did you take your children to public school? Did you enjoy a safe commute as you traveled thanks to traffic signals and signs? Did you whisk through your city or state on an Interstate Highway? Did you enjoy running water and plumbing that properly, and safely, disposes of waste? Did you get a college degree at a public university because it was much cheaper than a private one?

    Hey genius, that’s all government.”|
    Implying that private organizations can’t or couldn’t have done all of those things more efficiently. Have you seen the state of our road system? Our infrastructure? Yeah, your big government is so efficient isn’t it?

    “|Tax Cuts Create Jobs”|
    Implying that JFK didn’t implement a tax cut to stimulate the economy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmHdqWPB_S8
    Implying that Democrats can’t support the Bush tax cuts: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/12/26/Why-Democrats-Now-Support-Most-of-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts.aspx#page1

    |”It’s an endless cycle, and it’s why Trickle Down Economics is a failure.”|
    Implying that Keynesian economics has ever succeeded. We got out of the economic depression in WWII due to demand that we could meet. When FDR stopped pumping money into the economy, it plunged right back down again: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Circle-Bastiat/2010/0722/Hoover-s-dam-folly-Why-Keynesian-New-Deal-policies-failed

    The only thing you really got well was gay marriage. There’s really no argument for why it shouldn’t be instituted. I don’t believe that the government should sponsor any form of tax incentives or special privileges for marriage of any kind. The government is not the solution to the problem, the government is the problem.

  • Susan

    @SusansBrain —> I don’t know for sure that your post was in reply to mine, but I will say this nevertheless. Your rant just proves my point. All I did was pose a question, with my added opinion. You went off into a vortex of rage, spinning more and more out of control during your descent. And, you did what most conservatives and/or republicans do; at least in my experience – you do your thinking for me, making assumptions about me and my beliefs when you don’t even know me….all based on one comment. Now, that I do find to be STUPID.

    • richard head

      But really isn’t your argument the same as the author about conservatives. that they don’t listen to reason and cant see your point of view that seems to be fraught with opinions stated as facts and illogic.

  • Pingback: I Hate the Extremes | Boomer Review Blog()

    • http://[email protected] Jeanne Rossi

      You said a mouthful, Allen. I am also sick and tired of the consistent blabbering about Same sex marriage and gun control, etc.. They keep it up and keep it up, too much talk in Washington and not enough action. Truthfully, my tv is silent for weeks now. Everything in Washington seems to sound like a broken record. I will start listening when these jokers have something to say. 2014 is around the corner and hopefully these scumbags will be gone. They make themselves look ridiculous every time they open their mouths. Johnny (crybaby boy) and his smirky face will be gone. Once the nuts are out of the picture, maybe we can get back to normality in this country.

      • GPearl

        Liberals are trained to speak about these so-called social issues when attention needs to be diverted from the real problems. It’s like ringing a bell and dogs beginning to salivate. The libs do the same thing when their masters tell them to begin diverting attention away from dismal failure.

      • Kate

        GPearl, you haven’t said anything yet – want to try? Then maybe you will deserve some attention.

      • GPearl

        Sorry you missed my other posts. This was number 10 so I am not going to paste them all here. Just go and find them. I certainly don’t need attention from you. That’s not what these posts are about.

      • Kate

        The vast majority of what you have posted is nothing but vague bitches

      • GPearl

        I see only one vague bitch.

      • DallasJim

        Yeah, we all see you, gap earl. Put the mirror away and try on your thinking cap. If you have one.

      • GPearl

        Missing all my posts, Jim? Too bad. No mirrors here. That’s reserved for liberals like yourself, and it comes with smoke.

      • DallasJim

        No. I saw all your posts. That’s why I told you to put on your thinking cap. You make about as much sense as most of your one track mind cronies, which is to say none. You need to get a heart as well since there is no evidence you have one. I feel sad for you in your ignorance.

      • eh

        GPearl – the thing is, with your constant attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, even slightly, you make yourself look worse and worse as one scrolls down this page. Your intelligence is seriously called into question because your way of dealing with people whose opinions differ from yours is to try to put them in their place, call them names, act condescendingly toward them. You “shout” over others to try to get your point across, but shouting over others doesn’t make you right. It’s just noise. Telling others that they’re dumb because their opinion differs from yours doesn’t make your opinion more right. It really just shows your poor character. Strong people don’t have to try to make others feel small. Only weak people feel the need to do that. You obviously just needed a place to vent your rage, but really, you haven’t convinced one person on here that you have a valid point in any way. You should have just copied and pasted quotes from Fox News. You are predictable and we all already know what your response will be: more of the same.

      • DallasJim

        You are completely right. Miss Pearl is a relic of bygone days. Let’s keep it that way.

      • GPearl

        “Miss” Pearl?…lol…….Liberals and their assumptions… anyway, got anything to add to the debate or is this just another emotional liberal crying session?

      • GPearl

        I won’t make sense to a liberal unless I am bleeding emotion, have touchy feely stuff in it, and present zero logic. The only world a liberal lives in is bizarro world.

      • eh

        Predictable and boring as hell. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..

      • GPearl

        Yep…go back to sleep. Its better that way.

      • Kate

        I know dude – thinking is hard, huh?

      • GPearl

        Doesn’t take much thought to debate a liberal. Way too easy. They usually go away after a few logical comments or call me a racist. Same thing every time. I am getting copies of all your posts, Kate, and I see you are a hatemonger. If you want to truly debate a subject, pick one, and I will debate you. If you want to spew hate and denial, I can’t help you rehabilitate from being a liberal, Obama voting low information voter. There is no hope.

      • Kate

        I posted an entire list of responses Dude – try that one.

        And as for a brain? – you are still looking for it I see.

      • GPearl

        I read your responses last night. I am actually the one who wrote that response to begin with. I don’t know why Mike Price took it and reposted it has his, but I was flattered that he did. Everyone of your responses was:
        Uh uh
        No it didn’t
        Wrong again
        That’s wrong

        hahahahahah…that’s a liberal. Total denial and electing a loser president who now owns the economy that is the worst since WWII. I expect this from a liberal. I will take each one of these issues and debate them with you. You can begin when you’re ready.

      • Kate

        LOL, so in other words – you didn’t read it.

      • GPearl

        ha ha…yes I did, in other words. Impressed that I used some of your comments in my last post?

      • Ralph

        GPearl, you are repeatedly exposing yourself as a smug, ignorant, partisan sheep full of insults and false information. I’m not going to waste my time to debate each one of your dozens of incorrect statements in this thread. But you kept demanding for someone to ask you WHO regulates a well-regulated militia as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Why don’t you please answer that question. I’m asking you.

      • GPearl

        Finally a liberal admits he doesn’t know what a well regulated militia means. Finally! You are going to feel bad once you hear what it means you smug little guy you.

      • Frank

        Worst economy thanks to tax breaks for the rich for a decade, instituted by George W., that would give money back to the rich to hire more people and make for a better economy. What happened? Now there is the largest division of rich, and what used to be the middle class, now quickly moving towards the poverty level thanks to this trickle down economics theory. And the rich aren’t happy with high income and tax brakes, there out to bust every union in this country, the last of the blue collar workers to make a living wage with decent benefits and a dignified retirement. Nothing wrong with capitalism and those that excel through their own efforts, but definitely something wrong with billionaire owners whose employees are working two jobs, spouse working another job, and need government assistance just to survive. And they are being told they are the takers that just want government entitlements.

      • GPearl

        Are you saying that because Bush gave tax cuts to all Americans, the low and middle class getting the lion’s share, that it wrecked the economy? Can you explain what you mean by that? What did the tax cuts specifically do to wreck the economy? I really want to dissect a liberal’s way of thinking.

        Your next comment “but definitely something wrong with billionaire owners whose employees are working two jobs, spouse working another job, and need government assistance just to survive.” Why do employers hire people? I want you to e3xplain that too. Also, (can’t wait for this response) what do you think a billionaire employer should do for those employee that you would consider fair?
        Really looking forward to your response. I have to know how the liberal mind works.

      • Frank

        Come on GPearl. You don’t really care how the liberal mind works. I don’t believe I ever used the word “fair” in my post. Conservatives like to use “fair” against liberals when describing how we think. I can only take so much of Rush, Sean and the rest of the FOX bunch because they spend 75% of their air time telling other conservatives what non-conservatives think. Each and every conservative talking head I have ever listened to has no trouble using the word “fair” when describing how Americans are taxed when comparing the amount of tax the low income vs the high income pay. But I digress. Listen carefully. The Bush tax cut was a temporary measure to boost the economy….it did not work. Maybe you can tell me why. I thought I was crystal clear in my post when I said, …”a living wage.” It took a war in the 1800′s to force the rich to give their workers more than a shack to live in and food to keep them healthy enough to produce.

      • GPearl

        The tax cuts didn’t work? Tell me why they didn’t work? Are you saying that income tax revenue was lost due to tax cuts? Be ready to back your statement up, because I have the Dept of Treasury numbers. If you have another reason why tax cuts for the low and middle class did not work, than let me know. It’s very difficult to get a liberal out of the emotional stage and into a logical discussion of real facts, but I’m hoping to bring you in.

      • http://doctorfluxx Bradley

        All I read was a bunch of posts of you talking about how much you laugh mockingly at everything a “liberal” says. You aren’t debate team material, sorry. You’re just a guy flexing his cock, like most trolls of your ilk.

      • GPearl

        I’m not surprised that’s all you read, really not surprised.

  • Michael Price

    Well it says speak your mind so here it goes:
    Whoever wrote this article is a complete idiot:
    1. He said Obama doesn’t want to take our guns. Obama said he supports gun control measures that include a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. He wants to take away those weapons, so he “did” say he wanted to take our guns away. Reagan did not support such a ban. In fact, Reagan said, the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” He wanted the bad guy targeted, not the guns.
    2. Marriage is not supported if divorce is legal? I don’t even understand that logic. Big Government should have stayed out of marriage to begin with. Is this guy saying we should outlaw divorce and force people to stay together if we support marriage? What is he smoking? It was big government getting involved in matrimony to begin with that was intrusive. Now, the same party who wanted big government is mad because big government requires each to be a different sex. Logic? I don’t think so.
    3. Republicans are the party of Christian values and he says they should begin by helping the sick, the poor, and the needy. Government has hurt those groups by making them dependent on big govt. The only way this idiot wants these groups helped is by seizing money from the very people who can really help them, creating a massive bureaucracy to distribute it, so destructive, that it limits the actually help these groups get. Government can’t help anybody without conservative’s money. He insinuates the poor, needy, and sick would be better served if money was seized by the government.
    4. Fiscal responsibility. He’s right. No conservative has balanced the budget in the last 50 years. Neither has a democrat president without the help of a republican congress and the internet boom. And by the way, the budget was never really balanced by Clinton.
    5. Republicans are the Party of Small Government
    Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
    Unless that big government regulates:
    • what language to speak? – It’s not regulated by anybody. Who is regulating this?
    • Religion to follow – Republicans do not follow a religion. Where did this come from? Oh yeah, an idiot.
    • When life is created – It’s only regulated by democrats
    • who can marry – Big Government Intrusion
    • who can serve in the military – Military is run by gov and as an employer, can make that decision.
    • Invasive health procedures on women – Only if that woman wants to kill another person. Now Obamacare will be much more invasive.
    • That we have prayer in school – Not regulated by federal govt.
    • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations – Not regulated by federal govt.
    • Corporations are people – Not believed by republicans.
    • The Patriot Act – supported by both parties. Introducing drones!
    • Unions don’t have rights – Unions have rights, but they don’t have the right to disallow a person to work if they don’t join a union.
    • When alcohol can be sold – isn’t this a democrat law? By the way, this is regulated by local municipality.
    • The requirement of an ID to vote – Because an illegal vote cancels a legal vote. Democrats require ID’s for a whole lot less. Food stamps and welfare should not require ID?
    6. Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court has no right reinterpreting our constitution and allowing the death of millions of babies. This was never an intended function of the SC. Btw, Where in the constitution does this idiot find the words that abortion is ok?
    7. The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending – paying our bills is more important than cutting spending. I say we default before we have nothing left. I want to scream at this idiot. Raising the debt ceiling is needed only because we spent too much. Why else would we need to raise it?
    8. I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life! Then he asks if we drove….first of all, driving is regulated by each state which is ok by the constitution. Public schools are not a part of the constitution. It was a big government directive, and pushed to an all-time high by that idiot Dewey who thought the government could do a better job schooling our kids. Now look at our kids. We have some of the lowest scoring kids in the world and now they grow up and vote for socialists.
    9. Tax Cuts Create Jobs – It has been proven. 2007 was the highest revenue ever recorded to our treasury dept. through income taxes, with 4 years of Bush tax cuts. A democrat congress took over the finance and banking committees after that year and the rest is history and we never recovered.
    This idiot actually believes his own lies and lives in a world of no logic.

    • cody

      Wow. Just wow…

    • Amalthea

      Michael, I think you’re the complete idiot, but then, I’m a woman, and I believe I have a civil right to make medical decisons about my own damn body. Up yours with a tranvaginal wand, Michael.

    • Americus Ceasar

      With Nancy Pelosi repeatedly telling audiences about hearing voices of deceased women, and Barack Obama regarded by many as dangerously narcissistic, any veteran psychiatrist could make the case that the mental-emotional world of leftists is actually tantamount to a mental disorder.

      The kind of liberalism displayed by Barack Obama during his presidency can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

      Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

      A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do.A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and overtaxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.

      The liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

      creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
      satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
      augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
      rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

      The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind.When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.

      • Kris

        Sources please. I read college educated vocabulary with jr. high level assumption with an A+ on propaganda regurgitation. My assumption is fox news / glen beck but that is really only a highschool level assumption.

    • Kate

      *Whoever wrote this article is a complete idiot:
      Wrong – but you are.
      **1. He said Obama doesn’t want to take our guns. Obama said he supports gun control measures that include a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. He wants to take away those weapons, so he “did” say he wanted to take our guns away. Reagan did not support such a ban. In fact, Reagan said, the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” He wanted the bad guy targeted, not the guns.
      - assault weapons are not ‘guns’, they are a type of gun, a type nobody needs if they want to do anything legal.

      **2. Marriage is not supported if divorce is legal? I don’t even understand that logic. Big Government should have stayed out of marriage to begin with. Is this guy saying we should outlaw divorce and force people to stay together if we support marriage? What is he smoking? It was big government getting involved in matrimony to begin with that was intrusive. Now, the same party who wanted big government is mad because big government requires each to be a different sex. Logic? I don’t think so.
      - No he didn’t say that – he said divorce breaks down marriages, not someone else getting the right to get married too. And duh, if you don’t want government in marriage, then you can’t make any type of marriage illegal, so that was incredibly stupid to say and incredibly stupid for you not to understand.
      See – this is the problem, you have to have at least a bit of brains to start with and so far – I’m not seeing yours.

      **3. Republicans are the party of Christian values and he says they should begin by helping the sick, the poor, and the needy. Government has hurt those groups by making them dependent on big govt. The only way this idiot wants these groups helped is by seizing money from the very people who can really help them, creating a massive bureaucracy to distribute it, so destructive, that it limits the actually help these groups get. Government can’t help anybody without conservative’s money. He insinuates the poor, needy, and sick would be better served if money was seized by the government.
      - You don’t help poor people by taking away public help. The government works quite well at doing that, if you ever bother to even check and it’s not the conservatives money, it’s everyone’s money. Yes, the poor, needy and sick have been far better helped by money taxed by the government. The charities didn’t work – REMEMBER???? That’s why we started this – If charities worked, then we wouldn’t be having problems now – now would we? See all it takes is to put that brain into gear dude.

      ** 4. Fiscal responsibility. He’s right. No conservative has balanced the budget in the last 50 years. Neither has a democrat president without the help of a republican congress and the internet boom. And by the way, the budget was never really balanced by Clinton.

      -wrong again – sorry.

      5. Republicans are the Party of Small Government
      Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
      Unless that big government regulates:
      • what language to speak? – It’s not regulated by anybody. Who is regulating this?
      - Um did you miss the big push by conservatives to keep alternate languages out of schools and government documents? Go back and research it kid – apparently you were sleeping.

      • Religion to follow – Republicans do not follow a religion. Where did this come from? Oh yeah, an idiot.
      - Republicans want the government to sponsor their Christian religion – to put it in public buildings – or did you miss that little hubbub too? Again, sleeping on the job, eh?

      • When life is created – It’s only regulated by democrats
      - Uh, what?

      • who can marry – Big Government Intrusion
      - Yes, republican Big Government Intrusion – duh!!!

      • who can serve in the military – Military is run by gov and as an employer, can make that decision.
      - unless you are a woman.

      • Invasive health procedures on women – Only if that woman wants to kill another person. Now Obamacare will be much more invasive.
      - It’s not a person til it’s born, until then it’s a fetus and it’s dependent on the woman’s body – republicans would like it if the woman has to bear the fetus whether or not it would kill her – does that mean we get to do invasive health procedures on all of you too? Were you aware that having a baby is as dangerous to a woman as cancer? More dangerous than an abortion done at the proper time with proper care?

      • That we have prayer in school – Not regulated by federal govt.
      -no, not since the liberals stopped the republicans from forcing teachers to to lead school prayer.

      • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations – Not regulated by federal govt.
      -not from lack of trying by the republicans.

      • Corporations are people – Not believed by republicans.
      - Romney thinks so, and everybody clapped. Did you miss that little gem?

      • The Patriot Act – supported by both parties. Introducing drones!
      - there was a lot of lying done by republicans to get that consensus too.

      • Unions don’t have rights – Unions have rights, but they don’t have the right to disallow a person to work if they don’t join a union.
      - Um, no, they are being not allowed all kinds of things now in republican states – try doing a little research next time.

      • When alcohol can be sold – isn’t this a democrat law? By the way, this is regulated by local municipality.
      - and by republicans where it props up businesses.

      • The requirement of an ID to vote – Because an illegal vote cancels a legal vote. Democrats require ID’s for a whole lot less. Food stamps and welfare should not require ID?
      - Food stamps and welfare do require ID, You don’t require ID for voting because it can stop the poor who may not be able to get an id from voting. There was no reason to add this law. So basically it was an obvious (really really obvious) attempt by conservatives to disenfranchise the poor.

      6. Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court has no right reinterpreting our constitution and allowing the death of millions of babies. This was never an intended function of the SC. Btw, Where in the constitution does this idiot find the words that abortion is ok?
      - right to privacy. Shall we also make a law requiring you to be bled every month so people who need blood always have some? Or is that perhaps a violation of your own body and how you control it? Hmmmmmm?

      7. The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending – paying our bills is more important than cutting spending. I say we default before we have nothing left. I want to scream at this idiot. Raising the debt ceiling is needed only because we spent too much. Why else would we need to raise it?
      8. I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life! Then he asks if we drove….first of all, driving is regulated by each state which is ok by the constitution. Public schools are not a part of the constitution. It was a big government directive, and pushed to an all-time high by that idiot Dewey who thought the government could do a better job schooling our kids. Now look at our kids. We have some of the lowest scoring kids in the world and now they grow up and vote for socialists.
      - damn straight – except when you stop the debt ceiling from being raised, you just stopped us from paying our bills. So are you advocating that we don’t pay our bills Genius?

      And yes, when you drive, you drive on government roads, safely on government regulated laws that keep idiots out of other cars and makes them behave reasonably. What you think we should all drive like they do in 3rd world countries? Do you have the least clue what that’s like?

      9. Tax Cuts Create Jobs – It has been proven. 2007 was the highest revenue ever recorded to our treasury dept. through income taxes, with 4 years of Bush tax cuts. A democrat congress took over the finance and banking committees after that year and the rest is history and we never recovered.
      - Um no its has not been proven – not in the least – exactly the opposite was proven – over and over and over in studies and all kinds of ways – I know republicans don’t like it but TAX CUTS DO NOT CREATE JOBS – CONSUMER DEMAND CREATES JOBS.

      That’s how it works dude – it’s not magic. It always has and always does. Giving businesses that aren’t seeing demand for their product tax cuts does not make them want to hire people.

      GUH – GROW A BLEEDING BRAIN ALREADY!!!!!!!

  • Karl M Andrews

    “Homosexuality is a sin” comes from religion.

    No ! It did not ! That came from God through the 10 commandments. Do you deny those too?

    • Susan

      Karl, which commandment says that?

      • richard head

        i would suggest you read 1st romans ( all of it ) to get a real idea of what the bible says about homosexuality and then while your at it flip over to the last chapter of Revelations.

    • http://FACEBOOK BEVERLY JALBERT

      YOUR A BIGOTED ASSHOLE.

    • Mike

      Umm sorry to tell you this Karl but the ten commandments are apart of a religion. So saying that is proving the point you are trying to disprove.
      That being said since abortion is a “constitutional right” then what is wrong with government putting regulations on it like democrats and liberals want to do with guns?

    • Dan

      So the 10 commandments aren’t of religious origin. This is news to me. As a conservative Christian, I find your comment to be completely ignorant and unfounded. The 10 commandments are most certainly religiously oriented. They were handed down by god for Moses to present to the Israelites. Who kind of Christian are you to deny the bible in such an offensive way? You should be ashamed of yourself. Your ignorance only serves your opposition. For the love of all things holy… Stay off my side. Please.

      • KiTA

        I really, really think he was kidding.

        At least, I hope he was.

  • Amelia

    You took every stereotypical thing about Republicans (NOT conservatives mind you,) and said that these are our problems. Nice job on the generalization though, I really appreciated being thrown into the category of bigoted, hateful, redneck, radical, fundamentalist, narrow-minded, and hypocritical. Seriously, for being part of a party that promotes “tolerance,” you’re really not doing a great job.

  • Jerry ross

    Lol. So let me get this right. Abortion is protected by the constitution, so conservitives need to shut up and get over it. I guess this same logic should apply to the 2nd amendment. All you lefties need to shut up and get over it. Assult rifle deaths a YEAR over 300. Abortions PER DAY over 3000.

    • Amalthea

      Jerry, dear, you’re quite wrong. There aren’t 3,000 abortions a day, honey, there are millions and millions of abortions per day. “God” aborts 60-80% of fertilized eggs, i.e., embryos, which is “life at conception” if you’re a rightwinger. Millions and millions of fertilized eggs of sexually active women never imbed in the uterine wall and are expelled in menstrual flow. John Opitz, President’s Council on Bioethics, states that half or more of those embryos that nature (or “god”) ejected could have become viable fetuses, or “babies”. March of Dimes data estimate that half of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, i.e., miscarraige. Abortion is a natural bodily process in women’s reproductive sytems.

      But outside of the argument that abortion is a natural human anatomical function, I’m a woman…and by damn, this is MY body, and I make all decisions concerning it, not the GOP, not anyone else but ME. My civil rights trump that of a fertilized egg. No politician who supports Personhood Amendments will ever get my vote; only my spit….and up yours with a transvaginal wand, Jerry sweetie.

      • Jerry

        All I’m saying is my right to bear arms is also protected by the constitution, so you libtards need to shut up and get over it. You can kill all the babies you want. I don’t have to live with it afterward, you do.

      • richard head

        i agree except that you ignore how hideous abortion actually is.

    • Kelly

      3 words.. well regulated militia.

      • GPearl

        What do you think well regulated means? Regulated by the government? I had a feeling that liberals thought that is what it means.

    • richard head

      WOW

  • Matthew

    >Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away. He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons

    Which is stupid. There are legitimate self-defence purposes for extended clips and ar-15s. Plus, dat slippery slope (yes it exists). That’s what the conservatives are warning of. Don’t believe them? See chicago. Handguns are illegal. Also, dat murder rate – excessive gun control is stupid and doesn’t work in North America. See Mexico for more proof.

    >Unless you want to make divorce illegal, don’t tell me about same-sex marriage “ruining the sanctity of marriage.”

    But conservatives are against no-fault divorce.

    >Marriage is a Sacred Bond Before God
    >The term “traditional marriage” is defined from religious text.

    Nope. Marriage is the social recognition of a natural phenomenon; it is heterosexual in every culture on earth. ie. it transcends religion.

    >If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ…
    >Start by helping the sick, the poor, the needy—not opposing programs that do.

    The Republicans would say it’s better to teach a man to fish than keep giving him handouts. Then again, the headline says ‘conservative’. Republicans are a strawman. If you just wanted to attack Republicans, then don’t title your article “conservatives”.

    >Not even close. There hasn’t been a Republican President that’s balanced the budget since Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served from 1953-1961.

    No argument there. I’m not a republican tho, I’m a conservative. See above. This is irrelevant.

    >It really doesn’t matter. Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right—end of story.

    No it’s not end of story. The fact that something is inscribed in fiat does not automatically mean it’s right. Just as liberals would disagree that slavery was right even when it was technically legal.

    >The debt ceiling is about our government paying our bills on money we’ve already spent.
    >Ronald Reagan raised it 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.

    see above. Address conservatives, not just Republicans, or change your headline.

    >Big intrusive govt.

    Government needs to work. It needs to be streamlined and simplified. Now it’s a bloated, tangled corrupt bureaucracy that spends ~ $1 trillion more every year than it brings in. That’s a recipe for bankruptcy.

    >No, they don’t. The rich don’t need more tax breaks, they want more tax breaks.

    Conservatives like myself support fairness and integrity in the tax code. Republicans don’t. Again, irrelevant to the article headline.

    related:

    “What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous. It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html?_r=0

    • http://Facebook Richard Hofmeier

      You are DEAD WRONG about marriage being a “social recognition of a natural phenomenon”! Talk about change your headline!! Hippocrit! And tell your conservative friends to quit using the bible as “Defense of Marriage”! It was around WAY before the Bible and times they are a changing as marriage or same sex couples are being accepted all over the planet! Natural phenomenon my ass!!

      • Matthew

        >You are DEAD WRONG about marriage being a “social recognition of a natural phenomenon”!

        No I’m not. You can’t just make a claim without backing it up. In every culture on earth from the beginning of time, marriage has been restricted to heterosexuals. Why don’t you head over to the wikipedia page on the history of “gay marriage” and observe the facts for yourself. The only listings are 2 Roman emperors (who were naturally above the law), and a single instance in a small chapel in 1061 in Galicia. That’s it. There is no evidence of any general social recognition of “gay marriage” anywhere throughout history.

        >It was around WAY before the Bible

        Where in my post did I mention the Bible? In fact, I said the exact opposite. The heterosexual nature of marriage transcends religion and culture. I’m not even religious. Stay delusional.

        >and times they are a changing as marriage or same sex couples are being accepted all over the planet!

        If by “all over the planet” you mean in degenerate Western societies, all of them traditionally Christian btw (there goes your Bible argument). The rest of the world (~95% of it) is still traditionally conservative when it comes to marriage. And if you haven’t noticed, the West is in serious trouble. Talk about dead wrong, the society you liberals have corrupted is self-destructing; and we’re on the eve of ww3. Coincidence? I think not. This too shall pass.

      • Kate

        No it won’t. It’s all changing and it’s not corrupt, it’s good. It’s moral, it’s the right thing to do.

        That you don’t like it doesn’t make it bad.

        Sorry.

  • Logic

    Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away. He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons (a ban that every Republican President in the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has supported).

    appeal to authority fallacy
    Fallacious appeal to authority
    Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion

    We’re Out to Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage

    Unless you want to make divorce illegal, don’t tell me about same-sex marriage “ruining the sanctity of marriage.”

    >We don’t say that, obviously the state shouldn’t be in the business of legislating what types of contracts consenting adults make, irrelevant to us.

    “Republicans: The Party for Christian Values
    ENOUGH!
    If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ…
    Start by helping the sick, the poor, the needy—not opposing programs that do.”

    “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

    People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.”
    ~Penn Jilette

    Republicans are for Fiscal Responsibility
    Not even close. There hasn’t been a Republican President that’s balanced the budget since Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served from 1953-1961.
    Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all drastically increased our national debt.

    We’re not republicans, we know both parties are equivalent, although the dems want more redistribution of wealth. Another appeal to authority.

    “It really doesn’t matter. Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right—end of story.”

    Lol, I’m no constitutional scholar, but you can control+f the document and type ‘abortion’ and the word does not appear….fucking ignorant

    “The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending
    No, it’s not. The debt ceiling is about our government paying our bills on money we’ve already spent.
    But guess what? Ronald Reagan raised it 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times.”

    Some ‘prominent’ repubs did it so that makes it acceptable for the dems to get away with? Another appeal to authority and false statement. Fallacy after fallacy.

    Did you drive today? Did you take your children to public school? Did you enjoy a safe commute as you traveled thanks to traffic signals and signs? Did you whisk through your city or state on an Interstate Highway? Did you enjoy running water and plumbing that properly, and safely, disposes of waste? Did you get a college degree at a public university because it was much cheaper than a private one?
    Hey genius, that’s all government.

    Private sectors make cars, gov’t contracts road building out to private services…roads would exist in a free market.

    “Who will build the roads?” is the question that belongs at the top of every libertarian drinking game. If we didn’t have forced labor, the argument runs, there would be no roads. There’d be a Sears store over there, and your house over here, and everyone involved would just be standing there scratching their heads.

    `tom woods

    traffic more efficient without lights, spontaneous order in real life
    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/08/spontaneous-order-on-the-road.html

    http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/02/12/a-brief-note-from-argentina-on-spontaneous-order/

    Taxes:
    No, they don’t. The rich don’t need more tax breaks, they want more tax breaks.
    But guess what? After you give them those breaks, they’ll want even more the next time. Isn’t that what Republicans are basically saying now? They had the Bush tax cuts for a decade, but now they want even more tax cuts.

    Politicians never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money – only for wanting to keep your own money.

    Taxation is theft, it shouldn’t even exist.

    Well, that was fun.

  • Madd Sassafras

    Excellent article. Interesting that it draws in so many idiots who are described in same said article. Like moths to a flame.

    • Joon

      Are you describing yourself?

  • Liberals are indeed stupid

    So typical of liberals. Some idiot goes on a rant and the liberals all slobber all over themselves trying to agree with said idiot. Of course I have never know a liberal that is interested in facts which is why they loved this article.

    • James Sassman

      And I’ve never known a conservative who was in the least interested in the facts. Remember when one of Romney’s people said they did not care about fact-checking their positions? Who was the idiot then?

    • mouse

      Irony on the internet, don’t ever change.

    • jenny

      I’m a liberal who’s extremely interested in facts. So why don’t you dispute this article point by point and provide sources for your arguments?

    • Mirsh

      Yes, please, don’t just spout out “typical libertard BS” and then not support your own reasons why you think this. These articles show facts from very reliable news sources. Please, please, if you really feel this isn’t based on facts, give the facts to prove these things wrong. I honestly would love to know the facts if you’ve got ‘em.

      I won’t hold my breath.

      • Joon

        Barack Obama at the 2008 Democrat Convention: “…I also share your belief that weapons were designed for soldiers in war theatres and do not belong on our streets”.

        Elana Kagan raised an excellent question during the recently Supreme Court hearings. She wanted to know, as many conservatives do, how the legal definition of marriage will change (i.e., will it include polygamy?) if their decision expands the definition limits.

        Conservatives were the initiators of the Civil Rights Act, that Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd (KKK) and many Democrats voted against. Their concerns now relate to controlling the fraud and corruption in the system, and having enough funding for the people who need it. The corruption actually takes money out of the hands of people who really need it. Many church groups (those nasty people “clinging to their guns and religion”), are examples of how truly and freely generous they are with their own money.

        The debt ceiling argument is almost laughable. The problem isn’t the raising of the debt ceiling, if out of control spending isn’t ocurring at the same time. I guess the author here must feel that Obama should spend us into bankrupcy, and we should be obligated to pay. Isn’t that what he eviscerated the banks for in 2008 – obligating people to debt they couldn’t repay?

        Sorry, but the big government arguments are also laughable. Conservatives are concerned about how utterly intrusive this administration has gotten with its regulations and controls. Do you deny a 2000 page Health Care Bill with its roughly 15,000 pages of added regulations? A bill, by the way, that no one read before signing. Please pay attention to what unfolds, and don’t blame a Sequester (for cuts in medical care) that in fact was Obama’s idea (he’s on video vowing to veto any bill that attempted to stop his sequester in 2011). The Sequester only cut back on proposed increases – we are spending more this year than last (not less). Obama gutted 700 billion dollars from Medicare – and in his deceit is blaming Republicans for.

        Tax breaks for rich? You mean Obama’s friends? Please check who predominantly makes up the 1%. Don’t worry, either, all of our taxes are going up, and up, and up…. And by the way, history has demonstrated that people who are able to keep more of their money do stimulate the economy with it. What happened with that trillion dollar Stimulus, that won’t ever be repaid like the TARP money was? Even Obama, once again on tape, admitted while chuckling that there really wren’t “shovel ready” jobs. Really? Did he use his own money for that? I don’t see my pockets getting any bigger – must have been our money wasted, while his green compnay cronies bankrupted their stimulus enhanced pockets, taking their cool millions and running off.

      • GPearl

        Very good comment. I just read it and I don’t see any replies from Liberals?? Did you use too much logic and facts? Try to speak more in general context and throw a few racist accusations and you might get a response from a low information voter. There are millions in this country.

  • Jason Marcel (@moviejay)

    Wrong on one thing, this article: George W. Bush let the Assault Weapons Ban expire in 2004. So, no, not every Republican President has supported it.

    • http://Facebook Richard Hofmeier

      You are DEAD WRONG about marriage being a “social recognition of a natural phenomenon”! Talk about change your headline!! Hippocrit! And tell your conservative friends to quit using the bible as “Defense of Marriage”! It was around WAY before the Bible and times they are a changing as marriage or same sex couples are being accepted all over the planet! Natural phenomenon my ass!!

    • http://Facebook Richard Hofmeier

      Hey, did your wee little brain not notice he supported it in his first term. Typical of the “Village Idiot” from Texas to forget what he supported and what he didn’t.

  • Shelley

    It’s a shame you can’t debate anything without calling someone else an idiot. If you had said anything of value you wouldn’t feel the need for childish name calling. Btw the right for a woman to chose what’s done to her own body is protected by the constitution or you’d have more control over her than just abortion. If a woman doesn’t have a constitutionally protected right to choose what she does with her own body then neither do men. And we all know there’s not a chance men are going to allow that now don’t we. Just the fact that you replied proves this guy’s very well made point.

    • RIP GOP 2014/2016

      To Shelley: Quite a few (GOP-controlled) states have just proven you wrong, that the right of a woman to decide what she does with her body is actually NOT protected by the Constitution, as those states have enacted almost complete abortion bans. Plus, it’s stupid to bring up how men’s rights might be not Constitutionally protected, as the majority of politicians currently in office are men. Right now, women make up only a small minority of elected officeholders. So, seeing as how the right-wing likes to take away women’s rights, I’d say a fair trade is to make it so that only women can make decisions about a man’s body. So, Shelley, if anything, whomever called you an idiot is correct, as you don’t have your facts straight, much like every other Republican in this country. Oh, and to “Liberals are indeed stupid”: your party consistently PROVES that you, in fact, are the stupid ones, as your party has NEVER met a fact it liked. In fact, your party’s cable opinion channel, F*ck (the) News Channel (I’ll never use it’s real name, since it doesn’t actually report news), has NEVER put forth something that can be confirmed as a fact. Oh, and it’s generally been the right-wing that’s used name-calling when it realizes that it has lost the debate, using terms such as “libtard” & others. Oh, and Jason, you just pointed out the reason why we, as a country, need better gun laws, How many tragedies involving guns has this country now gone through since the AWB expired? Too many if you ask me. So, continue being the right-wing F*ck (the) News Channel sheeple you are, while the rest of us contribute constructively to politics.

      • brian

        Well if gun control really worked Chicago would-be the safest city in the world…….but its not you liberal fucking ass clowns. It was the murder capital last year

      • Kelly

        If gun control really worked, Australia would have had like only 30 gun related deaths last year. Oh wait…

      • Gretchen

        Ummm… ever hear of Indiana? Several people in the last couple of months have been caught buying dozens (in one case – over one hundred) of guns in Indiana, bringing them to Chicago, and distributing them in the poorest neighborhoods. Look into an issue before you debate it… ass clown.

      • Richard Westlund

        I have to ask about one point made here: When you wrote about “how many tragedies has this country gone thru since the AWB has expired……..”. Ask this: How many “tragedies” are a result of assault weapons vs. hand guns? This whole gun control debate that people are so ignorantly debating is missing the entire point. Someone mentioned Chicago. How many have been killed by Assault weapons vs. hand guns. Now ask, how many “tragedies” are a result of weapons used by legal gun owners vs. criminal gun owners. I will put money down no one will come up with the numbers because it will show legal gun owners and assault weapons are not the highest statistic.
        Criminals with hand guns are the problem.

  • Fester

    Your talking points are as old as fundamentalism. To so many its all right or all left, and those other guys are stoopid loosers! In Conn. and California they are already rewriting the laws to make already owned and registered guns illegal. Your points about abortion gay marriage rightly point out the intolerance of one’s party members to have an opposing opinion. Our government is on a spending spree all the while shouting out how much the controls on spending (called cuts) are hurting. Bigger government never in history has been beneficial to the private sector. And every entrepreneur I have the pleasure to work with is holding on to their cash until something like tax cuts gives them incentive to invest in this great country. Other than that I guess you are spot on…..

  • ERW23

    Nice article, but Allen Clifton is wrong about a couple of points.
    1: Just my opinion here, but laws are based on religion only because religion is a cultural aspect of a human being. It defines their sense of morality, and by extension their way of thinking. Now I am not saying one should vote for something “because God said so.” Just that religion has influence on how one thinks.
    2: Abortion is NOT a Constitutionally protected right. That is not my opinion, that is constitutional law FACT! Roe vs. Wade established PRIVACY as the right that permits women to seek abortion, and even then they placed limits on that right, which is why third term abortion bans have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

  • Richard Westlund

    This guy mentions Fox News twice, and no other news media. I have to ask: which is he more fearful of, Republicans or Fox News?

  • Josh

    That’s what you took from all of that? You only serve to prove his point about narrow minded people who take one single aspect of a large thing and zero in on it, as if hoping that all of the inconvenient truths he pointed out will magically disappear if you pretend they aren’t there. Have you no intelligent words to form a counter argument?

  • Outskirts

    Unfortunately, as any progressive who has tried to have a conversation with a conservative knows, these arguments, true as they are, roll off a republican like water off a duck. The fact that trickle down has never worked doesn’t change their belief in it. Facts don’t matter. Tell them these truths until you are blue in the face, but it won’t change a thing.

  • Me

    So what does work? I’m an independant that listened to OWE-bama call Bush unpatriotic and unamerican for running the debt up 4 trillion in 8 years. So he turns around and runs it up over 5 trillion in half that time. Could someone please tell me after his 8 years are up and he ran the debt up 8 to 10 trillion, how is that working for us? Promises that payroll taxes wouldn’t go up on the middle class, but leaves out the fact that social security would go back up 2%. Bailed out car companies of all things. These companies run themselves into the ground and the taxpayers foot the bill on that, just to have then turn around and hand out there bonuses. Plus, when was the last time you walked into a car lot and got agood deal, and we basil them out?

    • Jules

      Yes, we bailed out the auto industry. But you did not mention that they paid the American people back with interest in under a year! So why are people still bitching about that? And the auto industry brought jobs back to this country, by like 15,000 jobs!! This is what Allen was talking about, give people the facts and they just blow right by them! Wow!

  • Dennis L. Cooley

    A conservative’s response to this article:
    First of all, you seem to consider all conservatives as Republicans. I am a conservative. I am not religious. I do not attend church. I am Pro-Choice and Pro-Life (my last choice is now 19 years old). I have never been a Republican. I am licensed to carry a firearm. I believe our federal government is out of control and I would like to respond to your statements.
    Gun Rights:

    A ban on so called assault rifles serves no purpose than to attempt to begin to disarm the populace. There were more people murdered with hammers and baseball bats in the United States last year than with rifles, all types of rifles. Why do liberals blame the gun? Drunk drivers kill people but no one blames the vehicle. The semi-automatic rifles misnamed “assault weapons” are not the problem. High capacity ammo magazines are also a red herring. Can a criminal do more damage with a thirty round magazine than with three ten round magazines? Universal background checks are a good idea; however, the same government that places six year olds on no fly lists is worrisome. There is a lot of room for government abuse on this issue. You like to refer to the Constitution. The Second Amendment was enacted so the People could defend themselves from tyranny. It has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, etc. It only makes sense that if the founding fathers wanted the People to be able to resist government tyranny, that they would also want the people to have adequate tools to do so. None of the gun control measures proposed by the President would have changed the outcomes at Sandy Hook or Aurora had they been in place prior to those incidents occurring.

    We’re Out to Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage
    Marriage is a Sacred Bond Before God
    Same-sex Marriage overall

    Whether you like it or not, marriage originated as a religious rite. To allow gay “marriage” is to redefine the word marriage. I believe most Christians would support the idea if a term such as civil union was sought. The real issue to me is why married and unmarried citizens are treated differently by our governments.

    The only thing the First Amendment restricts is Congress, “Congress shall make no law…” The United States was not founded as a secular nation. The courts have legislated the so called separation of church and state that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

    Republicans: The Party for Christian Values

    Conservatives do not oppose effective programs to help the poor, sick, or needy.
    Conservatives do oppose programs that cannot be paid for. Since LBJ’s Great Society began, the poverty level in the United States has not decreased one percent while government spending has ballooned immensely.

    Republicans are the Party of Small Government

    You got this one right! Conservatives (not the Republican Party) do oppose government becoming too large and intrusive. If we can afford billions of dollars in foreign aid, no one in the United States should go hungry or without medical care.

    Abortion

    You state: Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. That isn’t debatable.
    Have you even read the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses abortion or gives the federal government the power to control it. Therefore, that issue is for “The States or the People respeevtively.”

    The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending

    You state: No, it’s not. The debt ceiling is about our government paying our bills on money we’ve already spent.
    That statement makes no sense at all. If our government paid its bills, we would have no debt. Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to spend recklessly. We are over sixteen trillion in debt and if the trend continues, the U.S. Dollar and our entire economy will collapse at some point. Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

    I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life!

    Conservatives believe government is necessary. I do not believe the current level of government is necessary. Homeland Security has recently purchased nearly two billion rounds of ammunition and 2,700 armored vehicles. Much of the ammo purchased is “hollow point” ammunition that cannot be used outside of the United States per the Geneva Convention. No one at Homeland Security has given a rational explanation for the expenditures. About 40 cents of each of those spent dollars was borrowed and increased the national debt. We do need government, but the size and spending are out of control.

    Tax Cuts Create Jobs

    It is not government’s job to create jobs. Businesses create jobs. People are in business to make a profit. Anything that helps business succeed also helps to create more jobs. We have the highest corporate income tax rates in the world and can’t figure out why businesses are going overseas. Lowering taxes, much of which are squandered unnecessarily by government, increases the amount of money for people to spend and for business to expand. Raising taxes has the opposite effect. If you want to see what liberalism, big unions, high taxes and overregulation can create, visit Detroit.

    • ron

      excellent response Dennis–if I wasn’t sure I’ld have thought I’ld written it myself-!! No doubt the writer of this article is so stuck in his liberal mindset (ie:- inflexible ,intolerant ,indoctrinated , obama kool-aid drinking etc) -that he probably won’t read or try to understand what you’ve written . -especially your last line. Keep up the fight-it may be a loosing battle trying to educate bonehead progressives—but i guess you gotta try–(so your conscience is clear !)-From a fellow conservative–p.s. -NOT a Republican–

    • Jerry

      Well said.

    • Ken

      You disagree with the Auto Bailout, but you say, “Anything that helps buisness succeed also helps to create more jobs”. Was’nt that the reason for the Bailout? To save and create more jobs? You ca’nt have it both ways Mr. Conservative.

      • Dennis L. Cooley

        There was no “Auto Bailout”. There was a propping up of the UAW. I am sick of hearing that the current administration saved the auto industry. To believe that, you would have to believe that every person that drives a GM or Chryler product would suddenly walk, ride a bike or take the bus if those companies failed. The best selling “American Made” (there really is no such animal) car now is a Toyota, made in the United States by non-union workers.

    • Leaning Left

      A ban on so called assault rifles serves no purpose than to attempt to begin to disarm the populace.

      -False, the whole purpose is to try and avoid tragedies such as Sandy Hook.-

      There were more people murdered with hammers and baseball bats in the United States last year than with rifles, all types of rifles.

      -Really? Please provide one source that demonstrates a mass casualty incident resulting from a hammer or a baseball bat.-

      High capacity ammo magazines are also a red herring. Can a criminal do more damage with a thirty round magazine than with three ten round magazines?

      -It’s simple, the issue is the speed at which someone can carry out their assault.-

      The Second Amendment was enacted so the People could defend themselves from tyranny. It has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, etc. It only makes sense that if the founding fathers wanted the People to be able to resist government tyranny, that they would also want the people to have adequate tools to do so.

      -The US military is already far superior to any resistance that can be mounted by civilians and yet conservatives typically support massive and continued military spending.-

      None of the gun control measures proposed by the President would have changed the outcomes at Sandy Hook or Aurora had they been in place prior to those incidents occurring.

      -I agree with you here.-

      Whether you like it or not, marriage originated as a religious rite. To allow gay “marriage” is to redefine the word marriage. I believe most Christians would support the idea if a term such as civil union was sought. The real issue to me is why married and unmarried citizens are treated differently by our governments.

      -I don’t disagree that marriage began as a religious rite. But the fact of the matter is that it is now a legal institution with certain rights attached. It is recognized legal contract. As such, there is no reason, other than a religious one, to deny such a legally binding contract for homosexuals.-

      The only thing the First Amendment restricts is Congress, “Congress shall make no law…” The United States was not founded as a secular nation. The courts have legislated the so called separation of church and state that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

      -Regardless of how you understand reading of the constitution, I find it completely ridiculous that anyone would argue for allowing religion to influence legislation in a free country.-

      Conservatives do not oppose effective programs to help the poor, sick, or needy.
      Conservatives do oppose programs that cannot be paid for. Since LBJ’s Great Society began, the poverty level in the United States has not decreased one percent while government spending has ballooned immensely.

      -Most conservatives I’ve talked to absolutely oppose any government involvement in social programs for the poor, sick and needy.-

      You got this one right! Conservatives (not the Republican Party) do oppose government becoming too large and intrusive. If we can afford billions of dollars in foreign aid, no one in the United States should go hungry or without medical care.

      -No argument here.-

      Have you even read the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses abortion or gives the federal government the power to control it. Therefore, that issue is for “The States or the People respeevtively.”

      -Women should have the ability to have a legal abortion, period. I can’t say I agree with abortion as a birth control technique but my opinion is not important. What’s important is that we protect free choice in a free society. Rape, incest, medical complications and/or the simple fact that children whose parents cannot provide the material and emotional necessities are all valid reasons IMO for a women to choose abortion. And that’s that.-

      That statement makes no sense at all. If our government paid its bills, we would have no debt. Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to spend recklessly. We are over sixteen trillion in debt and if the trend continues, the U.S. Dollar and our entire economy will collapse at some point. Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

      -I don’t think any liberals are arguing that the government should spend recklessly. But we do tend to focus on different spending. I personally feel that spending on social programs should out pace spending on military.-

      Conservatives believe government is necessary. I do not believe the current level of government is necessary. Homeland Security has recently purchased nearly two billion rounds of ammunition and 2,700 armored vehicles. Much of the ammo purchased is “hollow point” ammunition that cannot be used outside of the United States per the Geneva Convention. No one at Homeland Security has given a rational explanation for the expenditures. About 40 cents of each of those spent dollars was borrowed and increased the national debt. We do need government, but the size and spending are out of control.

      -Agreed, but aren’t those type of expenditures typically supported by the conservative right?-

      It is not government’s job to create jobs. Businesses create jobs. People are in business to make a profit. Anything that helps business succeed also helps to create more jobs. We have the highest corporate income tax rates in the world and can’t figure out why businesses are going overseas. Lowering taxes, much of which are squandered unnecessarily by government, increases the amount of money for people to spend and for business to expand. Raising taxes has the opposite effect. If you want to see what liberalism, big unions, high taxes and overregulation can create, visit Detroit.

      -Anything that helps business succeed in making profit helps create more jobs? Do you really believe that? Hiring employees cost money. The only reason a company hires people is when work load makes it necessary to do so. Profits, in and of themselves, do not.

      Tax rates may be technically high but that doesn’t mean companies pay that rate. There are deductions and other ways to get out of it. What needs to happen is close the loopholes in the code and lower the rate-

      • Jules

        I would like it if people who claim that marriage began as a religious rite to back that claim up. The word marriage has only been around since 1250 a.d. From Old French. So the word marriage from the bible was translated from another word. These ‘unions’ have been around since people have been around! The problem people have is when the church and governments started keeping track of who married who! All cultures and religions have ceremonies that join two people together. Look the word ‘sanctity’ up and ‘traditional’.
        And as far as abortion, Roe v. Wade is protected by the Constitution, even though it is not mentioned in it. It is a Federally protected right. The Supreme Court declared that in 1972 and said states could not infringe on the right of women making that decision and the privacy of that decision between her and her doctor!

  • Allison

    What I’d really like to see is an article that covers all of these points without resorting to name-calling because no one will ever change his or her mind if they are confronted by insults. Quite the opposite, in fact. Unfortunately, all of the best online articles that outline the points I’d like to make are filled with hateful speech and I refuse to share them with my conservative friends and family.

    • Ken

      The only Hateful speech I’mm seeing here is from your side. Like “Obama-Cool-Aid-Drinking, Bonehead Progressives” etc. are you going to share that with your Coservative friends and Family?

  • Keith Brandt

    Thanks Dennis for the common sense and the rational conservative response to the progressive assertions made in this article.

  • Barbara Owens

    Government is controlling corrupt n sleazy. Federal State County City laws conflict. Whatever party they are in and whatever news you watch!

  • Brandon

    So sad to see how misguided these arguments are.

    • Brian

      So sad to see how you can’t look at a topic from a neutral point of view based on factual arguments and not political, social or religious beliefs.

  • Ragnarok

    Nice liberal rant. Thanks for that. By the way, the right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected, much more explicitly so than your alleged Constitutionally protected right to abortion. End of story.

    • OTHP

      How so? When something says “You can’t do this” in the Constitution there isn’t a degree of how much you can’t do something. You just can’t do it. Nobody should be able to take your guns away and nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can’t do with your body. End of story (again).

      • Bill

        The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. At the time it was written that meant muskets and pistols. It does not give the population the right to all of the advancements of weapons. If that were the case how do you feel about owning a tank or a rocket launcher or better yet a bomb, maybe atomic. I am a Christian and a Republican and I don’t want to be identified with someone against reasonable effort to keep everyone safe. I do however disagree with Mr. Clifton on most of what he states above. Epecially raising taxes we continue to raise taxes and as yet I don’t see the middle class situation improving.

      • Tony

        Same thing apply to the first amendment? At the time it was written there was no TV, e-mail, radio, internet, telephone, texting, etc….

      • JenniferT

        At the time the Constitution was written, those WERE military grade weapons. If military grade weapons were what it took then, what makes you think they aren’t what we might need now? And if it were a mentally stable individual with the rocket launcher, yes, I have no issue with them owning it. I am more concerned about a nutcase with a hammer than a mentally stable, ethical individual with a rocket launcher.

      • GPearl

        Excellent post Jennifer and a great comparison. Also, muskets and pistols were considered assault weapons when the constitution was written. The founders were clear that government was to be held in check by the people and they needed these weapons. If we all have rocket launchers, and other weapons that can stop a government using the military against us, we will outnumber their military. This is what the founders had in mind. The government needs us to turn over these weapons and have only BB guns to use against them.

      • GPearl

        Muskets and pistols were assault weapons when the constitution was written. The founders were very clear that the public was to be well armed with the most powerful weapons available.

    • Matthew

      “Alleged” took any intelligence out of your comment.

    • Nick

      There is a HUGE difference from the right to bear arms and the right to bear assault weapons.

      But the right to rule over your own body over rules your right to carry rocket launchers down the street.

      • David L. Dillon

        “Assault Weapons” as stated by you, Nick has no meaning. The DOD is the only ones who gave a description of “Assault Weapons” as being those with SELECTIVE FIRE, meaning they can go to “machine gun fire” at the click of a lever. Pro-control people have been muddying the waters since the 60s to imply that civilian weapons that are “look-a-likes” are the same. They are not! Individuals with limited knowledge of firearm nomenclature have been “hoodwinked” into believing people own military weapons. They do not! Machine guns have been virtually banned since the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and was partially a response to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre committed with two Thompson Machine Guns. AR-15s and AKSs are not the same as M-16s and AK-47s. But, Nick, you, like so many others, have bought into the propaganda of the anti gun rights people. AR-15s and the like are not weapons of choice among criminals and account for less than 1% of ALL gun violence. Banning these weapons is grandstanding and will accomplish not a damn thing in reducing gun violence. Because they look “scary”, banning them is only a politician’s “feel good” attempt to say “I did something about it” while doing absolutely nothing. I’m not a member of the NRA, consider myself a liberal democrat, but I served in Vietnam and know my weapons. AR-15s are semi-automatic (fires one round for each pull of the trigger) which also includes virtually all hand guns and a plethora of hunting rifles that ARE NOT on the “ban” list and far more powerful than an AR-15. Please people, educate yourselves about what you are being fooled into believing! ROCKET LAUNCHERS, Nick??? Really?When was the last time you saw someone carrying a rocket launcher down the street? By the way, anything used to “assault” someone is an “assault weapon” and criminal use of any weapon is already illegal. Also, although I am pro-choice, abortion is NOT specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

      • GPearl

        Every firearm is an assault weapon. That is the intent of the firearm. The founders expected us to use whatever means possible to keep government in check.

    • Dr. Murphy

      Actually, the 2nd Amendment is the following:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      There are lots of reasonable ways to interpret this language. But let me just say, a very reasonable interpretation of this would be that the “right to bear arms” is itself a function of the States ability to muster a militia in order to provide “security” for that “state”. Now, our modern state apparatus is perfectly capable of providing security in a wholey different manner then envisioned by the founders — namely through our standing professional armed forces and even our modern incarnation of the militia the National Guard.

      Many so-called “Second Amendment” advocates have a very narrow reading of the Second Amendment and highlight only the second half of the provision, that is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” half. To do so is to take the language out of its proper context. Going even further, many have decided that, despite the clear link between the right to arms and the security of the state, that the provision actually is meant to be read as a last restort buffer against the security of the state. This takes some serious mental gymnastics.

      And finally, what does “arms” even mean? If you accept that narrow reading and claim that “bearing arms” is an absolute, then shouldn’t Americans have the right to bear nukes, tanks, bombers, munition laden drones, and fighter jets? I mean, these would be the “Arms” needed to hedge against the specter of tyranny from a state backed by the most advanced military in human history. If you say that is ridiculous, then you acknowledge that it is not absolute and which “arms” are acceptable is interpretable and open for debate. Suddenly, limiting high-capacity magazines and military assault weapons seems far more reasonable.

      • GPearl

        This is exactly what the liberals do, try to interpret the constitution. It was written as a very simple, easy to read document so people would not do what you are doing. It can be read only one way. The people have a right to bear arms. It is as simple as that. There is no narrow reading of such a simple statement. Generations have understood what it meant, yet, people supporting the government’s attempt to squash the threat of 70 million gun owners so it can have no threat whatsoever.
        You have no right to read the constitution in any other way than how it was written. It was written so the average American could understand it, and was written only to limit government’s power. The constitution strictly forbid the government from inhibiting our rights.

      • Susan

        @GPearl, Thomas Jefferson would disagree. He wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

      • GPearl

        Once again, your aim is to use the words of the founders to prove your point that the words of the founders were flawed. But that is the liberal logic. Jefferson is not stating that if situations change, that the government should become overpowering and eradicate the 2nd amendment and the citizens of the United States must succumb to a tyrannical government. He is trying to keep the idea of a limited government in check and protect the people from government by giving them the abilities to use force if necessary, to bring the government to a servant level. No matter what, the constitution still stands as the longest living government controlling document alive, thus producing the most successful country in the history of the earth. Giving government the right to control law abiding Americans is forbidden by the constitution, no matter how liberals try to twist interpretations, this is what it is.

    • HippyNonTheist

      I love the logic that, were I to become pregnant by rape with my current medical conditions, carrying a baby to term would pose a real and present danger to my life, but you don’t want me to have the ability to save my life from a clump of cells. However, once I’m dead and that prematurely born baby is raised in a rancid foster care system and shows up at your house strung out on drugs looking to steal your silverware, you want the legal right to blow their head off to protect your belongings in your home.

      My life is worth less than your forks. Yep, you’re a Republican.

      • GPearl

        Ever notice, when liberals want to debate abortion, they always use the health of the mother as an argument which is a no brainer. The reality is, the mom-to be-not-really gets knocked up after drinking all night and decided she doesn’t want to be “punished with a baby” to use Obama’s words. She goes and kills that little brat so she can get ready for next Saturday night at the “do me” bar. So she has that little baby’s brains sucked out and if the abortion goes wrong, heck kill that thing and snap it’s neck. Inflict as much pain in the baby’s final minutes as possible so mama can go out and search for the next guy. Those are the abortions we are talking about. Not the health of the mother abortions. But liberals will always start playing violins for the pregnant baby killer, and let you think she is on her death bed if she doesn’t abort that little punishment.

      • HippyNonTheist

        Please clarify, are you stating that, in the scenario I outlined you’d be okay with a termination of a pregnancy to save the life of the mother?

        I feel sorry for you if you really believe that the only way a woman can get “knocked up” is from casual sex after getting drunk in a bar. Please, please tell me you’re not one of those assholes who either claims there’s no such thing as “true rape” or that women could prevent being raped if they want to?

        I am 39 years old. I have “gone out drinking at a bar” exactly ONCE in my life, with friends, designated drivers and on my 21st birthday. For the record, I neither had sex nor got knocked up that night. I did spend a lot of time giggling on the livingroom floor of the designated drivers house with my friends.

        Making every woman who has to face the choice of terminating a pregnancy out to be some sort of slutty irresponsible loser is beyond the pale. I have three children. With BOTH of my last two pregnancies I was counseled to terminate and nearly died both times. Now, one of those children has SUBSTANTIAL medical issues and their father, my ex, is not in the picture, so, while I’m celibate, were I to get pregnant, and the ONLY way that would happen would be rape, I have to jump through hoops to leave the house to grocery shop & ensure my child is properly looked after, so casual sex or bars? HA! The only way I could become pregnant would be against my will and I would not have the option of risking my life, as I’ve done before, thinking that at least my kids would have the other parent. I’m all they’ve got. I’m celibate. I should face death if I’m raped, really?

        tldr; You’re wrong, and an abrasive boob.

      • GPearl

        Again, the bleeding heart liberal now uses rape as a reason to dismantle another little life. face it, you don’t want to be punished with a baby. I wouldn’t want the baby killed under any circumstances but, reluctantly, would sacrifice the 10 rape babies and the 1 for saving the life of the mother babies for the 50 million who don’t want to be punished with a baby. Deal?

      • HippyNonTheist

        No.

      • GPearl

        I didn’t think so. The bleeding heart story was just an excuse to get sympathy. The real story is the knocked up female who doesn’t want the responsibility of raising a life she helped create irresponsibly. Somebody else would gladly adopt that baby but the selfish murderer decides nobody is going to have it so nobody is punished with a baby.

  • A

    I believe this is a counter to your gun control rights argument (the video below). You need to consider the statistics, what you are unaware of in your daily life, and differentiate from what the media chooses to tell you. Case and point (view video listed below). Don’t infringe on other peoples rights because the media sensationalizes what Americans are dealing with here vs. what occurs around the world on a daily basis. Guns are not the problem. People are. There will always be crazies in the world. The government is not contributing to improve and make mental health a priority in this country for those that need it. Reducing the capacity of guns will not stop people from killing. Then we can also get into the issue of how morality is not a key factor in our society and they do not teach it in schools nowadays… therefore you are leaving these teachings and values up to the parents, whether they be educated or not. The more educated kids are, and the more help that is available for those that need it psychologically, then that is when we will actually begin to accomplish something. Unfortunately, people like to rush legislation and not look at the key issues… as to cause and effect. I can also state the same sort of scenario for the Iraq war. We rushed into a war due to the effects of 9/11 and now we have been at war for over a decade and who knows when we will see and end to it or the side effects of it as well… if ever… due to the fact that we have only created a more problematic environment then there was to begin with. You cannot conform everyone to your way of thinking, no matter how hard you try. The world is too different. I am just saying that people need to get the facts straight before they make big decisions due to their own beliefs. Fear is what brought us into war. Not diplomacy. Fear that we could be attacked again and that we are vulnerable, is a reason to go to war for our own gain, and the people will listen because it is a means to give the perception of security by our government. Whenever a catastrophe happens there is usually fear placed within the public psyche and therefore we rely on the government to fix these things even though it may mean giving up our freedoms.
    The fear that we could be attacked is what give government its power to stomp all over our rights. People will give up their rights in order to know that they are safe and protected and sheltered. That is Not FREEDOM!
    watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_-N9_tnWBo#!
    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
    Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.”
    - Edward Bernays
    Lippmann, Bernays and Lasswell have all declared that the public are not fit to decide their own fate, which is the inherent goal of democracy. Instead, they called for a cryptocracy, a hidden government, a ruling class in charge of the “bewildered herd.” As their ideas continue to be applied to society, it is increasingly apparent that an ignorant population is not an obstacle that the rulers must deal with: It is something that is DESIRABLE and, indeed, necessary, to insure total leadership. An ignorant population does not know its rights, does not seek a greater understanding of issues and does not question authorities. It simply follows trends. Popular culture caters to and nurtures ignorance by continually serving up brain-numbing entertainment and spotlighting degenerate celebrities to be idolized. Many people ask me: “Is there a way to stop this?” Yes, there is. STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP AND READ A BOOK. – - vigilant citizen
    “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse identified three main problems with the cultural industry. The industry can:
    Reduce human beings to the state of mass by hindering the development of emancipated individuals, who are capable of making rational decisions;
    Replace the legitimate drive for autonomy and self-awareness by the safe laziness of conformism and passivity;
    And validate the idea that men actually seek to escape the absurd and cruel world in which they live by losing themselves in a hypnotic state self-satisfaction.

    I could go on a rant too, but I suggest people get the facts straight before they act as if they know everything there is to know about everything. Know what your rights are and don’t allow others to infringe on them. — same goes with gun control rights.
    If you would like to be a high thinking individual and consider others perspectives then you should not criticize others due to the lack of knowledge from yourself or others, but instead work together to understand. Many people do not know the implications that the media and propaganda have on our daily life and how our own government influences them. Sure you can think its all conspiracy theory whack-job talk, but the truth of the matter is that people are uninformed and history does not lie.

    As much as people hate “conspiracy theory” talk. Many do not understand the history behind it and that it is not some made up talk by people who like to run their mouths and try to predict the future.
    Forward thinking should not be undermined and people should discover this. Knowledge is power.
    (in reference to what is written below)
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/the-order-of-the-illuminati/
    Today’s political atmosphere is quite different from the American Founding Fathers, yet there are still many similarities. While the Bavarian Illuminists purportedly denounced the political and religious oppression of the Vatican, a new kind of oppreession is taking form. As democracies merge into a single world government, as privacy and freedoms become replaced by “security” and high tech surveillance, as schools crack down on critical thinking, as mass media dumbs-down and disinforms the masses, as secret operations carry out crimes against humanity and as all major protests get violently repressed by a growing police state, it is easy to draw the conclusion that a similarly repressive system is currently being instated. Did the Illuminati truly “liberate” the Western World from the oppression of the Vatican or did it simply continue in its footsteps?

    I know most of my thoughts and arguments are not the most organized in this comment, but I feel like I stated the info that needed to be stated in order get my point/points across. I dont have time to write a book but hopefully this information is a good guide to go by before criticizing others and our rights. I foresee this just becoming a perpetual cycle, one way or the other… no matter what party you decide to root for.

    check this out-
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/

  • Max

    Hi Allen,

    I’d like to say a few things.

    First, Republicans donate more of their income to charities (i.e. the needy) than liberals.

    Second, you argue that gays have the right to marriage because they are equal, then you go on to say that abortion is a constitutional right? A bit hypocritical don’t you think? You put the right to marriage over a much more important right: The Right to Life. These infants, who are murdered, are robbed of even ever having a chance to have a wedding… its sad.

    Thirdly, Soviet Union (Russia), Egypt, China, Vietnam, North Korea. All these countries have big governments but I don’t hear you saying how great any single one of these countries is. When China finally began to allow capitalism into their country, it did them wonders!

    Fourth, Christians are idiots is what you said. They are hypocrites you said. Well sir, I can name three major countries that lacked any sort of Christian values (or any religion for that matter): Soviet Union (3-50 million citizens ethnically “cleansed” (means murdered)), Nazi Germany (6+million citizens ethnically cleansed), and China under Mao (millions executed). So please tell me again how Athiests are better people. (Don’t bring the Crusades into this: over the course of a couple hundred years (not 10-50 years) hundreds of thousands were killed)<–thats not to say they were ok… it was a terrible thing that happened.

    Fifth, Gun control is ok. Many conservatives back background checks, etc. It's the fact that a majority of these psychopath killers are, well, psychopaths. Yet the liberals want to control the honest man who buys his gun legally as opposed to those who get them off the street.

    You are ignorant.

    m.

    • Chris

      I’m just going to reply to all of your points.

      1) I’m going to have to ask for proof on this one. So far what I’ve seen is compeltely contradictory, as tax breaks and subsidies for businesses sure haven’t lended themself to a trend in “donations”.

      2) The Right to Life also extends to the mother herself, as giving birth can also have disastrous consequences. And what about rape? Or living conditions? There is nothing hypocritical about this. The life of the mother over the life of an unborn child, that’s just how it is. You have a right to let a woman do with her body as she chooses.

      3) See the list of policies that you Republicans would put in place if elected, including the restrictions on abortion and religious freedom. The difference is apples and oranges, ethically/historical/constitutionally etc. You just cannot compare the two.

      4) Actually, Nazi Germany upheld the Christian religion. Religion didn’t have anything to do with it. Stalin murdered millions out of paranoia, Hitler murdered millions out of anti-semitism (hey, he was a christian), and Mao also murdered millions out of paranoia. Please take a history lesson.

      5) Control will still put a tight noose on the “source” of some of those street sales. And like the authour said before, you still will have the privilege of owning a handgun. Which is all you need anyway.

      In short, your ignorant garbage.

      -Chris

      • Chris

        Let me correct my fourth point. Religion “had” something to do with it, in regards to Nazi Germany.

    • GerMan

      Umm Germany was primarily Christian. Remember the Reformation? Well, it kind of had lasting impact there, you know…

    • Amy

      Max-”First, Republicans donate more of their income to charities (i.e. the needy) than liberals.” Religion probably has a large influence on charitable donations. According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, regions of the U.S. that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states have high numbers of Mormons, who give at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

      • D-san

        Giving money to your church might be charity in your eyes, but it’s selective charity in my eyes. It’s the equivalent of saying, “Hey, poor people, I know you really need this money, but I’m gonna give it to my diocese first and let them give it to you! Well, after they use the money to add a bunch of new pews… oh, and to fund their religious education… and to bust their pedophile priest out of jail! You can have whatever’s left after that!” Now, I KNOW I’m being hyperbolic here, but the point remains – making your charitable donations through a church or place of worship is like donating your money to an organization that utilizes 75% of donations to take care of its own.

        Thanks, but I’m smart enough to know that my money is best used when not filtered through the hands of God.

      • GPearl

        This is why you can’t take a liberal’s comments seriously. Many church’s will have a second collection and specifically say what they are using it for. They will also set up donation sites specifically for this purpose. The Pedophile priest comment is meant to be a complete insult to diminish the importance of the church. So wonderful government is needed to take care of this since they have a 0% record of doing anything right. Yes, expand that goliath, seize more money from hard working americans, create chaos, and then spoon feed some of the money back. Speak your mind’s answer to everything is more government. That is his God.

      • HippyNonTheist

        Amen, brother. ;) I shudder to think how much money has been gathered for “Church improvements” over the years that I attended, shall we say, religiously?

        My hippie parents moved us, a lot, and we attended a lot of churches over the years, and every time that basket went around, it was for something new for the Church or the pastors house or, or, or. Not once were we collecting $ to help a family whose house burnt down, or who’d lost a parent. And they made sure we learned young, at 9, when I’d babysit smaller kids during Bible Study, they’d automatically remove 10% of the $ collected to pay us babysitters before we got paid.

        I’m all about donating, sharing the wealth and making my community a better place, but I either donate actual goods or $ to places where I too know exactly how that $ will be distributed.

        I hope this new Pope isn’t just a huge publicity stunt and really does view all the opulence as vulgar in the face of the plight of so many of his flock. I’d love to see religious people finally put their $ where their mouth is and start making the world a better place for everyone, as they claim to do.

  • Joon

    I’m glad to read posts here, that accepted the challanges from this article and liberal posts. This article is naive and superficial in its assertions, in spite of efforts to appear otherwise. All the trivia in it can be boiled down to a few observations. While Obama hasn’t produce a budget even Democrats can support, and a constitutional responsibility to produce one was ignored his entire first term, the Democrats have taken us to the brink of insolvency with insane levels of spending. Not “inherited”. This administration has ignored the will of the people, making it non-representative. There is no survey demonstrating majority public support for Obamacare, since it was signed into law. The effects of this abomination are now starting to be felt. And, they are the direct result of Obama’s policies. For all Obama’s fabrications about how the economy is turning around, we have record levels of poverty not seen since the 1960′s, 45 million people on food stamps, 1 in 5 kids in poverty…you call this compassion? I would not be quick to take credit for the assistance programs, and foolishly believe Obama is improving things. Anyone paying attention to foreign affairs should be worried, too. Maybe he can play golf and figure things out while he’s teeing off.

  • A0

    I believe this is a counter to your gun control rights argument (the video below). You need to consider the statistics, what you are unaware of in your daily life, and differentiate from what the media chooses to tell you. Case and point (view video listed below). Don’t infringe on other peoples rights because the media sensationalizes what Americans are dealing with here vs. what occurs around the world on a daily basis. Guns are not the problem. People are. There will always be crazies in the world. The government is not contributing to improve and make mental health a priority in this country for those that need it. Reducing the capacity of guns will not stop people from killing. Then we can also get into the issue of how morality is not a key factor in our society and they do not teach it in schools nowadays… therefore you are leaving these teachings and values up to the parents, whether they be educated or not. The more educated kids are, and the more help that is available for those that need it psychologically, then that is when we will actually begin to accomplish something. Unfortunately, people like to rush legislation and not look at the key issues… as to cause and effect. I can also state the same sort of scenario for the Iraq war. We rushed into a war due to the effects of 9/11 and now we have been at war for over a decade and who knows when we will see an end to it or the side effects of it as well… if ever… due to the fact that we have only created a more problematic environment then there was to begin with. You cannot conform everyone to your way of thinking, no matter how hard you try. The world is too different. I am just saying that people need to get the facts straight before they make big decisions due to their own beliefs. Fear is what brought us into war. Not diplomacy. Fear that we could be attacked again and that we are vulnerable, is a reason to go to war for our own gain, and the people will listen because it is a means to give the perception of security by our government. Whenever a catastrophe happens there is usually fear placed within the public psyche and therefore we rely on the government to fix these things even though it may mean giving up our freedoms.
    The fear that we could be attacked is what gives government its power to stomp all over our rights. People will give up their rights in order to know that they are safe and protected and sheltered. That is Not FREEDOM!
    watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L_-N9_tnWBo#!
    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
    Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.”
    - Edward Bernays
    Lippmann, Bernays and Lasswell have all declared that the public are not fit to decide their own fate, which is the inherent goal of democracy. Instead, they called for a cryptocracy, a hidden government, a ruling class in charge of the “bewildered herd.” As their ideas continue to be applied to society, it is increasingly apparent that an ignorant population is not an obstacle that the rulers must deal with: It is something that is DESIRABLE and, indeed, necessary, to insure total leadership. An ignorant population does not know its rights, does not seek a greater understanding of issues and does not question authorities. It simply follows trends. Popular culture caters to and nurtures ignorance by continually serving up brain-numbing entertainment and spotlighting degenerate celebrities to be idolized. Many people ask me: “Is there a way to stop this?” Yes, there is. STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP AND READ A BOOK. – - vigilant citizen
    “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”
    - Thomas Jefferson
    Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse identified three main problems with the cultural industry. The industry can:
    Reduce human beings to the state of mass by hindering the development of emancipated individuals, who are capable of making rational decisions;
    Replace the legitimate drive for autonomy and self-awareness by the safe laziness of conformism and passivity;
    And validate the idea that men actually seek to escape the absurd and cruel world in which they live by losing themselves in a hypnotic state self-satisfaction.

    I could go on a rant too, but I suggest people get the facts straight before they act as if they know everything there is to know about everything. Know what your rights are and don’t allow others to infringe on them. — same goes with gun control rights.
    If you would like to be a high thinking individual and consider others perspectives then you should not criticize others due to the lack of knowledge from yourself or others, but instead work together to understand. Many people do not know the implications that the media and propaganda have on our daily life and how our own government influences them. Sure you can think its all conspiracy theory whack-job talk, but the truth of the matter is that people are uninformed and history does not lie.

    As much as people hate “conspiracy theory” talk. Many do not understand the history behind it and that it is not some made up talk by people who like to run their mouths and try to predict the future.
    Forward thinking should not be undermined and people should discover this. Knowledge is power.
    (in reference to what is written below)
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/the-order-of-the-illuminati/
    Today’s political atmosphere is quite different from the American Founding Fathers, yet there are still many similarities. While the Bavarian Illuminists purportedly denounced the political and religious oppression of the Vatican, a new kind of oppreession is taking form. As democracies merge into a single world government, as privacy and freedoms become replaced by “security” and high tech surveillance, as schools crack down on critical thinking, as mass media dumbs-down and disinforms the masses, as secret operations carry out crimes against humanity and as all major protests get violently repressed by a growing police state, it is easy to draw the conclusion that a similarly repressive system is currently being instated. Did the Illuminati truly “liberate” the Western World from the oppression of the Vatican or did it simply continue in its footsteps?

    I know most of my thoughts and arguments are not the most organized in this comment, but I feel like I stated the info that needed to be stated in order get my point/points across. I dont have time to write a book but hopefully this information is a good guide to go by before criticizing others and our rights. I foresee this just becoming a perpetual cycle, one way or the other… no matter what party you decide to root for.

    check this out-
    http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/

  • Maya

    “I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life!
    Did you drive today? Did you take your children to public school? Did you enjoy a safe commute as you traveled thanks to traffic signals and signs? Did you whisk through your city or state on an Interstate Highway? Did you enjoy running water and plumbing that properly, and safely, disposes of waste? Did you get a college degree at a public university because it was much cheaper than a private one?”

    I’m not following this argument. Some thoughts:
    1. To address the title: No one said the government never does anything good, just that the good it provides can be provided via the market, and that voluntary cooperation is preferable to involuntary coercion.
    2. Small-government people are not anarchists (then they’d be no-government people), they believe the government has some legitimate functions (like infrastructure).
    3. Even if it is hypocritical to use public services one opposes (supposing that the government has not monopolized said services such that there is no practical alternative), does that make the criticisms against it any less valid?

  • Dennis L. Cooley

    Thomas Jefferson also said: If you sacrifice liberty for security, you will end up with neither; and, The amazing thing about the Second Amendment is that the only time it will be needed is if they try to take it away. It is really simple. The Founders envisioned change which is why we have a procedure for amending the Constitution. That procedure does not involve judges’ interpreting language

  • http://upcloudaviation.com Josh Wooding

    THANK YOU for posting this. I’m keeping it bookmarked and every time someone makes some unhinged baseless comment, I’m going to dig this gem up and post it on their Facebook page.

  • Elisa

    All I can say is THANK YOU.

  • E Bragg

    Unfortunately this “article” provided no new, insightful way of reviewing the issues at hand. It just perpetuates the already stated views.

    Equally unfortunately, it ignores the actual arguments, and actual facts; taking thing out of context can make any position seem absurd. In this case, it just goes to show that I wasted time reading something that said nothing.

    • Kate

      And you didn’t state any solid evidence of this or anything at all – and you just wasted everyone’s time complaining about exactly nothing.

    • http://www.doctorfluxx.com Bradley

      Perhaps you would be so gentlemanly as to spend that much time as the author of this blog did to explain how he is wrong? You know until we can stop this b******* with calling each other liberals and conservatives as if were members of gangs that follow one strict set of opinions and views then none of our debates are valid. instead of hating each other try talking to each other for once With some respect.

    • Frank

      E Bragg, it had nothing to do with reviewing the issues. It’s right-wing, Fox News rhetoric that has been showing up in Facebook and my email inbox uncontested for years. Your out of context argument is exactly what this addresses, just from a different perspective. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

      • GPearl

        Uncontested? Would you like to debate the issues here? The idiot who wrote this article stated zero facts and emotionally pleaded his point, as well as lied. He actually has people here who believed him. The only reason I know about this article is because a liberal posted it on my facebook page and said “this sums it up” lol, if this sums it up, we are in worse trouble than I thought.

  • Nick

    It’s funny that Allen speaks of gun control and abortion out of the same mouth, yet fails to realize that guns are the second thing mentioned by the Bill of Rights after freedom of speech, which it’s apparent that he enjoys with his slanted spew. So, while people make decisions to have abortions, others make decisions to have guns. He’s a double-standard idiot liberal, as his article demonstrates, and those who can’t think for themselves will buy every letter he types. Of course he makes good points, especially about same-sex marriage (Get over it, fellow conservatives!). But he says, and I quote “Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. That isn’t debatable.

    You might not agree with abortion, you might think it’s murder, you might think life starts at the moment of conception.

    It really doesn’t matter. Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right—end of story.”

    By that logic:
    The second amendment says the “right to bear arms”, and is a Constitutionally protected right that isn’t debatable. (what we’ve been trying to say)

    You may think that an AR-15 is unnecessary, looks scary, or may not think someone needs 30 rounds in a magazine, but it really doesn’t matter. Arms are a Constitutionally protected right – end of story.

    LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT. He cut his own throat with his blindness, which is typical.

    • Bill

      You obviously forgot the well regulated part of the Second admendment but Ill forgive you this once.

      • Foe ark

        What do you think “well regulated” means? Regulated by government?

      • GPearl

        This is so funny and you’re not the only liberal who thinks well regulated means regulated by government. Every time I hear a liberal say this, I bust out laughing.

      • Kate

        And what, you thought well regulated meant a bunch of people with guns in their closets?

      • GPearl

        I know what well regulated meant back then. You liberals have that one track mind and think it meant regulated by big government…how funny.

      • Kate

        I’m sorry, but did you notice that the only person who said anything about regulated by the government was you?

        project much?

      • GPearl

        Right, because they won’t answer the question here. Every time I ask, there is no response. Do you know what well regulated means, Kate? Maybe you can clear it up for all progressives/liberals. I have already had this debate with other liberals and that is what they think. It is sooooooooooooooooo funny.

      • Kate

        I think it’s having to be a member a group that regulates it’s members and takes responsibility for their training, not just having a gun.

        I’m sure you think that the couple of people who talked to you on a forum once are all the liberals in the world, but I’m sorry Dude, wrong again.

      • GPearl

        Hahahahahahahahahah……..this one made me laugh even harder. Sooner or later, you will ask me what it really means. It has nothing to do with regulating arms.

      • Kate

        Why would anyone care what you think it means?

      • GPearl

        I knew that would be your answer. You don’t care what it means. You just use it for your own purpose. This is what low information voters do.

    • http://FaceBook Neil Andrus

      Sigh. There are limits on every constitutional right. This includes privacy rights (the basis for Roe v. Wade), free speech, free assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. There are rarely any bright-lines marking where those limits are, and the fact that some limitations are unconstitutional hardly means that other limitations are not. Your “argument” that if there are few limits on a woman’s right to an abortion, then there must similarly be few or no limits on the right to own any weapon system you damn well please is, well, silly.

      • GPearl

        Any responsible citizen can own any weapon they please. There are no bright lines needed. This has it’s own amendment and could not be more clear. If you liberals think you should redefine a new interpretation of that amendment is, well, silly.

      • BlueJuliet

        Regarding your comment, “Any responsible citizen can own any weapon they please.” —
        In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.
        Despite several challenges, this opinion has never been overturned.

      • GPearl

        Its a shame nobody has challenged it. But it’s DC. Government occupants.

      • FSH87

        Might I ask, in all earnestness, are you:
        A.Opposed to changes, and alterations to the Second Amendment
        B.Are you a strict Constitutionalist
        C.Advocate for the rights of the individual
        D.Self defining
        I am asking because I really would like clarification for your opinions that have been stated here.

      • GPearl

        I am not surprised you need clarification since you also need clarification on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I am opposed to any change to the 2nd Amendment. Nobody as of yet, has given a good argument to take away arms from law abiding Americans. Law abiding Americans do not kill people, they don’t harm people, they protect their property and other people, and they are a deterrent to a tyrannical government. I am very surprised that liberals are helping the government disarm law abiding Americans. Whenever a kook kills somebody, liberals helps government go after the innocent.

      • FSH87

        You sort of answered my question. I never said I did, or did not understand the second amendment, you might have confused that for another individual on the site. The reason I ask(if you don’t mind) is to have an open discussion. By the standard logic of not changing one of the amendments, you are either saying that it is immutable, thus defeating the point of being able to amend the constitution, or you are stating that the constitution should not be changed at all. I would also like to say that having lived in one of the foreign countries that had banned guns, the over-all violence level was low and that the use of guns was non existent ,and I lived in one of the most violent cities of Europe, but I am not saying we should ban guns, I am just sharing a personal experience from the other side of the debate.

      • GPearl

        I knew that’s where you were leading. That’s why I answered your question that the 2nd Amendment should stand as it is. The 2nd amendment, I believe, should stand as is. Again, I will tell you that the government and liberals go after law abiding Americans every time some kook kills somebody. The law abiding are the easiest to target, because they follow the law and create no problems. The 2nd amendment makes sense for law abiding Americans. Clear enough?
        As far as your comment that abolishing weapons reduces crime rates? Look at Mexico, Australia, Europe, LA, Chicago, New York. All examples of strict gun control and high crime rates.

      • FSH87

        I pointed out living abroad since I lived in Scotland(knife crime capitol of Europe and still the tendency of violent crime was still quite low). I merely ask since the constitution was designed to be malleable. And would you be opposed to simple registries for the weapons? I am not asking for banning, or public notifications, or the like but merely having record of who owns what gun? Simply like a car registry? The reason I ask is because in many criminal instances the gun is either stolen, or has passed through so many undocumented hands that by the time the police trace to gun the crime has gone nearly too long without leads, where as a simple registry system would be able to track the hand to hand sales, and possibly allow an individual who uses it illegally to be tracked quickly, or if the weapon is stolen it will be on record, with a greater deal of information to track. I am not asking that we, as a nation, blame guns, or the owner, but that we try to get to the root of the problem, and that is speedy incarceration of criminals, and if tracking a gun is faster than following leads then I would be all for it. I am interested in hearing your side to this.

      • GPearl

        I am opposed to government imposing registration and tracking law abiding American’s weapons. Law abiding Americans did nothing wrong to warrant being tracked and the government having information about the weapons they own, their backgrounds and everything else about them. Government does not have the power to do this. They were created by the people they are trying to govern. The constitution came first which created the government. I am totally opposed to law abiding Americans being hounded by the government when they have done nothing wrong. Do you think Law abiding Americans should be subjected to background and tracking when they have done nothing wrong? Do you really want and trust the government to have this information? I do not. The most corrupt group of people in America are politicians. They do not have our best interest in mind, yet strive for power and wealth.
        The government is not going after the real killer weapons like baseball bats, knives, cars, abortion clinics. Guns are way down the list of murder weapons. But none of those weapons threaten a tyrannical government like guns do. Now they have liberals helping them out to control the people. Where is the sanity?

      • FSH87

        Politicians may be corrupt, yes, nearly all governments, ever, have had corruption to one extent or another. However the information in a standard background check is no more information than you give a Private company every time you buy a car, or apply to a bank for a loan, or for that matter use a credit card. I am more comfortable having a government, that already knows who I am(I have a passport and driver’s license ,a social security number an I have a job) having this information and using it, than I am a private company that in many cases has no limits on how they could use it. A criminal background check, to be run on all individuals purchasing any gun would keep criminals from purchasing a legal weapon, and that is all. If you are concerned that the government will run a background check on you, are you afraid that they will find something that will keep you from owning a gun? Are you a murderer, a felon, a repeat offender? Or are you a law abiding citizen who will be handed the gun and told to have a good day? There is also a side effect of having to go through background checks that very few people discuss(because it is not actually an argument but I feel it might be prudent to bring it up). One of the greatest issues that is occurring with guns is not murder, or violent crimes, these, I will admit, are down, however the number of self-inflicted injuries by fire-arm is up, by an amazing amount. Some individuals have pointed out that these injuries are split between individuals buying guns who have no clue how to use them, and by individuals who commit suicide. And it has been shown that increasing the amoutn of time it takes for an individual to be able to commit suicide drops the likelyhood that they will kill themselves to near zero. If a background check means that even one person is kept from killing another person, or themselves, then why could it be so bad? Is the life of another less important than the freedom to know that nobody asked you a question to buy your gun?

        Also side note, I really would like to know what you mean by “well regulated” versus the definition given by others

      • GPearl

        You haven’t stated why you want law abiding citizens, who have done nothing wrong, and have the legal right to own firearms, should now be subject to a background check? Why law abiding Americans? What have they done wrong?
        I personally do not want the government involved in any aspect of my life, except to release the military if an enemy invades. I want local government to build highways, arrest bad guys, and out out fires. That is all I need them for. The constitution is a document warning government to leave us alone. It wasn’t written to govern people. The entire document is prohibiting government from interfering in our lives. So my answer to you is no. Law abiding people need to be left alone by government.
        I am glad you asked about the term “well-regulated” By the way, what do you think it meant?

      • FSH87

        My opinion is that it could have double meaning, regulated meaning control of the whole system, and regulated meaning that the individuals are regulated to full military standards(training and the like)

        The Declaration of Independence told government to butt out, the Constitution set up a loose affiliation between the existing states.

        Because if I am a law abiding citizen I have nothing to hide, but if it keeps a criminal from buying then its better that they look at me and say “He is clean” than a criminal having it even easier than they need it. I have had to go through far more rigorous background checks for jobs than for guns, it’s not a big deal to be honest.

        And it is good to know your full intentions with your views on government, it is easier to approach a discussion with that on the table. As well your use of the word Liberal seems a bit, if you dont mind the pun, liberal. I am liberal but want it understood that not all “liberals” are the same, nor are all conservatives

      • GPearl

        Liberal originally stood for liberty. Now it stands for overwhelming restrictions imposed by government to save you from yourself.
        I have nothing to hide. If the government did a background check on me, they would find I am clean as a whistle, but now they have background information on me, they have information concerning the amount of fire arms I own. They will now combine this with ObamaCare medical records on me, and Google search information, giving the government incredible information about me that they have no right keeping track. They can do this to sex offenders, terrorists, and prisoners. But not law abiding citizens, paying taxes and going to church. But they still want this information.
        A little information concerning the meaning of well regulated:
        The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
        Examples:
        1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
        1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
        1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
        1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
        1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
        1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

      • FSH87

        Thank you! that actually makes quite a great deal of sense! And honestly that is how you feel and I feel differently about it :) this has been quite enlightening. Liberal being a synonym and also a word that is a spin off of liberty does not always keep the same definition over time. The word conservative has done the same thing. It would be two fold here, maybe learning(on both sides) to use new definitions, and also to maybe not pack vitriol into these words(I am guilty of this, I am not saying you are)

      • GPearl

        If I could have a debate like this with every liberal, it would get issues out in the open from both points of view, but unfortunately, this discussion was unique. Thanks for the opinion and comments.

      • FSH87

        It was my pleasure, and I think that if everybody could come to the table about things our system would be less flawed than it is now, some times it just takes that first big step. I forget who said it but there was a quote(paraphrased) you know you have succeeded in politics when nobody goes away happy :)

    • Bill Bumpas

      By that logic, I should be able to own a machine gun but that is illegal. We have accepted that some “arms” are just not acceptable among the general populace. Now the discussion is where that line should be, not whether there should be a line.

      • GPearl

        A machine gun should be legal in the hands of a law abiding citizen. But, it will be purchased illegally because criminals don’t care about the gun control laws. The laws are only meant for the innocent who obey the law. It’s a criminal’s paradise. Chicago criminals are enjoying their ability to commit crimes, unchallenged by a home owner, because the government is the criminal’s best friend. I say we arm all law abiding citizens heavily, and keep the kooks and law breakers from having them. Maybe we should focus on the criminals, not the people who are obeying the law. Make sense?

      • http://doctorfluxx Bradley

        You know what makes for a criminal paradise? Having access to a plethora of guns pumped into circulation making it easier for them to acquire than a drivers permit. They know that whenever they need one, there is one available in no time at all. Lets approach this the way a parent would. Would you allow your child to play in a room filled with knives? They are not responsible or mature enough to handle them, so no. Well Americans have proven themselves to be the most irresponsible around guns, ranking #1 in gun related deaths in the civilized world. You ignore and deny any correlation between the fact that having the most guns effects this death rate. The fact is, it does. If more guns were the answer, we wouldn’t have an issue because we DO HAVE MORE GUNS.

        Now I realize that its impossible to recall all weapons or initiate a weapons ban, but it seriously concerns me that so many citizens are far more zealous about weapons than they are about human life. Why? Because we hate eachother. We are a divided nation that hates eachother, we are soulless and without empathy for other human beings. We crave money and power and we can’t stand connecting emotionally with strangers, we would rather insult them to make ourselves feel better, or in many instances, shoot them with a gun. So the real problem is lack of empathy, and conservatives HATE the fact that liberals represent empathy and civility, because it forces a lens back onto the bitter, jaded souls of bigots and fools. “Caring” about people makes you sick to even talk about it, much less practice it. This is the real issue, and while I present this appeal with intelligence and heart, your reaction will be to insult me, and deflect the point.

      • GPearl

        Are you so naive that you think criminals can’t have a plethora of weapons to choose from, even if every gun shop in America shut down? They don’t do anything legally. The gun control laws are meant for the law abiding people only, not those breaking the law. Why is this so hard for a liberal to understand. Every time some criminal kills people, the government goes after the innocent.
        The best thing a criminal can do is to keep killing people because the government is their best friend and will soon disarm those who can stop criminals.
        Law abiding people do not need a parent to keep these guns out of our reach. We are law abiding. I would not let my child in a room full of knives because my child is not responsible enough to keep from being hurt. When my child gets older, he can have all the knives he wants. Is that clear enough?
        The Aurora shooter picked a theater that had a gun policy. He was smart enough to realize that nobody in that place had a gun. Do you think that many people would have been killed, if several of the moviegoers had sidearms? There would have been one dead person, instead of many, the shooter. Newtown had very strict gun control laws and look what happened. What if several teachers had sidearms? Only one dead person, the shooter. Chicago, the toughest gun laws in the nation has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
        It flat out doesn’t work nor does it make sense, but liberals keep trying anyway. They are so set on controlling the law abiding American that they can’t think straight.
        There is no empathy by liberals. If they had empathy, they would review communities with few restrictions and see the crime rates are the lowest in the nation. They would review the countless cases of young mothers shooting intruders and protecting their kids. But liberals don’t care. They have no empathy, they just want control, at any cost. Incidentally, most of the liberal politicians and advocates have armed guards and weapons of their own. They aren’t stupid. These laws are meant for the little people, not them.

      • http://www.doctorfluxx.com Bradley

        Actually liberals take a look at all the progressive countries who have removed guns and have under 100 gun deaths a year. And don’t give me that higher violent crime crap because most of those crimes do not result in death. The mass stabbing in a schoolyard in china for example resulted in ZERO deaths. Why is they can keep the death toll down and we can’t with all the guns we already have? Most gun nuts aren’t concerned about the public good, they are only interested in their own hides. Wake the fuck up. Seriously. Wake up.

      • GPearl

        It sounds like you are in a deep sleep. Progressive countries who have removed guns have fewer deaths per capita? Where do you get your numbers? Look at Mexico alone who has zero tolerance for guns, mass murders and the strictest gun control in the western hemisphere. Australia recently began removing guns and crime has sky rocketed since then. Chicago, the land of the liberals, the worst in the nation in crime. Killers are going to kill regardless of what weapon they find. The greatest mass murder in the United States was done with box cutters.
        With the government, it’s not about guns, it’s about control. I cannot believe there are people like you helping the government get their wish! What a great gift for the government then to have the media on their side, convincing low information voters like you to fight their battles for them. But you will remain asleep. Just like every other country that was successful disarming their citizens. Remember, it is always the law abiding citizens the law goes after with every incident. They are not interested in the baseball bat deaths, the knife deaths, the hammer deaths, and other items that have caused more deaths than guns.
        They need you to help them get those guns away from law abiding citizens. It is essential for control. Wake the fuck up!

      • Dennis L. Cooley

        Mr. Bumpas, any law abiding citizen may own a machine gun. It requires a background check and a federal permit ($200.00 the last I knew. So far as well regulated, the Second Amendment states: “A well regulated “MILITIA” being necessary to the security of a free state,”.
        It does not read that the weapons are to be well regulated. The right of the PEOPLE is very clear as it is in the First and Fourth Amendments. This is an individual right not a collective right. I still do not understand why so many blame the weapon for an act of murder. That is like wanting to ban automobiles to reduce traffic deaths. The first year after the Supreme Court struck down the D.C. gun ban, the murder rate in the U.S. fell about 8% while the murder rate in D.C. fell slightly more that 24%. The FBI Uniform Crime Report is available on line. I completely agree that name clling on BOTH sides is extremely unproductive. Let’s try to use facts and logic to support our point of view.

      • Kate

        OK, how about nuclear weapons – shall the idiot down the street (and I’m not saying GEarl, but, hey if the description fits…) you want that dude to be armed with those too?

        And well regulated, means actually regulated as part of a group that has responsibility for what you do – not just getting one cuz you want one to make the old lady mind or show the neighbor that you have some testosterone.

      • GPearl

        I’ll just chime in since Kate is a low information Obama voter. When nuclear weapons become safe to own, then a citizen can own one. But since they can kill many people by accident, it is not a weapon anyone would recommend. Nobody can own a nuclear weapon. They are not available for purchase. (I have to spell these things out for low information Kardashian following voters). But maybe in 100 years, you will be able to pick these up at any gun store because they are safe, but not right now. (I had to put this in a 5th grade level for Obama voters)

      • Kate

        Ah, so machine guns and assault rifles are only for killing one person?

        And why are we wanting killing machines again dude? I mean other than having them nice and available for someone to steal for their gang activity?

        LOL!

      • GPearl

        No, machine guns are not for killing one person. (I see the low information voter lost her train of thought already) They are for killing many many people. The amendment was written to protect us from government. We do use them to protect us from intuders, etc. But make no mistake, the founders knew the government would try to do what Hitler did and take guns away from people. Thus millions of people died due to a government that was no longer afraid of the people. They start with labeling everything “assault weapons”.
        It is not up to you or anybody else to decide “what we need”. We have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. I have every right to have a legal weapon. Because your party decided we no longer “need it”, doesn’t mean I can take you seriously. Is that plain enough for a low information voter?

      • richard head

        The reality is …. We need access to so called assault weapons to protect ourselves from people like you . The liberal mindset is so threatening that it scares me into belief that my civil liberties are under attack.

      • Will

        …say you need assault rifles … To protect yourself against unarmed people trying to ban assault rifles… Because people are using them to shoot unarmed people that ‘angered’ them. How does this prove your point?

      • GPearl

        Unarmed people? All of the shooters who are causing the government to go after the 2nd Amendment were liberal. Liberals are not unarmed. They command the military. There is only one thing stronger than the United States Military, 85 million armed Americans.

      • ABuchheit

        Machine guns are not banned. It just takes a whole lot of paperwork and fees.

    • Will

      You say abortion is protected by the constitution, the same as guns. You say that since gun rights are protected under the constitution they shouldn’t be regulated by the government and that this makes what the author said a double standard. However, you did not mention the fact that abortions are regulated (when you can get them, how the procedure is done, the process a woman has to go through before she can have an abortion). States are continually coming up with further restrictions and regulations that force women to go through very traumatic and invasive procedures. If you agree that abortion is covered by the constitution and agree that it should be regulated (so that women aren’t aborting a fetus a week before their due date), then shouldn’t you logically concede that guns should be regulated (not taken away, just to make that VERY clear) by the same government, even though they are also covered under the constitution? Just because something is protected under the constitution does not mean that it is invulnerable to scrutiny or regulation.

      • GPearl

        Good thing the baby does have to go through very traumatic and invasive procedures too. Poor woman who doesn’t want to be “punished with a baby” How traumatic for her, while the baby? Well the baby’s brains are sucked, their neck snapped, they are in extreme pain moments before their death. But the woman has a headache because of the abortion….

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — The Republican Fight Against Reality()

  • Grendel

    Typical statements from the batshit crazy right. They’ve been butthurt for years, due to their underestimating of the reasoning power of human beings. Get over it. Stop trying to find ways around the Constitution so you can continue your greed-filled, war-mongering, human-enslaving fantasies. Realize the Constitution was written to protect the citizens of this country from …well..the like of YOU, and then maybe you’ll begin to grasp reality. As it is, you are a joke. Not only politically, but in EVERY possible way.
    Enjoy.

    • GPearl

      I read your statement three times and I still can’t figure out what you are saying. After sifting through the hate filled comments, I did pick up the statement that you feel conservatives are trying to skirt the constitution, yet you give zero examples. Let’s debate this.

  • Andrew Rei

    Not only are the GOP idiots for repeating easy-to-refute talking points, they’re fascists, too. If you read Dr. Laurence Britt’s “14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism”…the GOP practices ALL OF THEM! Some of those talking points in the article prove that GOPers are fascist. Listen up, people: I’m not a Democrat nor am I a Republican; I’m a Non-Affiliated voter. What I care about is the truth. And, as usual, the truth is not pretty…it’s quite ugly, especially with the GOP…

    • GPearl

      There is that old facism argument again form hard left liberals. The laughable comments is that you are not democrat, lol. You are hard left, brother. The left has used that same old argument to redefine the republican party for decades. But nothing matches except the nationalism. Everything else points to the left which is truly the closest thing to facism.
      1. Totalitarian – Obama and the left are moving this country into big government regulating everything and even telling you what gun you can have and what you need for healthcare.
      2. Extreme nationalism – Liberals may use this as an argument, since conservatives want legal immigrants, and the left argues that illegal immigrants should be allowed. Therefore, the right is considered protective of their nation and won’t allow others in. A very weak argument by the left, but this is used to support their assumption.
      3. Top down revolution or movement – Obama encourages revolution and decent, as shown in his support of OWS, the black panther, and acorn.
      4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare – Obama is an expert at this and has divided this country so badly, we have gone back 100 years with racist accusations.
      5. Anti-liberal views – liberal in this sense stands for liberty which is everything the left is not.
      6. Extreme exploitation – Obama exploits groups for selfish reasons. Therefore, he tries to convince the nation that his selfish desires are for the national interest.
      7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab power – this is self explanatory.
      8. Unbridled Corporatism – Unions
      9. Reactionary – “Never let a good crisis go to waste” the famous comment by one of Obama’s henchmen. Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton are two more examples.
      10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power – Notice the latest homeland security civilian control vehicles and the mass build up of hollow point bullets lately? Keep your guns handy.
      11. Cult-like figurehead – Whoa…does Obama ever fit this bill?
      12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs – Notice how prevalent the moslem religion has been seeping into our country. Some localities want to utilize sharia law. The moslem brotherhood makes frequent visits to the White House, and billions of tax payer dollars go to support them.

      The comparison to the left shows the real facist party. The only description that does not fit is that facists do not support socialism. Therefore, we cannot say they are facist. But the argument is made that the left cannot accuse the right of being facist, since it more closely compares to the left.

  • Nancy

    The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is whatever you want it to be. It may not be right, but it is a right to have a differing opinion. I’ve been reading differing opinions on what the true meaning is and since we aren’t able to talk to Mr. Madison, Mr. Hamilton or any of the others who were the original writers, we have to rely on the decisions made by the courts or other learned men from the past. Opinions can be differing depending on the use of capital letters and punctuation. Just one example of this is the following language taken from a document written in 1915. In the federal Bill of Rights the language is: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The fear that standing armies may be dangerous to “the laws and liberties” of the people is expressed in the constitutional provision that no appropriation of money for raising and supporting armies shall be for more than two years, and that there should be no quartering of soldiers on the people in time of peace.

    It seems to show by its punctuation that the right to bear arms is contingent on the need of the people to protect its state since the forming of a permanent, standing army was considered dangerous. I’m neither a lawyer or politician but I have an education. I am all for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms for defense of our country but not for the free for all that takes place because of the fear mongering of people who want to sell more guns or are caught up in their conspiracy theories.

    I’m not quite sure why people are so gung ho to cut spending and then start conspiracies when the government tries to buy items in bulk to save money. Makes no sense especially if there are already ways to take over the American people with our standing army. It’s not going to happen folks or it would already have been done. I’m also not sure why there are some people in this country who still vote against their own best interests. If you want jobs to happen, you have to stop complaining and do something to make it happen. If you’re tired of paying taxes because you think people are just taking advantage of the system, stop and look around and see what you use every day that is paid for by taxes that we all pay. Anyone that buys food, gas, clothing or other daily essentials pay taxes…might not be to the Federal Government but it goes to states and cities to help pay for needs of that city, county or state.

    We need to stop arguing about the small stuff and wasting tax payer dollars trying to control women’s bodies, religion and numerous other things that the Constitution and the Supreme Court has already wrote about or ruled upon. Wake up people. Read about the Founding Fathers and read the Constitution and pay attention to what others have said who make a living studying the law and especially Constitutional Law. It might just give you a different outlook on the talking points that you spew. Not everything that you hear on Fox News or from Rush, Glenn and the numerous bloggers is law and gospel. Most is for entertainment and has no basis in fact. Bloggers are people who write what they think and the more sensational, the more readers they have. In other words, they will make stuff up if it makes more people read and pass on the message. Please take what you hear or read with a grain of salt and check it out with research from reputable sources. Enough said…

    • GPearl

      The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is whatever you want it to be? Since when? The founders wrote the constitution so every American could read and understand it. It was written to limit government’s power over the American people. They backed it up by giving the people the right to bear arms which every tyrannical government does not want. Therefore, the government fears the people who now number more than 85 million, who now bear arms. The founders knew there would be presidents who would try to overpower the people. I cannot read anything else into this interpretation, no matter what punctuation, other than the fact, that the founders wanted to keep the government fearful of the people.
      Free for all because weapons are available? Guns are way down the list of murder weapons used by killers. Because 30 people become killers, does not mean 85 million must now fork over their rights. Keep the killers from killing. had there been armed teachers in Newtown, do you think those kids would have been murdered? If there were people in that theater in Aurora, CO with side arms, who would have been the only one dead? The killer picked that theater because it was the only one with restrictive gun control.
      This is crazy thinking, that if we shut down every gun shop in America, that killers will stop killing. Where is the sanity???
      Taxes – 100 years ago, Americans paid no income tax. They kept 100% of what they earned and we had roads, police, schools, colleges, vast railroads, subways, the army, navy, and marine coprs and we managed to win 8 wars. It amazes me that now the average American thinks the government knows better what to do with our money than we do.
      What tax dollars are wasted trying to control women’s bodies? I don’t see it. I see more tax dollars allowing women to abort babies like their taking a crap and go back for more.
      By the way, the Supreme Court had no right to override the constitution and leave babies unprotected and allowing the slaughter of more than 50 million.
      I can see by your statements that you are the perfect Obama low information voter. You have fallen right into his trap and turned our precious country upside down into a bizarro world.
      Now it is ok to confiscate weapons from law abiding Americans
      Now it is ok to Tax Americans into oblivion with no accountability by govt.
      Now it is ok to slaughter little Americans by the millions.
      We are no longer the America the founders had in mind. You are the perfect Obama voter. He was so smart running for president now. There are millions out there saying the same thing you are.

    • Dennis L. Cooley

      In reply to Nancy: We aren’t able to talk to Mr. Madison or Mr. Hamilton, but we are able to read things they wrote or were quoted at the time as having said. Please consider the following and offer these or similar quotes when debating.
      Quotes on the Second Amendment:
      James Madison:
      “The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

      Alexander Hamilton:
      “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights….” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in The Federalist. 29)

      Thomas Jefferson:
      “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

      John Adams:
      “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.” (John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])

      George Washington:
      “A free people ought…to be armed….” (George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

      Benjamin Franklin:
      “The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.)

      Even those who supported a strong federal government over more powerful state governments agreed that the citizens need to be armed to protect themselves, their State and their liberty.

      • GPearl

        Boom! My guess she is preparing a one sentence response “racist!”

  • EH

    GPearl – the thing is, with your constant attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, even slightly, you make yourself look worse and worse as one scrolls down this page. Your intelligence is seriously called into question because your way of dealing with people whose opinions differ from yours is to try to put them in their place, call them names, act condescendingly toward them. You “shout” over others to try to get your point across, but shouting over others doesn’t make you right. It’s just noise. Telling others that they’re dumb because their opinion differs from yours doesn’t make your opinion more right. It really just shows your poor character. Strong people don’t have to try to make others feel small. Only weak people feel the need to do that. You obviously just needed a place to vent your rage, but really, you haven’t convinced one person on here that you have a valid point in any way. You should have just copied and pasted quotes from Fox News. You are predictable and we all already know what your response will be: more of the same.

    • GPearl

      Sooo..nothing to debate? just emotional stuff? Also, a response to a liberal’s statement is now shouting?

  • eh

    “With families of victims of the Newtown, Conn., massacre watching silently from the chamber, the Senate thwarted a threatened filibuster with a vote of 68 to 31 and will proceed next week to debate a package of legislation that would expand background checks for gun buyers and increase the penalties for criminal sales, in addition to a variety of other amendments. Those include the renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. “

    • GPearl

      Too bad for those parents that there was a restrictive gun ban in Newtown and only the shooter had guns. Way too bad. Just think of what 10 teachers with side arms could have done to save those children. Instead they waited for the chalk line artists to arrive after there were dead bodies.

  • eh

    You don’t get to just decide the fate of everyone else by using your private beliefs/opinions as justification. Being a Christian doesn’t make you superior to everyone else or give you the right to make decisions for every other person in this country (or on this planet). The Constitution guarantees religious freedom for everyone, not just for Christians. You don’t have to like or believe in abortion or marriage equality, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to conform to your beliefs. And, if you can’t get pregnant, meaning you don’t have a vagina, you don’t have the right to make decisions for those that do. Having a penis doesn’t give you extra special rights or powers, even if you were raised to think that it does. And, even if you do have a vagina, you don’t get to make decisions for other women regarding their bodies or whether or not they have children. Each individual woman gets to decide what happens with her own body. Women are the ones who end up with the majority of the responsibility for raising children in the world. The people who want to make it the most difficult for women are the ones who would never lift a finger to help them. I have seen this personally time and time again.

    • GPearl

      You haven’t mentioned anything about the baby’s rights who spends its final minutes in extreme pain. Just worried about “beliefs?”

  • eh

    Seriously. You don’t get to just decide the fate of everyone else by using your private beliefs/opinions as justification. Being a Christian doesn’t make you superior to everyone else or give you the right to make decisions for every other person in this country (or on this planet). The Constitution guarantees religious freedom for everyone, not just for Christians. You don’t have to like or believe in abortion or marriage equality, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to conform to your beliefs. And, if you can’t get pregnant, meaning you don’t have a vagina, you don’t have the right to make decisions for those that do. Having a penis doesn’t give you extra special rights or powers, even if you were raised to think that it does. And, even if you do have a vagina, you don’t get to make decisions for other women regarding their bodies or whether or not they have children. Each individual woman gets to decide what happens with her own body. Women are the ones who end up with the majority of the responsibility for raising children in the world. The people who want to make it the most difficult for women are the ones who would never lift a finger to help them. I have seen this personally time and time again.

  • Marion Nelson

    All right people how about this? If you are standing in front of me in $500 worth of clothing and screaming about somebody getting food stamps, or social security, or WIC, or disability, or unemployment, I don’t want to hear Christ’s name or the Bible come out of your mouth. If it does I will feel completely justified in doing my best to slap his name out of your mouth. If your religion is so important to you that you jump up and wrap your hatred in it every time you don’t have another argument for what you want, shut up. Either live it or don’t. But quit trying to rationalize your hate, fear, and stupidity with it because you aren’t being Christian you’re just being an a-hole.

    • GPearl

      Ever notice how liberals go bat crazy when they hear about religion? Can you imagine all that hatred, the killing of babies, the destroying of a nation, the deaths of thousands because of restrictive gun laws which give only criminals arms and disarms law abiding people, and then being reminded there may be consequences after death? Do not remind them what is about to happen. They become outraged.

  • anonymous

    Hey gpearl.. why not use your avatar so we can all see what a piece of shit looks like.
    http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/users/770/7988/avatar92.jpg?1333975225

  • PTan

    This is stupid.

  • Quizno

    I wanted to read the 350 comments, but where are they?

    • gpearl

      Americans dismantled the “author’s” comments and showed the liberal
      hypocrisy. It was embarrassing to the anti American who wrote it. So
      they started over,

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        Why is the word author in quotation marks? If he wrote it, he’s the author…

    • gpearl

      Btw, all 350 comments were deleted after one “anonymous” poster decided to lift my image from disqus and post it here. I exposed him as alanpUK who did this. I don’t know if this is the author since his name is Allen. But wanted to repost it here since all comments were erased after I exposed him.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        I can see your image on Disqus right now. If I click your name I can get an even bigger one. It’s not as though anyone shared private information about you that couldn’t be easily and readily obtained from the profile you chose to use to post here.

        Why are you upset by someone re-posting the image you already made available to them here?

  • Bree

    I agree with you. Keep up the logic! Maybe one day there will be change from the misogynistic white male ideals ruling the US to something more suitable and well rounded for all Americans. Not just the few.

    • gpearl

      Logic? What logic did you find in this article? And, putting aside the racist comment about white males, especially since the founders were all white males, what are white males as a group, not making suitable for everyone?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=562795124 David Warren

        there is no ‘white’ race. we are mutts by birth. so intermingled you can’t tell where we came from. white is only used by police as visible identification, scientifically there is only the slightest difference between what we label the ‘races’ i find words like honkey and cracker laughable. we ‘white’ people have been so priveleged for so long we need a good kick in the ass to cut us down a peg or two.. lol

      • joseph

        What a retard. I bet you would support being a slave for a year as “reparations” to the black man or some bull. Get a life and quit hating your race.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        Hey asshole, what exactly is your “race”? Is English a race? Irish? Serbian? You are a dumb fuck hater

      • http://www.facebook.com/jrex167 Rex Crouch

        But you make it so easy! (And, your use of the word “retard” as a noun, ironically gives the term SOME legitimacy, even, maybe, “authority”?)

      • criticalthinker

        Wow.. you people exist!! what a tragedy.. If I were white I would be ashamed of my ancestors. seriously. Karma will pay its inheritors.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=562795124 David Warren

        i’d rather be an educated retard than an ignorant person. there is one race, the human race there are different ethnic groups or cultures but I’m Canadian of british and european descent. I am proud of my country but I can’t be proud of what my ‘peops’ have done. no i won’t become a slave to apologize for what has been done, cannot be undone. i will just make sure it never happens again and treat everyone as my equal

      • Bannedfromposting

        This is only for people with guilt. If you had treated everybody equally, you wouldn’t need your ass kicked.

      • http://www.facebook.com/erin.maurer2 Stephany Erin Maurer

        Apparently, David, you flamed the racists out of their worm holes.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=562795124 David Warren

        i guess i did lol. the only way to get rid of cockroaches is to shine a light on them :)

      • criticalthinker

        What you just said is the problem in this country…”the founders were all white males” and who built this country to its wealth and status?? I am not white and I am ready to abandon this country and the white man that built it.. Where would you be if all non-whites abandoned America and went native with their knowledge . Oh, where would the white man be.. think about it.

    • quizno

      This guy is a complete idiot and lies through the entire piece. I think he is appealing to democrat/liberals as a whole and is simply a mouthpiece for all the screamers out there.

      • Justin

        Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a “lie.” Nothing untrue is said here.

      • gpearl

        Care to debate each topic?

      • Bannedfromposting

        What part do you think is true? I have been banned twice for responding to liberals, and this account will probably be banned too. Please hurry with your comment.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        How about you enumerate which parts are lies? If you accuse, back it up.

      • Bannedfromposting

        I already answered this, but since liberals are still trying to learn how to move their mouse, I’ll repost it.
        1.
        He said Obama doesn’t want to take our guns. Obama said he supports
        gun control measures that include a ban on assault weapons and
        high-capacity magazines. He wants to take away those weapons, so he “did”
        say he wanted to take our guns away. Reagan did not support such a ban.
        In fact, Reagan said, the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any,
        leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the
        citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in
        America is to survive.” He wanted the bad guy targeted, not the guns.
        2.
        Marriage is not supported if divorce is legal? I don’t even understand
        that logic. Big Government should have stayed out of marriage to begin
        with. Is this guy saying we should outlaw divorce and force people to
        stay together if we support marriage? What is he smoking? It was big
        government getting involved in matrimony to begin with that was
        intrusive. Now, the same party who wanted big government is mad because
        big government requires each to be a different sex. Logic? I don’t think
        so.

        3.
        Republicans are the party of Christian values and he says they should
        begin by helping the sick, the poor, and the needy. Government has hurt
        those groups by making them dependent on big govt. The only way this
        idiot wants these groups helped is by seizing money from the very people
        who can really help them, creating a massive bureaucracy to distribute
        it, so destructive, that it limits the actually help these groups get.
        Government can’t help anybody without conservative’s money. He
        insinuates the poor, needy, and sick would be better served if money was
        seized by the government.
        4.
        Fiscal responsibility. He’s right. No conservative has balanced the
        budget in the last 50 years. Neither has a democrat president without
        the help of a republican congress and the internet boom. And by the way,
        the budget was never really balanced by Clinton.
        5. Republicans are the Party of Small Government
        Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
        Unless that big government regulates:
        • What language to speak – It’s not regulated by anybody. Who is regulating this?
        • Religion to follow – Republicans do not follow a religion. Where did this come from? oh yeah, an idiot.
        • When life is created – It’s only regulated by democrats
        • Who can marry – Big Government Intrusion
        • Who can serve in the military – Military is run by govt and as an employer, can make that decision.

        Invasive health procedures on women – Only if that woman wants to kill
        another person. Now Obamacare will be much more invasive.
        • That we have prayer in school – Not regulated by federal govt.
        • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations – Not regulated by federal govt.
        • Corporations are people – Not believed by republicans.
        • The Patriot Act – supported by both parties. Introducing, drones!

        Unions don’t have rights – Unions have rights, but they don’t have the
        right to disallow a person to work if they don’t join a union.
        • When alcohol can be sold – isn’t this a democrat law? By thew way, this is regulated by local municipality.

        The requirement of an ID to vote – Because an illegal vote cancels a
        legal vote. Democrats require ID’s for a whole lot less. Food stamps and
        welfare should not require ID?
        6.
        Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. The supreme court
        has no right reinterpreting our constitution and allowing the death of
        millions of babies. This was never an intended function of the SC. Btw,
        Where in the constitution does this idiot find the words that abortion
        is ok?
        7.
        The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending – paying our bills
        is more important than cutting spending. I say we default before we have
        nothing left. I want to scream at this idiot. Raising the debt ceiling
        is needed only because we spent too much. Why else would we need to
        raise it.
        8.
        I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My
        Life! Then he asks if we drove….first of all, driving is regulated by
        each state which is ok by the constitution. Public schools is not a part
        of the constitution. It was a big government directive, and pushed to
        an all time high by that idiot Dewey who thought the government could do
        a better job schooling our kids. Now look at our kids. We have some of
        the lowest scoring kids in the world and now they grow up and vote for
        socialists.
        9.
        Tax Cuts Create Jobs – It has been proven. 2007 was the highest revenue
        ever recorded to our treasury dept through income taxes, with 4 years
        of Bush tax cuts. A democrat congress took over the finance and banking
        committees after that year and the rest is history and we never
        recovered.
        This idiot actually believes his own lies and lives in a world of no logic.

      • David Woolf

        He supported the Brady Bill (banning semi auto hand guns) and the Firearms Owners Protection Act (banning future assault weapon sales). An easy Google search away.

      • criticalthinker

        Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines..lets think about these to things…ask yourself ” what is an assault weapon?” now look it up in the encyclopedia.. Okay, now ask yourself “what is a high-capacity magazine?” now look that up in the encyclopedia. Now lets think here are all gun and weapon considered to be in this category??? Your answer should be, no, after doing your homework before make comments. So, now you should reconsider what you responded.. if now I get it. You want to be right and the truth to be wrong. Poor thing, I feel sorry for you.

      • Bill Buchko

        Actually, look those terms up in Encyclopedia Britannica and you will notice that they do not exist. If you rely on the user submitted information on Wikipedia, you will see that Assault Weapons is an arbitrary term used by the media and politicians to group together guns with certain cosmetic features (that do not affect how lethal a gun is or how accurate, or how fast it can shoot, or anything of use, really… most of the features that classify a gun as being an AW is merely a more ergonomic version of what has always been around).

        As for “High Capacity Magazines” most of the affected magazines were/are STANDARD capacity, until politicians/media have decided that standard was now too high.

        So, you are correct that not all guns are in this category. However, random and arbitrarily picked guns are. It would be like saying “drinking soft drinks is harmful to kids. We know we can’t ban them outright, but we are going to ban all soft drinks that come in a can with red on it. And all bottles that are contoured to fit a hand better. Our children will be healthier because of it”

      • http://www.facebook.com/matt.norris.777 Matt Norris

        The simple fact that you said “Corporations are people-not beleived by republicans” makes your entire post suspect. I do seem to remember a recent republican presidential nominee state “corporations are people my friends.”

      • jabberwocky

        Corporations are groups of people (shareholders). Why is this so hard to understand? Oh, because we are talking to libs.

      • http://www.facebook.com/humma.kavula.359 Humma Kavula

        And you wonder why you get banned from posting.

        News flash: “liberals” don’t need to get their marching orders from Fox News and K Street on a daily basis.

      • John Bennett

        That’s because they get their “marching orders” from MSNBC and Piers Morgan.

      • http://www.facebook.com/humma.kavula.359 Humma Kavula

        No, they actually think for themselves, research various news sites and try to balance out what they read.

        Why is it you douche magnets always bring up MSNBC or Piers Morgan when called on your diet of bullshit from the right wing media? Even those two entities don’t lie to their audiences like your side does.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=562795124 David Warren

        1. obama wishes to put limits read the 2nd amendment will you. a ‘well-regulated militia’. what does a militia consist of many persons fighting for the same cause… why has no one overthrown a tyrannical government in the states there have been a few and when the south tried look what happened to them. your 2nd amendment looks good on paper but it’s very different in practise. 3. Let’s see reread your bible and see all the leftist practises that Jesus committed. That’s such a crock about the poor, what would you do have all the children of crack addicted parents starve to death? please offer your alternatives. The funny thing is it’s bad for government to help the poor but okay for private charities or churches to do so, ie food banks and soup kitchens. 7. yeah you invaded iraq needlessly and there’s also afghanistan – 2 wars not yet paid for but started under what administration. 8. the reason government has to interfere is because parents have stopped parenting and someone has to pick up the slack. 9. yes you brought in more money but spent more on 2 wars. the reason it has gotten so bad in the states is that both sides have screwed things up mostly due to greed which government is supposed to help curb in favour of the people. but when the politicians start feeding at the trough and no one curtails their activities that’s when it all goes to hell. it is not socialism that is killing america it is unrestrained capitalism. when you take humanity out of the equation and only worship profits. all these issues have 2 or more sides they are so much more complex than either side paints them out to be. at least under Reagan democrats and republicans gave an inch now that doesn’t seem possible. if the US defaulted and went over the fiscal cliff do you know how many people in the US and the rest of the world would suffer? do you care…

      • Bannedfromposting

        I have been asked this by 3 liberals already and I posted them twice. There are not that many comments on here. You can find them.

      • Bannedfromposting

        What part of his article is true. Name one.

      • criticalthinker

        OMG!!!

      • David Woolf

        What did you expect to read when you came to a site called forward progressives? Of course it appeals to liberals!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        Very true. That would be like me watching Fox News and being outraged that there’s no facts. :D

        I do get outraged that Fox News is BS though, so I’ll give this a guy a pass on his outrage, no matter how silly it seems.

      • jabberwocky

        I’ve considered myself a liberal all my life but a progressive is a different animal in my opinion. Progressives want to destroy America and start all over again. Bad people they.

      • criticalthinker

        Really??

  • Daffyd

    Their argument will always be, no matter the economic climate, they “need” more tax breaks to create jobs. Good economy? “Cut our taxes and we’ll create even more jobs.” Bad economy? “Cut our taxes and we’ll create jobs and save the economy.”

    And who owns those companies that are exporting their manufacturing overseas to China???

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Fazekas/1327705408 Frank Fazekas

      Who owns those corporations? The shareholders who want ever growing dividends and for the value of the stock to increase even though the only way for that to happen is to cut costs (read: screw American workers 18 ways from Sunday), that’s who!

      • kipi

        yes, and it’s happening because of diversified,international portfolios distance the shareholders too much from the factory workers. i’m not saying that if people were investing locally this would necessarily mean less greed, more temperance, common sense, community attitude, but at least a more social attitude would be promoted even if out of self interest.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        Shareholders no longer drive the market, bucko, investment bankers do. Shareholders no longer matter

      • Maureen Demar Hall

        So why is the company’s excuse always that they are beholden to their shareholders?

      • Jabbahutt

        And so where do the investment bankers get their money?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=562795124 David Warren

      the truth is it’s the almighty dollar. save a dime by shipping a job to india done!! funny apple is now bringing jobs back to america arguing that it isn’t costing them that much more money… so why did you send all those jobs overseas to begin with…

      • Bannedfromposting

        businesses make money. That is their sole purpose. When a government becomes the enemy of every business owner, then it is time to send jobs somewhere the country is business friendly. Why don’t you tell the government to invite them back to America again so they can create jobs here? Blame givernment, not business owners who want to operate here.

      • http://www.facebook.com/erin.maurer2 Stephany Erin Maurer

        I’d make it very easy for them to decide. I’d make it so damned expensive to ship jobs overseas they’d blaze trails getting back here. Invite them? No, I’d force their hand.

      • Bannedfromposting

        So you would move them out of the country completely? That explains why we have so many people not working since a liberal took office.

      • Jack

        do you not pay attention to facts, the unemployment in this country has gone down since Bush left office, look it up

      • Bannedfromposting

        Because millions have given up looking for work. Do you not pay attention? Last month over 600,000 Americans gave up looking for work. The population grew by 120,000, and only 88,000 jobs were added to the workforce and the unemployment rate went down.

      • http://www.facebook.com/alan.meyer.904 Alan Meyer

        “Because millions have given up looking for work.” Sight your source please.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        I’m guessing Faux News.

      • gemma liar

        FOX “news” of course

      • antiignorance

        Your are COMPLETELY ignorant and full of fox news rhetoric. How do you think the economy was doing when bush left office? what did Obama do to lower it? That’s right only fox news has false answers to that. Did you know that over the last few decades republicans have spend far, far more than democratic presidents? Clinton had a balanced budget after the first bush and then the other bush came in an it went to the largest deficit in US history. You could reasonably argue that Obama should have done more, but there is no argument that it has cost jobs more than Bush. The economy is in its state mostly all from the 2008 meltdown from big banks. Oh and did you read an article that finally was published – a nonpartisan research article that republicans paid not to be printed in the wall street journal – it concluded that tax breaks to the wealthy only help them put more savings in offshore accounts. It does not stimulate job growth in any way – fact since the Great Depression. The low and middle class tax breaks are spent almost immediately and help the economy. You will not believe it and continue to be ignorant. I have decided there isn’t much point in debating with people that vote against their own economic status – only explained by religious reasons or ignorance

      • gemma liar

        why do U argue with closed minded non informed cretins? That’s akin to my pet TEGU speaking english one day

      • Shawn Franchi

        The reason why the budget was balanced under Clinton was because he scared enough people into voting for Republican Congress members that his attempts to pour more money were futile. Tax breaks always help the economy, though. The Great Depression is likely to blame for the current acceptance of deficit spending on things unrelated to defense.

      • enkelin

        10,000 people per DAY turn 65, most retire. some like myself retire early after working for a company that still offers a pension.

      • Magi

        Do you pay attention? It was far worse with your boy Bush the entire country was tanking thanks to his spending us out of record surplus and into record debt.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-L-Perry/1480476468 Gary L Perry

        Magi, Obama has borrowed and spent more in his first 4 years than Bush did in 8.

      • Tom

        That is pretty obvious. Bush tanked the economy with “The Great Recession” as he was leaving office. Even Jesus Christ would have borrowed and spend more than Bush given that scenario.

        I love how some like to omit that little critical fact.

      • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.bradbury Arthur Bradbury

        References please. Facts.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        Faux news

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        BS Obama has spent less than any President since Eisenhower. You wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the face.

      • gemma liar

        correct but why quibble with a regressive over silly little facts? …as if U can change the”mind” of a coelacanth>?

      • gemma liar

        wrong answer,,,when U consider BUSH signed FIRST stimulus plan,,,,,and the ONLY increase Obama has is spending more on VETERENS- the repubs do NOT want a dem successful as they know it would be political suicide. hows that michelle Bachmann / ted cruz/ rand paul thing going 4 ya>??? maybe god will speak to them again(!!)

      • mcallischris

        BULL, get your facts straight, the national debt when bush left office was 11.9 trillion and as of today April 11, 2014 it is 17.5 in 6 years the national debt has gone up 5.6 trillion when Bush took office the debt was 5.8 trillion when he left office it was 11.9 so you assertion is wrong Bush in eight years spent 6.1 trillion and Obama in 6 years is still less at 5.6 trillion not to mention he still had to spend money on the wars that Bush started. Next time you want to talk about the national debt get the facts yourself, you do have the internet, Right?

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Did you NOT READ the article – those who have stopped looking for work ARE NEVER, EVER included in the figures…Just like Bush never put the cost of 2 wars in the budget & Obama did, you want the “black man” to be the problem – but he isn’t. People such as yourself are the problem. You just keep going along & repeating the FOX NEWS lies. I bet you get all your news from Fox News, Glenn Beck, Glenn’s radio show & Rush Limbaugh.

      • gemma liar

        don’t forget the male and female “bluebirds of happiness” michelle ( no tits and pissed about it) malkin and sean ( a waist is a terrible thing to mind) hannity

      • gemma liar

        hey kreskin,,,,,,, should we bring back the tried and true repub/rightwing policies which sent our country into that tailspin? or maybe CUT spending ( except for rightwing interests)??? maybe we should ban abortion! yeah! that’s a tea bag party staple!

      • Robert

        Unemployment rates have been calculated the same way for decades so your argument is without merit. A new President doesn’t hold the responsibility of those who fall off the roles because of jobs lost prior to. You do know once a job is lost a new one doesn’t exist until that job is replaced and a job that different exist is established. Thats right if a company eliminates 25 jobs it has to come up with at least 26 positions to have created a new job 9and thats just one new job….

      • Debra Allison

        Oh, and to only check it against current rates – Mar 2015

      • Debra Allison

        Actually over 23 Million people QUIT their jobs for better opportunities. [Guess the *Economy* or something MUST be looking GOOD] That is not to say that American’s haven’t given up on the “American Dream”, by any means, but it does make me believe that *they* believe that they can do ~whatever~ it is, that makes them WANT to get up in the morning.

      • http://www.facebook.com/brian.maldonado.549 Brian Maldonado

        It was already falling as he left. He set the stage for the whole thing to crumble under Obama so they could blame the black man.

      • jabberwocky

        Whatever………………

      • Richard H.

        People like bannedfromposting do not have the means or intelligience to look up facts. Faux news is their bible!

      • gemma liar

        why do U post fact to a regressive such as “banned,,,,,”? do U think fox “news” watchers will actually believe FACTS? they think ( think?) a dead carpenter from galilee is GOD

      • http://www.facebook.com/alan.meyer.904 Alan Meyer

        I shake my head reading your posts and admit that I fail to follow any of the idiomatic logic that’s going on in your head. Re: that’s why the unemployment rate is so high since a “liberal” took office. Is that so? As per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics what you said is inaccurate:
        Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepOctNovDecAnnual
        1948 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.0

        1949 4.34.75.05.36.16.26.76.86.67.96.46.6

        1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3

        1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1

        1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7

        1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5

        1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8

        1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3

        2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0

        2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3

        2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9

        2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3

        2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5

        2012 8.3 8. 38.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8

        2013 7.9 7.7 7.6
        Why was there such a dramatic spike in unemployment at that time?????
        The banks collapsed. Why did the banks collapse? Because they had / have become increasingly more and more unregulated since Ronald Reagan’s term when he initiated the first rounds of de-regulation. How you could logically conclude the Obama caused this is an interesting intellectual exercise. Could you please enlighten me??

      • http://www.facebook.com/Rebmoma Rebecka Snell

        “as per”? can you look that up? come on. You must know this is a silly argument, since economies don’t immediately respond to elections. We are suffering from DECADES of economic silliness (so called trickle down), so it won’t show up in any chart “per” BLS.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Rebmoma Rebecka Snell

        BTW, Eisenhower WAS a liberal, by today’s standards anyway. Top marginal tax rate at 90% anyone?

      • Magi

        Yes, let’s go back to that. Our country and the economy would be booming. Rich people did just fine with that rate and nobody bitched!

      • MsA2J

        Right about now we could use Eisenhower’s top marginal rate again. We’d be on sound financial footing in no time flat, that’s for sure.

      • Heather Gray

        oh, yeh, like he’s going to resort to reading or facts…it’s above his pay grade as a penny a post troll…

      • http://www.facebook.com/brian.maldonado.549 Brian Maldonado

        What liberal took office?

      • http://www.facebook.com/suzann.fulbright.9 Suzann Fulbright

        Bingo. Some of us thought as he no longer had to worry about votes the “liberal” who took office would ACT like a liberal by now.

      • jabberwocky

        He’s acting like a communist.

      • http://www.facebook.com/erika.olson.779 Erika Olson

        How so? :)

      • IndubitablyMe

        You must not know what communism is.

      • Heather Gray

        most of the people who troll and talk about it wouldn’t know it if it bit them on the bunda, and couldn’t define it to the satisfaction of an 6th grade history teacher.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        NO, You are the clueless one about communism. If you think Obama is a socialist, a communist or a fascist – then you have no clue about what those words mean. They don’t mean what you think they mean….Even the socialist party of America wouldn’t claim Obama….look it up.

      • enkelin

        Worst communist in History, Dow bumping 15,000.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585197053 Dennis Adams

        Move then! Do your business elsewhere too.

      • enkelin

        I would raise the tarriffs so high they woulndt be able to sell their cheap Chinese Crap here. That is what they do to us. They charge a 25% tarriff on caterpillar heavy equipment, so caterpillar built a plant in China to get around the Tarriff. What are they gonna do, Charge a higher tarrif to import, they already do.

      • Heather Gray

        might fact check that. no wonder you’ve been banned from posting. what idiocy.

      • Magi

        Oh right and we had people working under Bush? Is your profession a re-writer of history and reality?

      • miserableoldfart

        What liberal would that be? Do you mean our center-right President? Liberal? Ridiculous.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dakota.durgin Dakota Durgin

        Don’t you know? Dark-skinned = liberal, to an idiot

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You are repeating the lies…Employment is UP everywhere. Since Bush left office, Obama has paid down the debt, helped the economy grow & turned the tide for unemployment. I know you won’t believe it- but those ARE facts.

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        “Your really good at Mathematics” LMAO!!!…

      • Robert

        Liberals aren’t the ones costing us jobs, in fact job losses have only come about since the GOP charge of deregulation and unions break up. So what you are really saying is that it’s ok for corporations to have corrupt unions that spend billions to get what they want, they are called lobbyists. It’s ok for those leaders (they are not “truly owners” even though they think so because of their stock options of which we’ve seen over and over to be worthless in the end) have high paid lawyers to protect them, but not ok fot the worker to have any representation. What happened to your speal, No taxation without representation?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-L-Perry/1480476468 Gary L Perry

        Stephany, why not pass legislation that states only goods manufactured in the US can be sold in the US. Not made here, can’t be sold her.
        Why should the low information consumer have the freedom and choice to but products from any country?

      • buricco

        Agree, force their hand. Now there’s how you do it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        You are a moron. They ship jobs overseas because the Chinese get paid dollars/day, not dollars/hour. Idiot.

      • Bannedfromposting

        Now do you see what a constantly politicallly motivated minimum wage does to our labor? I certainly would not do business here, with a vicious government like ours. It’s funny you libs blame the business owner who wants to employ people rather than the government who drives them out. Obama has got to be loving you guys.

      • notanidiot

        Ummmmm….again “bannedfromposting” sir or madam, two posts ago you said that businesses have the sole purpose of making money. I completely agree. In fact I work in business and like to make money. But let’s remember that a business wants to employ people for the purpose of making money – not out of the kindness of their hearts or (typically) to improve the world. As voters, we have larger issues that we need to be concerned about – like the future of our country and our children. I don’t blame a business for wanting to make money — in fact I encourage it — but I also feel that a certain level of regulations and taxes are appropriate to ensure the greater good.

      • MOM

        I understand where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree; there are some businesses that want to do more that just make money. I know this is true because I owned three of them. As much as I wanted to make a decent living, I also wanted the same for my employees. I wanted to provide them with insurance and other benefits and I definitely wanted safe and friendly work environments for all my employees. I also know other business owners who feel the same way. – And guess what else? I didn’t resent any government regulations or taxes! ~ Raise the minimum wage? I say go for it!

      • Heather Gray

        me, too, as a former business owner, and current consultant happily paying taxes in 2 countries: the US, and where I live now.

      • Frank39

        I applaud you and agree that most Mom and Pop businesses are sympathetic to the needs of their employees. I need only site one example of how many “conservative” businesses executives put profit before the good of fellow Americans and the security of our nation. Millions of illegal immigrants are living in our country because there are companies willing to hire them at substandard wages with no benefits. I don’t buy the, Americans won’t do the work excuse. I come from a family of bricklayers. My uncles made a good living laying bricks up until the 70′s. They received benefit packages and the construction companies made a profit and the buildings they built sold for a reasonable price. Go to any construction site today and see if you see one American laying bricks. It’s all about greed. ~ By the way, they get bye with this because big business have bought enough Congressional seats to destroy labor unions. Companies may now subcontract out to smaller companies allowing them to legally break up unions and pay much less for the same work. Remember the days when G.M. and Ford built cars in America. Now cars are assembled in America from parts made in Mexico from steel made in Japan from iron ore mined in the good ole U.S.A.

      • Carbonman1950

        The assertion that “businesses have the sole purpose of making money” with which you completely agree is a moral and ethical crime and eventually will result in the destruction of the society and societal structures on which all successful business depends. This immoral assertion is the basis for all the economic and civil damage done to the USA over the last 30 years.
        Neither does not conform with the advice of the sainted Adam Smith who said “the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer” and “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable” and “To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to
        restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections,
        constitute the perfection of human nature” and while I cannot find the quotation I believe he also said that – if money becomes the sole measure of our manhood society will be destroyed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dakota.durgin Dakota Durgin

        notanidiot, the greed machine has taken over, the top 1% have gotten SO rich that they don’t want to give up all the fancy new shit they bought. Business is perfectly ethical, in theory, until you add the human element.

      • http://www.facebook.com/humma.kavula.359 Humma Kavula

        Perhaps if you extricated your head from Rush’s fourth point of contact and cross-checked your information, rather than sit slack-jawed before Fox News, you’d understand that which you’re talking about. All I hear out of you is the occasional “you libs” garbage and the endless smooching of the corporate glutes.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000129103545 Cliff Bowman

        Then why don’t you move your ass over to where you would do business. Live the life your employee’s live.

      • Heather Gray

        as if he’s a business owner. let me guess how much his 1099 from Troll-R-Us shows. a penny a post doesn’t add up to much.

      • http://www.facebook.com/suzann.fulbright.9 Suzann Fulbright

        If minimum wage was going up at the same rate as the wealth of the 1% it would be 33 dollars an hour by now. So I ask you, where are the other 26 dollars an hour going? So you want to start a business? Stay the hell away from MY neighborhood. How about China? India? Pakistan? I am sure there is some right wing military junta run government who is dying to have you rip off THEIR masses.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tobeornottobethatisthequestion Patrick Gerard

        I actually think a maximum wage would be more efficient than linked minimum wage increases, if paired with reforms that slowed down the speed of stock trading to discourage speculation and encourage researched investment.

        This would spur reinvestment; if no position pays over $200k, the money would have to go somewhere even if it’s in buying better office chairs which creates jobs for premium office chair makers. Entrepreneurs want to be payed by their opportunity cost and their opportunity cost would be the same everywhere, which would make jobs desirable based on the quality and human dignity of the work.

        In turn, the counter argument would be that high powered employees would work for foreign companies if we had wage caps. However, I think this could be largely solved with tariffs with child tuition benefits, student loan forgiveness, and estate taxes that would discourage this. (This counter-argument also overestimates how irreplaceable the top performers are.)

        Then just tie the wage cap and minimum wage to inflation automatically.

      • The Educated

        the CEO of walmart makes over $9,000 a hour and thats not including bonuses or company paid trips or vacation and pays workers roughly around $8.00 a hour, works skeleton shifts, bonuses are not guaranteed, vacation is based on overall hours worked for the year and it only gets worse….40 cent raises a year if that, high rollover rate of workers (which means they pay workers consistently at base wages) and basically treated like dirt……..ummmm pretty sure that isn’t the govt’s fault

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585197053 Dennis Adams

        No, it isn’t. But selfishness and greed are good things to conservatives, even the poor, confused ones.

      • Heather Gray

        every poor wretched wage-slave conservative thinks he’s one idea or break away from being a millionaire,and every rich conservative counts on them being that stupid.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dakota.durgin Dakota Durgin

        The Educated, if I were you I’d go run back and double check that figure, I’m fairly certain it’s more towards the hundred-thousands/millions an hour range.

      • Robin

        Don’t do business in this country then. I am sure you couldn’t create a successful business. I do own a small successful business. Maybe I will never be rich but I will never cheat or take advantage of anyone.

      • Magi

        Politically motivated? Isn’t that another way of saying that the government wants to level the playing field for ordinary workers who never get the many advantages that big biz does? If the business owner wants to employ people there are many looking for a job. So, NOW what is stopping these spoiled crybabies? You don’t make any sense! Rush Limbaugh loves people like you because you don’t think for yourselves. You know, your head is supposed to be used for something more than just a nice place to wear a hat!!!

      • Richard H.

        Umm….these are the policies that Obama has been trying to change since Day 1. But, nobody in Congress wants to cooperate with him. Their #1 goal, to oppose our President on EVERYTHING! So, nothing gets done and he looks like the bad guy. This is why Congress is going to get cleansed in 2014,because all of these douchebags are actually in bed with these business owners (who trust me, are not small business and mom and pop businesses…LOL). What’s your definition of “constantly politically motivated minimum wage”? From what I see we are still stuck in the ’70s or ’80s adjusted to inflation. Have you ever tried making a living off $8-$9/hour? Bannedfromposting is obviously too dumb to know his history, but some smarter trolls on here may actually see the light one day.

      • jabberwocky

        Then I’d ship jobs to China too.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000129103545 Cliff Bowman

        There’s your answer!

      • jabberwocky

        Makes good business sense.

      • Ed Meadows

        Bannedfromposting Good name!!! And you should be!

      • Bannedfromposting

        Because you don’t like my comment? I destroyed every argument before they erased them all. Then tried to post again, and was banned. Is this what you liberals want, nobody challenging you?

      • Progressor

        I wouldn’t go as far as calling the progressive arguments destroyed, as you simply pointed out a few symptoms without revealing or analyzing the whole picture. The jobs have been moving overseas not because of an oppressive US government (widely accepted to be the most business-friendly in the developed world), but simply due to the fact that there are no more purely American multi-national corporations – companies like GM, GE, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Ford, etc., etc,. are no longer American, except in the historic sense of the word. They are multi-nationals, global corporations operating all over the world for whom it made very clear economic sense to shift jobs overseas when they could take advantage of the demographic and other conditions. Their leadership feels zero responsibility to the US population, just to the shareholders, who demand short-term profits. Add large banks and other Wall Street conglomerates to the mix, and you get a system that has an enormous ability to corrupt the very government we’re discussing, and although both parties clearly serve the same masters, it is obvious that Republicans have no desire to soften the blow to the middle class and lower class. The current system allowed the capital to be accumulated by the top 1% to such a degree that lack of investment into heavy machinery and infrastructure is evident everywhere and is suffocating the economy. If you feel that this is bad, just wait till automation displaces off-shoring as the main job killer. Overall, the current situation is very reminiscent of what Theo Roosevelt faced, and a good look at the history would provide a clear answer to what needs to be done. There are just no good leaders with the cajones to actually do it to be seen.

      • jabberwocky

        Good point. While we’ve seen jobs go overseas in the past I think in the future we will see the corporations themselves go overseas. More bad news for the US.

      • enkelin

        Corporation are already overseas and have been for decades. The company I used to work for got 78% of their revenue outside the USA. They are a company who was established in the USA in the 1880′s. Now almost all of their managers are NOT American.

      • http://www.facebook.com/alan.meyer.904 Alan Meyer

        I’d love to discuss this issues with you as long as you can show me the paper trail. Without that, it is merely opinion which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion, however that is what it is “Your opinion.”

      • http://twitter.com/Kalasa27 Nancy Honeycutt

        Sorry Alan but they can’t have a conversation or debate if they are forced to tell the truth. They make it all up as they go along. Bannedfromposting most certainly should be because he is talking out of his behind.

      • jabberwocky

        That is exactly what liberals want. If they are challenged they will not be able to defend their positions. So just ban anyone who takes an opposing view. Problem solved.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585197053 Dennis Adams

        I wish that were true. The lot of you would be gone by now if I had my druthers.

      • http://www.facebook.com/humma.kavula.359 Humma Kavula

        Again, nothing of substance, and another ad hominem attack against “you liberals.”

        Go away, will you?

      • Deanne

        There are Republicans who make over $250,000 a year and who SHOULD vote Republican because it is in their best interests and then there are a bunch of hicks who vote against their own best interests every day, who know nothing about politics, and who get their information from Fox News which is programming them to believe that they, too, make a lot of money, which they do not, and convince them that they should vote Republican, too. Half of those people are on some form of public assistance. It’s irony at its finest.

      • jabberwocky

        So I should vote for the freeloaders in this country?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585197053 Dennis Adams

        Not everyone ‘freeloading’ is poor, not everyone poor is lazy. Got that?

        When you endeavor to begin voting against the ‘freeloaders’ make sure you start with EXXON, Halliburton and GE first.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=570126348 Sandy Button

        If you don’t you better hope you stay healthy, young, & male (pretty sure you’re not wealthy)… ;)

      • concreteblue

        you, sir, are an idiot.

      • Heather Gray

        if by “destroyed,” you mean “I proudly posted the same shallow, fact-free Fox parrot points that every single troll on liberal sites posts a zillion times a night,” then sure, you destroyed us.

      • DL

        No…we just don’t want idiot trolls posting on our sites.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Cleary/685251799 Richard Cleary

        No, we don’t want improperly informed, ignorant, rude ranters that don’t know what they are talking about. We like civilized people here, not buffoonish fools that want to pick a fight using flawed information. If you want to support your argument use facts, not hyperbole.

      • I reject your delusion

        It’s economically impossible to live in this country on minimum wage. Those Chinese workers don’t know they’re slaves because they aren’t allowed to know.

      • jabberwocky

        Cry me a river.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dakota.durgin Dakota Durgin

        We’re allowed to know we’re slaves, they just don’t give a shit whether we know or not.

      • notanidiot

        Dude. I would blame “givernment” but I don’t know what the heck that is… Last I checked, government had an “o” in it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/brian.maldonado.549 Brian Maldonado

        Yeah, I do have to say that organizations like the EPA, OSHA, FCC, etc, really don’t do much that they say they do rather they add more costs to the final product. You could say well, look at China, you really want it to be like that here? How is it fair to them that they deal with all our trash so we can live free from it but still get all the good stuff? Well, I have to say, Environmental activists are the only ones who have ever really made a big impact on big polluters. EPA just limits the competition of these large corporations because they’re the only ones who can afford to pay the fines but in the end it’s the consumer that really foots the bill for it all so yeah government is not helping there. That’s best left to the environmentalists.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585197053 Dennis Adams

        Another genius who hasn’t figured out yet that he has to eat, drink clean water, and breathe too. Hey, Einstein, you can’t eat money.

        But don’t take my word for it, go ahead on and try.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Rebmoma Rebecka Snell

        actually, these regulations have CREATED jobs! I have one!!

      • jabberwocky

        The US government is very unfriendly to business. That’s why jobs go away.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1585197053 Dennis Adams

        Stop lying!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Leonard/1610320515 Tim Leonard

        Just stupid. “Unfriendly to business” means not allowing businesses to pay workers a dollar a day? You’re a moron.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000129103545 Cliff Bowman

        Bullshit, business’s want to make higher profits. That’s why they took their work overseas. They would rather pay .50 cents an hour for labor than $10 dollars. All they have to do is cut out the American worker.

      • Robin

        I blame business for not supporting America. It’s not taxes or regulations it’s the greed of Boards of Directors, it’s much better to give the investors a penny more and they get huge bonuses for that penny. And the American people and way of life suffers. But thoes investors got a penny.

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

        Businesses like West Fertilizer?

      • Magi

        Are you listening to yourself? That is ridiculous, businesses have plenty of advantages here. Big business is greedy enough to want slave labor in other countries so that they make even more profit! Give it a rest – many big businesses like GE don’t even pay taxes here due to tax breaks and loopholes. Not to mention the subsidies. Oil companies show record profits every quarter and yet all of their operating expenses are picked up by the tax payers. Hell, if somebody did that stuff for me I could easily show record profit too! The little guy doesn’t ever get those advantages. You think that is fair?

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        The Republicans have killed every bill that dwelt with bringing jobs back to America including tax incentives for businesses that brought jobs back or kept jobs here…. Businesses are full of CEOs who send jobs overseas so they can pocket the profits or store them in overseas accounts…. The government ISN’T the enemy – big business is.

      • mcallischris

        Twenty-six of the most powerful American corporations – such as Boeing, General Electric, and Verizon – paid no federal income tax from 2008 to 2012, according to a new report detailing how Fortune 500 companies exploit tax breaks and loopholes. Companies in 2010 reported an average effective tax rate of 12.6%, well below the 35% federal corporate tax rate.

        Corporate giants such as telecom firm Verizon, drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb and power management firm Eaton, all reported effective tax rates of 0% during the past 12 months. The findings underscore that while many companies bellyache about the top federal income tax rate of 35%, in reality, many pay much less than that, By investing just $1.8 million over two years in payments for Washington lobbyists, Whirlpool secured the renewal of lucrative energy tax credits for making high-efficiency appliances that it estimates will be worth a combined $120 million for 2012 and 2013. Such breaks have helped the company keep its total tax expenses below zero in recent years.

        The return on that lobbying investment: about 6,700 percent. Please do enlighten me on how the Government is their enemy?

      • http://www.facebook.com/brian.maldonado.549 Brian Maldonado

        political power grab

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000129103545 Cliff Bowman

        Apple is trying to have ONE of their new product lines made in this country.

      • http://www.facebook.com/suzann.fulbright.9 Suzann Fulbright

        because they are probably finding out as all imperialists before them that exporting your labor to colonial slavery ends up costing you more than you get out of it … DER. But could you tell anybody that obvious and well proven truth over the last three decades. No way. No, the idiots had to go out and make the same STUPID mistake again.

      • jabberwocky

        You feel for the Apple smoke screen. Must be a progressive.

      • http://www.facebook.com/anthony.mui.50 Anthony Mui

        Jobs were sent over seas to so unions can be dismantled. Once the union busting was near complete then the “jobs” will be back. By then, ppl will be so desparate for the work, it wont matter if it pays a slave wage or that there is no health insurance. Hell, I know ppl now that’ll work for peanuts. The game was masterfully played by those on top. And the rest of us are just sheep… waiting to be led to our inevitable slaughter.

      • Forthepeple

        Unions no longer protect the worker. Union leaders take advantage of people by stealing their hard earned money calling it dues. It makes me crazy. Once upon a time there was a need but not any more.

      • Heather Gray

        kiss any benefits you have goodbye.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1579115676 Brett Durci

        All a union is… is a democratic method of putting the power in the hands of the workers. It’s a way of giving the workers bargaining power over their labor. It’s a way of reminding the world that labor is a commodity that needs compensated, instead of the misguided conservative view that jobs are just gifts magically handed to people by rich people that have more money lying around than they did last year.

        To say that we no longer need unions (at a time when minimum wage working 50 hours a week in two jobs isn’t enough to get you above the poverty line) is like saying that “America is free from England, so we no longer need democracy.

        We DO still need unions. Now more than ever. The problem is that SOME specific unions have gotten a bit twisted from their original purpose. So people need to establish new unions. We are politically and financially powerless to corrupt corporations, and we need unionization to let us band together so we can actually have an impact as a labor force.

      • http://twitter.com/martha_davidson martha_davidson

        This is a union motto…..a union is only as good as it’s members….so if you have a lousy union…get off your keester and do something about it…..if they are not representing you…charge them with “misrepresentation” ….there are many laws to protect workers from abusive unions as well.

      • David Taylor

        Martha, If the union believed its own motto, the union would not have to force people to join just to work. You just proved to me that unions promote retention of lazy people. it didn’t used to be that way, but the it didn’t used to be that one had to join the union…

      • humblydefiant

        Oh, but, no. I am the wrong person on the wrong day to see such B.S., David. Prepare for a rant. Read it or not, it’s something I need to do.

        I live and work in a “right to work” state. Unions here are extremely rare. Oddly enough, I see lazy people safe and snug in their jobs all the time. In fact, many of these people are being paid far more than I am for doing far less. They are on what I term “corporate welfare.” If you are being paid minimum wage (which I cannot imagine having to live on these days), then you get far more sympathy from me for poor work than those who are supposedly in a leadership role making 50 grand or more. It has become a rare example for me of people earning this type of paycheck.

        I’ve reached the conclusion that corporate culture cultivates does not cultivate “hard workers,” much of this comes from individual ethics. What it does create is a dichotomy between those who “kiss ass” and those who “bust ass.” And it is the former who get rewarded with managerial jobs. Meanwhile, those who bust ass aren’t busting enough ass, because it is never enough. We have an ever increasing workload with ever diminishing staff with rarely increasing pay, while those collecting big pay checks constantly barrage us with how we aren’t meeting “the numbers.”

        This happened to me just yesterday. My district manager came in and basically told my boss that my colleagues and I were doing the bare minimum on a weekly task without consulting any evidence but the numbers in his hand. I overheard this but was so busy helping customers, which he stood around and watched me do in between playing with his phone (I guess we were taking up his time because my boss also only had sporadic moments to converse with him), that I almost didn’t get a chance to provide evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, my boss stopped me and asked me about his accusation because she knows how hard her staff works. I showed him his numbers didn’t match ours even though they supposedly come from the same place. His reaction: “Well, the numbers don’t always match up. That happens. Just keep working to close the gap.” What kind of advice is that? It’s not that can excuse his making far more than my co-workers and I do, I will be so bold to say, but it is the exact kind that we’ve received for years now.

        Now, you might shrug this off as anecdotal, but for me it is the status quo. This is the environment we work in: we are constantly chasing elusive numbers, and when we are told we aren’t meeting them, there is no help from those who are supposedly paid due to their increased responsibility. But all they do is shift the responsibility back downward. That’s because they got where they did because they know how to “talk to the talk,” which is evident in the meaningless B.S. they regurgitate to us when we ask how to win this numbers game we’re all playing. I have a hunch it’s because they don’t even know. So their job basically boils down to making angry conference calls telling us how we suck, week after week, and sending threatening emails. Hell, I could do that! Well, I don’t think I could because I don’t believe that is the way to behave or to lead. As a store, we’ve pretty much stopped asking upper management for help for problems that are too big for us to solve because we know that it will either be ignored or met with a long email basically saying “I don’t know how to fix that.” Very rarely do they bother themselves with a phone call. Regardless, it’s up to us to handle it. So what are they being paid for, exactly??? And when we do happen to meet our numbers, we never even hear a simple “thank you” except from the managers at my store who are in the same boat. Ultimately, we strive to meet these ethereal numbers that corporate sets just so we can hopefully be left alone.

        Now I was raised to view unions as evil. But I think for myself and I also have a strong sense of what I believe to be right and wrong. I have little experience with unions but I am sure that, as a human institution, they do have their problems. I’ve never known anything done by humans to be perfect. But what I do know, from direct experience, is that corporations are (or, at least, have become) evil. Not only have they completely lost any appreciation for those working hard to make them rich, but they inspire people to take advantage of others and spew out negativity. That doesn’t take hard work, it just takes looking out for one’s self. This culture permeates from the CEO down to the regional and district managerial levels. Store managers are often caught in the middle. Your can choose to tow the corporate line and care nothing for your employees (I’ve worked under this type) or you can fight for your employees and be in danger of your own job by not “buying in” enough. Even if these managers keep their jobs, they will rarely move any further up the corporate ladder.

        Perhaps unions are evil, but I’d wager that unions are the lesser of the two evils, particularly if your only argument against them is their alleged promotion of laziness. Sorry, this hard worker ain’t buying that. From where I’m standing, lazy people are having no problem keeping their jobs (even being hauled up the ladder) just fine without help from any unions.

      • Rynstone

        There are bad companies and bad managers just like there are bad people. If you are so good and the place is so bad you have the choice and the freedom to leave and go where it is better. Also, even though the local, state and federal governments have made it more f=difficult you can also start your own business or company to compete with this “bad” company.

      • J.D.

        But that’s where you are soooo wrong Mr Rynstone. It is not that simple anymore. IF it was just that friggin easy to “go where it is better” do you think we would have over 20 million unemployed or underemployed people. It is people like you that believe this fairy tale rhetoric that perpetuate the problem. Don’t worry though, if things continue like they have for the next 20 years and the middle class is completely swallowed up, you too will see the light. Starting a business from scratch to compete with the Wally Worlds and the Amazons of the world is a lot easier said than done, unless you’ve already got a few million in the bank. Wake UP!

      • gbrbr

        This is the time when the middle class need to either fight or cease to exist. I, personally, have no desire to fall below middle class. I am investing now so that I can survive later. Investment, to me, means things that I can control. Real estate, multiple streams of income, etc… I have no intention of going down when this country becomes a country of haves and have-nots. I will, however, fight until the end to help prevent that from happening.

        The only thing that is comforting is that when all these Cons that are now in the middle class and vote against their own interests, fall to the poverty level, I won’t have to hear their nagging and name calling anymore.

      • SickOfConservatives

        Preach to these heathens.

      • Aristotle

        I’m a small business owner with 4 employees. I used to have the same opinion about corporate America and business owners because I thought there were a bunch of greedy people. Now that I own a business, I get to feel the pain of having to keep the business running so I can pay my employees. Yes, I do the work to get patients to the door so we can treat them so my employees get paid. I bring the dough for my employees to eat. Of course I eat too, but I bring my own dough and I invested my retirement money to be as independent as I could be. Many business owners started that way too. Not all of them, the majority, worked loooonnnnng hours much longer hours that ANY EMPLOYEE in order to keep things running, make a profit, pay people to work for etc. Now, comes the greed…or what appears to be greed. If I work 50+ hours per week, don’t I deserve to be paid better than my employees? If I get my neck out there to make a living from my own pocket and my retirement money, don’t I deserve to get well paid? Do my employees deserve the same pay than I do? No, they don’t. However, they deserve to be paid at the market rate of an equal or similar job, they deserve health insurance and paid vacations and sick days and a way to put some money aside for retirement (401K, IRA, etc). I provide that, many corporations provide that. Some bonuses for productivity, yes, I do that too. I share, and would like to see my employees doing well, be healthy and have a good place to enjoy what they do for a living. I know that there are many employers out there that do what I do and more. The point here: Share profits in accordance to their effort and productivity with your employees, have a place for them to enjoy their work but also require of them honest productivity, a job well performed, punctuality, respect for your customers, and a healthy dosage of loyalty and sharing the burden of running a business in the form of managing the assets and the time being paid to them. They have jobs because many of us took the risk; we have a business growing because they have a skill we need. Reciprocity is good but the ones taking the risk also deserve more in that measure.

      • humblydefiant

        I don’t know of anyone saying that entrepreneurs and executives shouldn’t make more than the rank and file employee. I certainly am not making that argument. But a small business owner sticking his/her neck out is a far cry from billionaire stockholders who never seem to have enough and are pushing corporations to maximize profits any way possible, including squeezing the workers of companies in which they hold sway – the workers who are largely responsible for a company’s success – to the breaking point. As a small business owner, you are still in touch it seems with how important your employees are to you making it or failing. I argue that most corporations no longer see their employees as the asset they are. Also, you work hard for your success. Those on corporate welfare don’t. If your business fails, you go down with the ship. Corporate shareholders (those that have enough stock to actually give them a voice) don’t. How many, including CEOs and other execs, have driven companies into bankruptcy yet still walk away with millions. They have their “golden parachutes.” Do you? So, absolutely, make a profit from your hard work. Make more money than your employees. Just don’t forget their role in your success.

      • Donald Beasley

        David, I have been a Union Ironworker for 29 years and not once have I seen the union take up for a “lazy” worker. That argument is an old and out dated. We ar proud of the fact that we provide skilled tradesmen to do the job. If we don’t provide this the companies that we work for could not stay in business. I have worked at heights of more than 400ft. And up there everybody has to pull there own weight.

      • J.D.

        David, 40-50 years ago everything had a union. Automakers, meat packers, construction workers, highway workers, teachers, ….on and on and on. These unions have been systematically dismantled by the creation of the corporate giant. It is no longer a free market nor a competitive market. It is full of a bunch of giant corporate sharks that eat up everything in their path.Whenever a new Wally world opens in a new market, many small businesses are run into the ground. Companies like them fight hard to keep wages down and profits up…in the name of job creation. This country is slowly losing its middle class and with it the middle class are losing their democratic power to the rich. Unions are a must in order for us to have any control. You can stand ALONE in a crowded street and scream as loud as you want but no one will hear you. Stand united with others….and EVERYONE will hear you!.

      • Roaming Hampster

        Just like every rotary club in the country creates lazy businesses? The notion that unions promote the retention of lazy people is a myth created by greedy capitalists who wanted all the proceeds from labor to go to them while workers are left with the crumbs of an unfair labor market created by the same greedy capitalists. Those who do not wish to join a union are being used as pawns by the corporations. They are paid union busters plain and simple and the fact that most are disposable is proof.

      • Robert

        The problem with unions is that they keep below-standard workers in their jobs. A person’s only “job security” should be how well he or she does the job. This is especially evident with the teacher’s union. A teacher only has to work at a public school (not including colleges) for two years, and then the teacher gets tenured, meaning that the teacher is practically impossible to fire. However, if there wasn’t artificial job security, then the teacher would actually have to do the job well to keep the job, rather than just do the job for two years and then stop caring.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        No, it doesn’t. You can still fire someone for incompetence – you just have to have documented evidence (collaborated by other workers) to back it up. Every time you call someone in & talk to them, it is documented. Really. & for teachers, tenure is a thing of the past in many cases. Most teachers fall into the do the job right thing anyway…all you hear about are the “bad” eggs.
        If you can do a job for 2 years & stop caring – then maybe you aren’t cut out to teach!

      • Betty Caron

        Robert, as a teacher I find it offensive that teachers unions are always the ones attacked. There were very few “bad” teachers in our district and eventually they got sacked. So it if possible to get rid of them.

      • CherMoe

        By your ideology, we should fire the Fed, Wall St. and all the big banksters who tanked the economy. To top it off the Middle Class bailed their butts out when our money should not be going to private corporations. And to give us a further kick in the butt, their CRIMES in stealing people’s homes & retirement, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN PROSECUTED AND GONE TO JAIL. That’s the real KICKER and an insult and an abomination to American workers and taxpayers. And any time you’re unhappy with the teachers who are babysitting your spoiled children everyday, feel free to take them out and HOME EDUCATE them. Stay home and take care of your own responsibility. Sounds like a plan to me.

      • tuttleroad

        We shouldn’t fire the Fed, Wall St, and big bankers – they should go to prison, and forfeit everything they ever owned.

      • Evan

        Maybe you should reorganize your thoughts and take another swing at that because you sound IGNORANT.

      • gbrbr

        What should have happened with that bail out is that, if we were going to have a bail-out, the government should have given the banks money for the mortgages that were in default. The homeowners could have caught up, the housing market would have stronger and the banks would have gotten their money and not billions of extra dollars that they used for million dollar weekends and manager bonuses..

      • mcallischris

        My wife is a teacher and that line is a bunch of bull.There are no teacher Unions in the great state of North Carolina. She has never been tenured at a school and when we found out that her hairdresser made more in a year than she did she went back to school to get her Masters so she could teach at a local college, but guess what? her hairdresser still makes more than her, she has a Masters degree and teaches at 3 colleges, 5 classes a week and drives over 400 miles a week and she still did not make more than 25,000 dollars. I am sick and tired of people spouting off about how teachers have it so good. Who works 8 hours a day at their jobs then comes home to do more Job work at home, grading making tests, my wife and her fellow teachers average over 60 hours a week for work. Over 70% of professors at colleges and universities are adjuncts which means part time, so no medical, no pension, no benefits at all. So next time you want to yell about how teachers have it so good please get the facts.

      • Randall Whitt

        “The problem with unions is that they keep below-standard workers in
        their jobs. A person’s only “job security” should be how well he or she
        does the job.”

        Have you ever belonged to a union Robert? I have been a union member for 35 years and we NEVER protect workers from being fired for just cause. In fact, we’re eager to see people fired if they’re messing up. We take pride in what we do and we don’t like carrying workers who do sub-standard work. If you’re working beside me and your work isn’t up to par, I’ll report you to management and help them to see that you’re properly dealt with. People who don’t measure up get don’t last long in union shops. We don’t tolerate screw ups.

      • PeedroPaula

        He’s really only concerned about public sector unions where salaries are paid by the taxpayers because some minuscule portion of the taxes he pays eventually go to support legislation which he is against.

      • Chad Herron

        BIG misconception of tenure here…tenure isn’t job security nor is it “one can never get fired”…all tenure does is guarantee due process.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        good analysis…..

      • Darrell Barker

        “Look For The Union Label.” I miss that jingle.

      • Rynstone

        Unfortunately, many unions have become nothing more than mandated money raising and wealth distribution tools for political parties and crony politics. especially unions for local, state and federal government employees. The union mentality is more aligned with implementing communism than it is with protecting workers rights.

      • http://twitter.com/martha_davidson martha_davidson

        Oh good grief…how the hell do you think that GOP run states have been able to invoke “work to rule” laws…which means $5 per hour, no overtime, healthcare, etc.?? The empirical evidence is that the more Unions have diminished the more wages, benefits, safe work environment have disappeared. The more unions have diminished the “middle class” has disappeared along with them…WAKE UP!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-L-Perry/1480476468 Gary L Perry

        Martha

        “Right to Work” states must pay overtime rates.
        And they also have to follow minimum wage laws.
        We can improve America but not with people who spew rhetoric.
        If consumers did not buy goods made in China we would have never gotten in this mess. For Gosh sakes, I see people buying farm raised frozen fish from China.

      • Debra Allison

        As a disabled “OLD” woman my Social Security is often much more then my Niece’s paycheck from her ‘Right-To-Work’ job, and at the end of the year, only her returns make her end up having more ANNUAL income than me. Now my husband who had been able to be in Unions in others States we visited long enough for him to work for a few months, has benefits that far exceed both me & our Niece. Minimum wage is paramount to slave labor. It is meant for teenagers ONLY.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        OK you say we should buy American & not goods from China? Well, once upon a time, there WERE companies in America making American Products…No longer. Almost every corporation has products where parts of them were made elsewhere. Quite a number of companies have moved their factories overseas. There is NO made in America anymore. The Republicans have killed bills to provide tax incentives to companies who don’t move their jobs overseas.
        As for right to work states – I live in one – they might pay overtime; but that doesn’t mean they will give overtime hours…& no one disputed that they did pay minimum wage. TX boasts high employment – what those figures don’t show is that possibly 80% of that employment is in the service industry & those jobs are minimum wage. Most minimum wage jobs will not feed even a family of 1.
        As for buying farm raised frozen fish from China – or anything else – PEOPLE DON’T READ LABELS.

      • gbrbr

        We need a law that states that when a company leaves the US, they are required to pay a 50 percent tax on anything they sell or any business they do in the US for the first 10 years. That will stop them from leaving.

      • gbrbr

        You’re wrong. Companies will NEVER PAY employees what they don’t have to pay. If they can get away with 7.25 an hour, they will do it. Too much faith in corporations gets us back to where we were before the depression.

      • Jnl Riggs

        Agree 100% Just look at Texas!

      • DL

        So wrong. I am in a union, and through my union I get great health insurance, a pension and a matched 401K. Not to mention the assurance of a pay scale that would not be possible without the union forcing the companies I work for to pay me what I make. It is because I am in a union that I go to work everyday. I would not do the work I do, or pretty much any other work, if I was not protected. Dismantle the unions and you will get more people on public assistance. I already know people who are in fields other than my own who, when their unions were busted, tried to work the same job under a non-union contact. They gave up and left the work force and collected SS early. Another one I know found a way to get on disability and now sits home collecting his check. I work for money. Period. Stop paying me a living wage and I lose my incentive. I may as well sit at home and let someone else pick up the check. So if you like that idea, keep dismantling the unions.

      • http://twitter.com/EricMBacon Eric M Bacon

        There is more of a need now than ever. Unions just have to be healthy (not too big, not too small), which means cut down on bureaucracy, and prevent corruption. It is the nature of all institutions to overreach, whether free market, or government, so there needs to be accountability and transparency.

      • Magi

        Apparently you are parroting the GOP lies. Unions DO protect workers. How can you say that workers do not need protection? The wealthy are stealing our money and they call it tax breaks. We need unions more than ever. You sound crazy but that isn’t the fault of our unions!

      • miserableoldfart

        Nice try. Big lie. We need unions now, more than ever, and it’s obvious by the kind of enemies that unions keep. The fascists must be stopped. Unions are part of the way to do it.

      • Feddup

        There’s still a need for unions, but the unions aren’t satisfying that need any more.

      • danthony930

        That depends on which Union you are talking about.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        If you think there is no longer a need for unions – you are dreaming. You have swallowed the KoolAide. Yes, Unions ask for dues BUT what do you get for those dues? Representation & people who bargain for YOU, the worker. Once upon a time CEOs could demand that you work overtime without pay; that you had no vacation time; that you had to work longer than 8 hours & even that bosses could take advantage of women & they had no recourse because they would be fired. Unions brought you 8 hour days, overtime pay, vacation pay, sick days & more. All these have been eroded in many states. They were able to use collective bargaining but in many states such as WI those bargaining rights have been stopped along with sick days & even overtime…Anytime you think Unions are no longer needed look at what Republican Governors are doing in many states… They say it is to streamline business & free it up BUT all it really does is line the profits of the business & the pockets of the CEOs.

      • Betty Caron

        Well said Glenna.

      • gbrbr

        Walmart still makes their workers work overtime without pay. They won’t say it, but a person I know, punches out before finishing her work because her manager told her it has to be done but if she got overtime, her hours would be cut. Anyone who doesn’t think unions are important has definitely had a glass of Con-Aid. People don’t realize what unions have done for them. They just listen to the Cons…. WAKE UP, if there were no unions, you would be back in the sweatshops for less than min wage. The Teapublicans want to eliminate the min wage…. they are trying to tell people that it is “good” for the workers and that they will be paid higher wages…… ROFLMFAO

      • Betty Caron

        Union leaders “taking advantage” has always been the bull shoveled by the corporations and businesses. Look up the union wars of the 1900′s. Same story, different time. And the corporations were the ones sowing anarchy in the ranks of the unions. Divide and conquer. Instead of shipping jobs out of the country back then, they brought in workers from out of the country to break the unions, Chinese, polish, and german workers willing to work for nothing to come here. If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.Forthepeople believes this crap. We need unions more than ever to raise the minimum wage and protect workers.

      • CherMoe

        Actually unions are needed more than ever. In the last several decades, union reps have had to settle for less and less because corporations become bigger monsters and more vile hard-asses. If you have a decent paycheck and benefits and days off, THANK A UNION. Without them, the entire standard of living in this country would be much further down the scale. Republicans are bringing us back around to the beginning … to square one. When that happens, and if unions are abolished in this country, we will be the NEW China begging for jobs. It’s already happening where companies like IKEA open up shop in a “right to work for less” state and pay their employees less than $9 an hour while in Sweden they pay their employees $19 or $20 an hour. We will DRAW substandard companies who want cheap slave labor. And YOUR paycheck will be lowered accordingly.

      • Larry

        Your Very Very wrong.While there have been Union abuses,they are absolutely miniscule compared to Big Corporation Abuses, Unions almost single handedly Built the Middle Class in this Country. The decline of the Union completely corresponds to the decline of the Middle Class in this Country.

      • Your wrong

        You are so very wrong.

      • JSB3

        If you don’t like the way your union works then become active and get it changed!!! Then you get you co-workers to get active to work along with you to get it changed!! You don’t throw the whole thing out just because of a few bad ones!

      • CherMoe

        If you have a decent wage, you can thank a union. Because, believe me, there’s NO corporation out there that’s going to give you good pay, good benefits, health care and holidays, etc. out of “the goodness of their hearts.” (except maybe Costco and a select few others). Unions were never perfect but they are FAR BETTER than corporate abuse. Keep in mind the pennies being made by workers in “right-to-work” states. Go back and read the history books about the long hours, no paid overtime, no time with your family, no time off, no breaks, being fired for any reason at all, being forced to work sick, etc. NO workplace protections and death on the job. ALL courtesy of greedy corporations. It’s the damned CEO’s & corporate owners who are STEALING our hard-earned money. Wake up, for pete’s sake. THEY didn’t “build that.” WE DID!!!! And THEY profited from it.

      • Randall Whitt

        I’ve got to hand it to you FTP, you’ve memorized the GOP talking points very well. Too bad every word you just repeated is complete balderdash. It’s obvious to anyone reading your diatribe that you’re absolutely ignorant about how unions work. Those dues you’re speaking of go toward the pensions of union members. They’re also used to fund in house training programs so that new members can receive the benefit of serving an apprenticeship.

        I’ve been a member of the iron workers union for 3 and a half decades. I joined when I was 20 years old and I served a 5 year apprenticeship in my craft/trade. Because I have been educated in my occupation, I can do my work faster and more efficiently than my non-union counterparts. My extensive training means my work is done with far fewer defects than the work performed by non-union workers. This means my employer actually spends less while paying me a higher wage because my work NEVER has to be redone.

        Union dues are also used to support my union brethren in the event of a strike. You probably believe that’s a bad thing though.

        Yes… A SMALL percentage of our union dues go to pay the salaries of union officers and NONE of the money they make is stolen. In fact we have a committee of union members who meet every year to review and adjust their compensation package. EVERY DOLLAR spent on and by our leaders has to be approved by the majority of our members. No money can be allocated for any use which has not been approved by the workers who pay those dues.

        From time to time, union dues is used to provide workers who have been unfairly terminated or disciplined with legal representation during arbitration hearings. This is NOT DONE to protect workers who have been fired for just cause although I’m sure you feel that all workers who get fired for any reason deserve it.

        Yes http://FTP... I’m union and I’m proud of it. If you believe I get paid too much then maybe you ought to spend a day beside me walking on steel beams 300 feet above street level like I do for 32 dollars an hour. I earn EVERY PENNY I get doing a job that scares the bejesus out of most people. Before you call me a union thug perhaps you should spend a few days in my work boots.

      • gbrbr

        My grandfather was in the Iron worker’s union. He made great money, sent my uncle to law school, my mother to college and had enough money to live out the rest of his and my grandmother’s life. It seems that Cons hate it when “regular folk” can actually afford to live.

      • Kevin

        A Union saved my mom and my dad’s jobs in 2008-2009 by fighting for their rights to keep their jobs, and before that, my father trashed talked the unions like crazy. Now he’s thankful he was involved in one.

      • Kurt Luttrell

        Unions also protect against corporate greed. A job a got paid $13.31 an hour for 20 YEARS ago now pays between $9 and $11 now. When they all but killed unions, down went any bargaining power we had. Nice trade off…sure we don’t have union dues, but now we have less pay, less benefits, some companies traded overtime for comp time (overtime pays for your days off, so the company doesn’t have to) ,etc. Last time I was with a union, I got the best benefits package available, company shared profits, company provided PPE, 12 holdiays, etc. Now companies know the ball is in their court. They used to fight for new hires, having to give out better pay and perks to attract them, now we fight to be the new hire. Employees used to be at jobs for 20 years. Now you are lucky to find someone at a job for 2 years. Considering what unions got us, and protected for us, I would hardly call dues “stealing”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tom.gardner.948 Tom Gardner

        You don’t like dollars? If the US wants to keep jobs at home, then they should change the policy that has our corporate tax rates at the highest in the world.

      • CherMoe

        Republicans have so ruined our economy, shipped jobs overseas and held our wages and jobs hostage for over 3 decades since Reagan started busting the unions and people were no longer considered to be respected employees to want to hang on to. Republicans have so destroyed jobs and benefits and wages, that other countries are beginning to find it cheaper to open up shop HERE because of the “right-to-work (for less)” states that hold people to the smallest wage possible. IKEA is a perfect example. They’re from where, Sweden? Over there, for the same job that is only paying around $9.00 here in Virginia, they are paying their Swedish employees $19 – $20 per hour. Republican crooks, big bankers and Wall St. stole our pensions, our homes, you name it. Outsiders (people & corporations from other countries) are picking over our bones here …. it’s been known for some years in Norway (and other countries) that real estate, etc. is prime for the picking here, and they can get it while it’s so cheap. Republicans have turned America into a Third World Country and it’s being auctioned off bit by bit. And then they complain about immigration. Soon, the vast majority of America will be owned by outside interests, courtesy of the greedy Republicans (those who call themselves Patriots). No lie … it’s happening.

      • http://lexavian.tumblr.com/ Lexavian

        the alighty ollar

    • http://www.facebook.com/suzann.fulbright.9 Suzann Fulbright

      We’ve been cutting taxes, de-regulating, ramming religion down people’s throats … done EVERYTHING the Republicans clamored for … for more than THIRTY YEARS. It obviously is not working and THEY obviously have no intention of ever noticing or admitting they were wrong.

    • http://www.facebook.com/tom.gardner.948 Tom Gardner

      Are you paying attention? We are in the midst of the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States. Add to that the tax increases that we are getting slammed with in California, and it is flat out ridiculous. EVEN BILL MAHER SAYS THE TAXES ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND HE IS THINKING ABOUT LEAVING. If the Republicans can provide any kind of balance, God love em. Without some resistance, it will turn into France. You guys really want that?

    • Zak Edward Dolan

      Why do we need taxes at all? Why not let people keep their money and fund everything through voluntary contributions, like how Kickstarter funds projects?

      That would have numerous benefits.

      1. Don’t have a huge bureaucratic burden like with the government.
      2. Incredibly dumb and wasteful projects no longer get funded, which means the money is free to do other things. Can you think of any government projects that you think are a complete waste of money? I can link some if you can’t think of any…
      3. Each person contributes according to their means and according to their desire to see something funded.
      4. There could be perks for the bigger contributors, to enable them to benefit from their contributions. For example… biggest single donor to build a bridge gets to name the bridge. That will cause the big fish to feel like they are getting something for their money.
      5. Economy would boom as consumer demand goes up, because people have more money in their pockets. Everyone benefits. This is what creates jobs, not just the wealthy.

      As for exporting jobs to China, that’s the fault of the minimum wage laws. Get rid of minimum wage, and no reason to export jobs.

      Not to mention that the recent trend is on-shoring, bringing jobs back from overseas. And not because of unions being busted, as some would claim, but rather because of the risk of theft of intellectual property.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000510896794 John Kline

    Agree with all you said. In fact I have said a lot of it. Unfortunately, the ones that could benefit from this do not care to even discuss.

    • gpearl

      I would love to discuss this. It’s hard to get a liberal to talk about it. Which subject would you like to start with first?

      • http://www.facebook.com/erin.maurer2 Stephany Erin Maurer

        Liberals talk, you simply don’t listen.

      • Bannedfromposting

        I listen. Then ask questions and then you know that some actually respond “Piss off!” So nobody to debate. Would you like to debate each topic he listed in his article?

      • Jack

        go for it your turn, tell us what you got

      • Bannedfromposting

        I posted it twice and listed the hypocrisy. Go find it and debate.

  • t0cd0r

    these so called republicans are neo-cons a real conservative is more libertarian. The republican party has grown far too liberal and has forgotten what freedom is about. Right now there are two parties and they are both trying to oppress in different ways. As for gun rights, you better hold on to those have you seen who is in charge?

    • gpearl

      I totally agree. The decision real conservatives have to make is, take back the republican party or start another party. I would rather oust the current big R republicans and replace them with little r republicans. I am almost as disgusted with republicans as I am with the socialist democrats who have destroyed the country. Democrats now have partners to help with America’s destruction.

      • Richard

        Yeah, Democrats are out to destroy America, that’s totally what’s happening. I will happily debate you on any issue, but I would rather have it without the broad, stupid theme’s like “Destruction of America as we know it!” It sounds like Fox News has scared the crap out of you.

      • Bannedfromposting

        gpearl was banned from posting since he has exposed the hypocrisy in the last 350 comments that were erased because it embarrassed the guy who wrote the garbage. Soon this account will be banned as well. But pick a topic. I will try to stay on as long as I can. Pick one and hurry!

      • http://www.facebook.com/hanyewi Hanyewi Sunkmanitu Tanka

        Fine… please detail the specific reasons you believe ALL Americans are not deserving of equal rights across the board. This includes marriage equality, pay equality, reproductive equality, racial equality AND RELIGIOUS EQUALITY. ANY religious reference for your stance on ANY of those issues WILL demonstrate clearly you are a religious nut intent on ILLEGALLY imposing your religion on the REST of the populace of the country and invalidate 100% of your arguments. Please also detail 100% of the things which “Conservatives” have accomplished with NO assistance from ANYONE who was not a Conservative and which did NOT result in genocide.

      • http://www.facebook.com/erin.maurer2 Stephany Erin Maurer

        You don’t even know what a socialist is.

      • Bannedfromposting

        I can see there is no use debating a one liner. If you decide you want to engaage in a discussion that makes sense, genuis, then you may learn something. You were sent here as an antagonist rather than a contributor.

      • kipi

        unfortunately there are no Social Democrats in this country, I would join them in a moment. the choice is btw selfish libertarians, crazy religious conservatives, democrats/liberals who give handouts to the poor instead of fixing the root of the problem(major redistribution of wealth based
        on law) and people on the left who are dreaming about workers cooperatives.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=562795124 David Warren

      i agree with the neo con part. as for taking your guns away. look at the lobbyists that have obama in their back pocket. they do include the gun lobby so let’s cut out the bullshit

    • http://www.facebook.com/maribeth.mcpherson Maribeth Mcpherson

      Does it not seem odd to you that you think that the terms liberal and libertarian are opposed to each other? They are the same concept, except in the implementaions. Real Conservatives are NOT libritarian. Real conservatives are dedicated to the conservation of the plutocracies that have “ruled” for most of human history. Libertarians and liberals differ in that libertarians believe that people should be free to do as they please, they should be liberated. Liberals believe that people should be liberated and that the government should make sure the rights of everyone to be liberated are protected.

      • Bannedfromposting

        Liberals hijacked the name liberal from the early liberals, which stood for liberty. If you think liberals are protecting your liberties, by growing the government, imposing regulations that limit what you should eat, what gun you can buy, where you can go, who you can call, what you should think, then you have a strange idea of liberty. Liberals are all about growing power and controlling the people by promising them a utopia which they cannot produce. They can only promise. Every liberal program has failed or thrown the country into a worse situation.

      • kipi

        interesting you think “your” liberals own the rights to a term which is Latin in origin and ever since it debuted in the English language in the 14th century it meant many different things, both positive and negative. Roughly it means freedom, and in the political arena freedom is a concept which will always mean different things to different people, as too much freedom for others will always mean limitations of freedom for you. For example I am most interested in the freedom of the Indigenous Nations.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        You are just wrong. Liberal policies have freed many from oppression, given women the vote, tried to correct racial and social inequalities and create safety nets for the poor, sick and elderaly. Republicans want to limit what personal freedoms we have while cutting loose the corporations to discriminate, avoid paying tax, despoil the environment and buy elections.

      • richard ethington

        wow, someone REALLY needs a history lesson. U hjave this exactly backwards, who gave women the right to vote? republicans in wyoming. who passes civil ruight legislation over vehemet protests by democrats? REPUBLICANS. Who emanicpated the slaves over the objections and military uprising of democrats? Republicans, Who gives us now and equal oppurtunity society and job oppurtunities to help people out of poverty? Republicans. Who feels non whites are too stupid/ignorant to get a job by themselves, klet alone able to legal register themselves to vote? Democrats. Who wants to limit personal freedoms? Republicans to wish to limit your ability to take narcotics and kill life forms, who are viable, but their heads are physically located in someone else’s abdomen. Democrats want to regulate how large of a soda you can buy, what type and how many guns you can buy, what your deductible is on your health insurance, which doctor you can go to, which surgery/operation you are eligble to receive based on your age and working circumstances,what type of car you can buy or sell, which churches you can go to, what you can tell your children about what STDS and abstinence, what typr of energy you can buy or produce, what books you can read to your children, your THOUGHTS are on same-sex marriage, civil unions, race relations, and politcal discourse

      • Bannedfromposting

        Right and which party starfted the KKK. Democrats and even elected former members over and over. Blacks are leaving the planation by the thousands lately and they are whipped for doing so. There would not be a democrat party without victims. They must have victims to try and save. So a successful black is not welcome.

      • http://twitter.com/itsdylan01 dylan

        Richard Ethington, That’s nice. What you seem to have forgot to mention is that the Republican Party during the slave emancipation was a completely different party back then. The Republican Party back then was more like the Democratic Party and vice versa. All the real “southern conservatives” who voted against Lincoln were Democrats. And now today people like you and Rand Paul still like try to take credit for the current Republican party for emancipating slaves. That’s cute.

      • http://www.facebook.com/hanyewi Hanyewi Sunkmanitu Tanka

        And every “Conservative” program of the last 225 years has led DIRECTLY to MILLIONS of people DYING.

      • Bannedfromposting

        Like what?

      • http://www.facebook.com/denise.gabbard Denise Gabbard

        Not true…have you never heard of FDR?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lisa-Marie-Heap/1111774966 Lisa Marie Heap

        You’re wrong about “every liberal program has failed or thrown the country into a worse situation” – Pell Grants put me through community college to become a nurse (free money from the government that I never need to pay back – I qualified based on very low income). I now make more money and pay more taxes than when I was in poverty. The fact that you start your statement with “EVERY liberal program…” shows me that you’re incapable of nuance. Surely a reasonable person could admit that at least one conservative idea was helpful, they can’t ALL be terrible? By the way,
        Hanyewi Sunkmanitu Tanka responded to your crazy someone-debate-me!!!! demand. I think she did quite well. No one else wants to take on all the nonsense you spout because even if we spoke logic and reason to you, showed you the proof of our claims, at this point you are dug in to your position – screaming and chest beating on a liberal page. Also food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) saves $3 in future medical cost for every $1 spent on providing pregnant women, women, and children with food. Turns out it’s easier to just get them good nutrition up front than attempt to correct the devastating effects of malnutrition later on. Social Security.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        Lisa, I think this guy’s biggest issue is that he sees everything in black and white. It’s “Us against them!” A very dangerous mindset to have, as neither party is perfect, and both will screw you over if you take your eyes off them too long. Also, great ideas can come from either party, as can some really stupid shit.

        It’s not healthy to think any one group of people have all the answers, or that the other group is your sworn enemy. The whole point of politics it to try to find common ground that creates the best possible situation for all of us. If you come into that situation looking for a fight and having this us against them attitude, you’re not a part of any solution, you’re just another problem we all have to deal with before we can fix the problems we were supposed to be fixing to begin with.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dee-Ree/100002353696423 Dee Ree

    They won’t read it. They are locked into a certain mindset and it’s comfortable to them. Change is scary:/

    • Bannedfromposting

      I read it, spent days debating every liberal who believed the garbage, and all the comments were erased once the liberals ran out of emotional comment and the only thing left was logic. All comments were removed and we are starting over. To show you how concerned they were about the outcome, they banned both accounts. This is my third. They will ban this soon too. Let’s debate this. What do you like about his article?

      • http://www.facebook.com/erin.maurer2 Stephany Erin Maurer

        Everything. Now piss off.

      • Bannedfromposting

        Be specific. I know liberals feel it and can’t use logic, but try. Try to debate one thing. Just try.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        I like the part where is makes sense and all the drooling neocons scream “Debate me!”

      • Bannedfromposting

        Right, it is so hard to get a liberal to discuss anything. They scream back insults and racist comments and are upset when we try to examine how the liberal mind works.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you say things like “Examine how the liberal mind works” (It works the same as yours does, and every other human being.) or “Liberals can’t use logic.”

        Just like how in a post above you made sweeping statements about how “Republicans don’t believe corporations are people.” I’m sure some do and some don’t.

        When you take a whole group of people, lump them all into one category as though they all think, feel, and believe exactly the same things, with no room for gray between that black and white, then you’re not looking for an honest and stimulating discussion. You’re looking to make personal attacks, generalizations, and piss people off. Basically, when you make statements like that, you’re not debating, you’re trolling.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        To be fair, reading something to open your mind up to new ideas and reading something with the purpose to pick it apart and try to disprove every ounce of it are two very different things.

        If you’re doing the second, you’re still locking yourself into a pre-deterimined mindset before any facts are presented.

        There’s a big difference between looking at everything as “This isn’t true, I’ll find something that proves it!” rather than “I wonder if this is true? I should look into some legitimate, unbiased third-party sources to find out.” (for God’s sake not Fox News!, and just the same not any overly liberally-biased source)

      • http://www.facebook.com/Sam.Knudson Sam Knudson

        I have read through all your facts and posts. But absolutely none of them hold even an ounce of water. What you post as “Facts” is your own opinion or conspiracy theories on everything. Nothing with actual numbers. When you turn a blind eye to the facts because you simply do not like the democratic party that is ignorance at its finest.

  • B

    There will be a straw shortage this year, what with all the liberals making straw men out of them. Unfortunately, they have selected arguments that no conservative is making. So much error, so little time…

    • Rachel

      I know a lot of conservatives and 99% of them make these “arguments” constantly. Also everything in this post if true and has clear evidence supporting it. Tell me then, what arguments are you making? I guarantee I can make a good a counterargument or find someone who is better with politics than I am who can.

      • Bannedfromposting

        But his responses to the comments are completely made up. He offers no back up to his rhetoric. It’s just flat out lies. Name one thing he is correct about.

      • http://www.facebook.com/erin.maurer2 Stephany Erin Maurer

        You know those blue letters that seem to appear randomly. Click them, genius.

      • http://www.facebook.com/meester.creester Meester Creester

        “Made up” is just plain, well, stupid. He gives opinions based upon logic, not factual citations. The GOP is constantly telling people what they can and cannot do using the Bible as justification. The US government is not religion-based. How do you propose to dispute that?

      • Bannedfromposting

        lol, logic?? what logic. Why can’t you name one logical thing he said? It’s all emotion and assumptions.

      • Bannedfromposting

        What does the GOP say you can’t do? Why is it so difficult for a liberal to be more clear?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

      Have to agree with the sentiments below. I live in the “Bible Belt” most of my family and even some of my friends are conservatives. These are all totally real points that conservatives make on a regular basis.

      Just out of curiosity, which arguments from the article would you say are strawman arguments? All of them? Or just a specific one or two?

  • http://www.facebook.com/madeline.long1 Madeline Long

    Excellent!

  • Bannedfromposting

    It looks like the people who run this publication have banned gpearl and Quizno from posting any longer. The original 350 posts were erased after their butts were kicked. Now more butts are being kicked and both were banned from posting. hahahahah….love it!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/jrex167 Rex Crouch

      I wonder why…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lisa-Marie-Heap/1111774966 Lisa Marie Heap

      Really? Because the first FIVE TIMES you said that are still up. We get it. People are banning you and removing your stuff. And yet you’re still here. Should we convene internet court to dole out punishments to those who have infringed on your commenting rights? Geez.

  • Bannedfromposting

    1.
    He said Obama doesn’t want to take our guns. Obama said he supports
    gun control measures that include a ban on assault weapons and
    high-capacity magazines. He wants to take away those weapons, so he “did”
    say he wanted to take our guns away. Reagan did not support such a ban.
    In fact, Reagan said, the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any,
    leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the
    citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in
    America is to survive.” He wanted the bad guy targeted, not the guns.
    2.
    Marriage is not supported if divorce is legal? I don’t even understand
    that logic. Big Government should have stayed out of marriage to begin
    with. Is this guy saying we should outlaw divorce and force people to
    stay together if we support marriage? What is he smoking? It was big
    government getting involved in matrimony to begin with that was
    intrusive. Now, the same party who wanted big government is mad because
    big government requires each to be a different sex. Logic? I don’t think
    so.
    3.
    Republicans are the party of Christian values and he says they should
    begin by helping the sick, the poor, and the needy. Government has hurt
    those groups by making them dependent on big govt. The only way this
    idiot wants these groups helped is by seizing money from the very people
    who can really help them, creating a massive bureaucracy to distribute
    it, so destructive, that it limits the actually help these groups get.
    Government can’t help anybody without conservative’s money. He
    insinuates the poor, needy, and sick would be better served if money was
    seized by the government.
    4.
    Fiscal responsibility. He’s right. No conservative has balanced the
    budget in the last 50 years. Neither has a democrat president without
    the help of a republican congress and the internet boom. And by the way,
    the budget was never really balanced by Clinton.
    5. Republicans are the Party of Small Government
    Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
    Unless that big government regulates:
    • What language to speak – It’s not regulated by anybody. Who is regulating this?
    • Religion to follow – Republicans do not follow a religion. Where did this come from? oh yeah, an idiot.
    • When life is created – It’s only regulated by democrats
    • Who can marry – Big Government Intrusion
    • Who can serve in the military – Military is run by govt and as an employer, can make that decision.

    Invasive health procedures on women – Only if that woman wants to kill
    another person. Now Obamacare will be much more invasive.
    • That we have prayer in school – Not regulated by federal govt.
    • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations – Not regulated by federal govt.
    • Corporations are people – Not believed by republicans.
    • The Patriot Act – supported by both parties. Introducing, drones!

    Unions don’t have rights – Unions have rights, but they don’t have the
    right to disallow a person to work if they don’t join a union.
    • When alcohol can be sold – isn’t this a democrat law? By thew way, this is regulated by local municipality.

    The requirement of an ID to vote – Because an illegal vote cancels a
    legal vote. Democrats require ID’s for a whole lot less. Food stamps and
    welfare should not require ID?
    6.
    Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. The supreme court
    has no right reinterpreting our constitution and allowing the death of
    millions of babies. This was never an intended function of the SC. Btw,
    Where in the constitution does this idiot find the words that abortion
    is ok?
    7.
    The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending – paying our bills
    is more important than cutting spending. I say we default before we have
    nothing left. I want to scream at this idiot. Raising the debt ceiling
    is needed only because we spent too much. Why else would we need to
    raise it.
    8.
    I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My
    Life! Then he asks if we drove….first of all, driving is regulated by
    each state which is ok by the constitution. Public schools is not a part
    of the constitution. It was a big government directive, and pushed to
    an all time high by that idiot Dewey who thought the government could do
    a better job schooling our kids. Now look at our kids. We have some of
    the lowest scoring kids in the world and now they grow up and vote for
    socialists.
    9.
    Tax Cuts Create Jobs – It has been proven. 2007 was the highest revenue
    ever recorded to our treasury dept through income taxes, with 4 years
    of Bush tax cuts. A democrat congress took over the finance and banking
    committees after that year and the rest is history and we never
    recovered.
    This idiot actually believes his own lies and lives in a world of no logic.

    • David Woolf

      Where your sources the article provided plenty but you just rant and call everyone an idiot.

      • Bannedfromposting

        What did the article prove? Name one thing. You can’t just do what the guy who wrote the article did and make a comment without at least stating a fact.

    • http://twitter.com/BeLikeCaseyG Casey Grant

      seems like you have spent a lot of time researching arguments that support you. your ignorance in many of 1-9 shows clear, while your supporting arguments are one sided. I’d encourage you to open your eyes and look at two sides of the argument for each of these issues you act so knowing about. without being open hearing both sides arguments, you’ll really never hear either.

      • Bannedfromposting

        I am always will to listen. I want what is best for the country as a whole, while giving people individual freedoms. I am against the government doing things for us when we can do a better job ourselves. Fire away, I am willing to listen.

    • http://www.facebook.com/hanyewi Hanyewi Sunkmanitu Tanka

      1. Reagan DID (provably) support banning guns – this is demonstrated clearly by his signing legislation which *banned BLACK people from owning guns.* That IS a gun ban… HE signed it into law…

      2. The claim made by “Conservatives” is that allowing gay marriage is IMMORAL. The BIBLE specifies divorce is ALSO immoral. Now, I WILL agree that government needs to get out of the marriage business completely… but only if 100% of the BENEFITS of being married are eliminated. That means NO more tax breaks when your spouse dies, no joint credit, no joint income taxes, no “right” to make medical decisions, and hundreds of OTHER things which married couples currently enjoy ALSO need to be eliminated completely.

      3. The day Christians start DEMONSTRATING they are followers of CHRIST is the day I will BELIEVE something said by an alleged Christian. 100% of what I have seen DEMONSTRATED by alleged Christians over the last 25 years has been LIES, HYPOCRISY, HATE, etc… ALL things which are EVIL rather than anything which is good.

      4. Unless that big government regulates:
      • What language to speak – It’s not regulated by anybody. Who is regulating this?

      Republicans have made more than 100 ATTEMPTS in the last 4 years to do just that. Perhaps you should pay attention.

      • Religion to follow – Republicans do not follow a religion. Where did this come from? oh yeah, an idiot.

      Excuse me, but just LAST WEEK Republicans in North Carolina attempted to FORCE the population of that state to ALL PRACTICE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH – in direct violation of the Constitution.

      • When life is created – It’s only regulated by democrats

      Then WHY is it republicans are constantly trying to pass “PERSONHOOD” bills giving gametes the SAME rights as people who have been born?

      • Who can marry – Big Government Intrusion

      I’m SURE you will be willing to give up 100% of the BENEFITS you receive by being legally married (if you are) – that means NO joint ownership of anything, PAYING inheritance taxes, NO joint taxes, NO special privileges whatsoever…

      • Who can serve in the military – Military is run by govt and as an employer, can make that decision.

      Gosh it was just a couple of months ago that Republicans flipped out over women being allowed in combat positions in the military. And it is Republicans in Congress spending TAXPAYER dollars to defend DOMA…

      Invasive health procedures on women – Only if that woman wants to kill
      another person. Now Obamacare will be much more invasive.

      Sorry but until YOU are willing to advocate 100% of males be physically castrated OR take EXCLUSIVE responsibility for birth control… you have NO say in the matter. Furthermore… the BIBLE specifies HOW to perform an abortion AND GOD himself (IF You believe the Bible is the word of God) specifies that LIFE does NOT begin until FIRST BREATH and has NO VALUE until the child is A SPECIFIC AGE beyond that.

      • That we have prayer in school – Not regulated by federal govt.

      Then WHY are Republicans CONSTANTLY whining and wigging out over the LACK of religion being taught in public schools?

      • Mosques aren’t built in certain locations – Not regulated by federal govt.

      There should be NO tax exclusions for religious institutions.

      • Corporations are people – Not believed by republicans.

      Then you should have NO problem with legislation making ALL political contributions of ANY type illegal again.

      • The Patriot Act – supported by both parties. Introducing, drones!

      The Patriot Act may have been supported by both parties BUT which party was it that used FEAR of another terrorist attack to get it passed? That would be the Republicans.

      Unions don’t have rights – Unions have rights, but they don’t have the
      right to disallow a person to work if they don’t join a union.

      You have the right to work without joining a union… What you absolutely should NOT have the right to do is obtain the BENEFITS of union membership without paying DUES to the union. Don’t want to pay union dues don’t work in a place where there are unions.

      • When alcohol can be sold – isn’t this a democrat law? By thew way, this is regulated by local municipality.

      “Blue laws” with regard to alcohol sales are typically passed by Republicans.

      The requirement of an ID to vote – Because an illegal vote cancels a
      legal vote. Democrats require ID’s for a whole lot less. Food stamps and
      welfare should not require ID?

      Food stamps and welfare DO require ID – which includes things like BILLS rather than a state issued ID. Furthermore… “illegal” votes rarely happen for a variety of reasons not the LEAST of which is the FACT that when one registers to vote THEIR IDENTITY IS CONFIRMED. Which means that EVERY time someone votes ALL voter ID laws do is make MORE WORK for election officials. Oh and FORCE election officials to spend ever-increasing amounts of TAXPAYER money on technology to speed up the process that Republicans made FAR more complicated than it needed to be in the first place.

  • Jake5645

    i just dont see a point to banning assault weapons. last time i left my gun loaded and left it to its own devices, it didnt kill any one, or any thing. guns dont kill people by themselves. you have to have someone that WANTS to kill someone with a gun for it to be dangerous. what about that one guy that stabbed 23 people???? maybe we should outlaw knives now. they are SO deadly!!!

    • http://twitter.com/BeLikeCaseyG Casey Grant

      SOOOO sick of this idiotic argument. it’s just sarcastic and looking to fight rather than actually engaging in discussion. who would ever take you seriously starting a conversation like that?

      For the record, my friend’s nephew was killed by a gun shot after a weapon was left out and then knocked off a counter. freak accident? absolutely. but that gun killed someone… jack @ss.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zachary-Chastain/1308655925 Zachary Chastain

        Have to agree with Casey here on all counts. No one is saying guns kill people without the intervention of others. We’re saying “Let’s do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who do want to use them to hurt others.”

        It feels like that by making that silly argument, what you’re really doing is trying to deflect from having a serious conversation. It’s way more challenging to justify why weapons that have no value for hunting and are overkill for home defense are needed by everyday citizens. Oh, the government may… uh, attack you if you don’t have them? What good is your assault weapon against tanks, jets, bombers, drones, a standing army with real combat training…

        That’s a difficult discussion to have. It requires a lot of thought, research, and adjusting to new information on the fly as new facts are presented. You even run the risk of coming across information that alters your world view.

        It’s far more easy to sit back and say “I left my gun laying around and it didn’t get up and go kill anyone. Silly Liberals, trying to outlaw sentient weapons that don’t even exist.” It’s very easy, self-serving, lazy rhetoric that makes absolutely no sense when you examine the real points that are being made. Its only purpose is to avoid having a serous conversation at all, and avoid any exposure to outside views beyond your own.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lisa-Marie-Heap/1111774966 Lisa Marie Heap

      As a nurse who sees many trauma patients in the most deadly violent crime state in the union (TN) – I need to tell you, Jake5645, that your argument is ridiculous because real people are being injured. ENOUGH with the guns don’t kill people BS. ENOUGH!!!!!! You are more likely to shoot yourself, a family member, or commit suicide with that gun than you are to guard your house against intruders. I’ve taken care of THREE people this month who have shot themselves or others while cleaning guns. Don’t get me started on the failed suicides. I mean, you think you had problems before. . .

  • Nate

    All you do in this article is show how republicans are hypocrites, but this can be done with ALL politicians not just republicans. Also no political party has all the right answers, each side has good, and bad policies, but the problems in our country are in that people pick either being a liberal democrat or a conservative republican, and then blindly follow that political party like a religion. If you want to have an intelligent debate on what is best for the country, then look at the democratic party the same way that you just looked at the republican party, and you will realize it isn’t either party that is the problem, it is the politicians on both sides.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.long.752 Dan Long

    *sigh* this is boring. Rude? Not even close. Close to a good argument? Finally. Actually, the Republicans I know are going to agree with a lot of this because few Republicans have the views you claim. However, you’re claim on guns is impolite and shows your ignorance. Go to the FBI website and see how many criminals legally had their guns or obtained them legally prior to their crime, then ask yourself “What proposed legislation would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy?”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/zakdolan Zak Edward Dolan

      Yes, agreed… a lot of straw man arguments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/zakdolan Zak Edward Dolan

    Conservative rebuttal to the above article:

    The problem with this article is that it says that it needs to be read by conservatives but then goes off on the Republican party. Not all conservatives are Republicans. It’s quite possible to be fiscally conservative (I believe we shouldn’t spend money we don’t have) but socially open minded. Libertarians, for example. Independents as well.

    As for the article saying “abortion is a constitutionally protected right, end of discussion”, yes, it is currently a constitutionally protected right. But the constitution can be changed, and has been changed in the past. I believe the point is that people want to amend the constitution to ban abortions, not that they want to ignore the constitution. So it is not the end of the discussion. The discussion is should we amend the constitution. A large number of people say yes.

    Personally, I would prefer that we prevent the pregnancies in the first place by educating women and providing birth control. I am in favor of sterilization (spay, neuter, whatever) of drug addicts, for example, with the thinking that they make poor parents.

    As for the gun rights article, the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, so as the article said about abortion, “end of discussion”.

    Why don’t we want universal gun registration and limits to magazine capacities? Simple, because we learn from history. Gun registration is a precursor to gun confiscation which is a precursor to genocide and other atrocities, historically speaking. And if you think the American government has never committed atrocities against a disarmed people, I have some Native Americans for you to meet. Learn from history. Don’t be the frog in the pot of water that doesn’t realize until too late that the water is boiling.

    As for the whole “sanctity of marriage”, I agree that divorce pretty much put the nail in that coffin. I think there should be separation of church and state, and if one church doesn’t want to marry one particular couple, try a different church. I, for one, like it that our country doesn’t establish laws based upon religion. I wouldn’t want to live under Sharia, for example.

    As for the “values” and “help the needy”, what makes you think that we don’t have values and help the needy? We do so… but we do it through charities, not through the government. Why wouldn’t we want the government to help the needy instead of charities? Simple… the government is a very inefficient and ineffective way to do so.

    The government wastes too much of the funds in bureaucracy and further is a very poor judge of need, resulting in corruption and scamming of funds. Charities, by and large, don’t have those problems. It is noble to freely donate of your goods and services to help others. It is not noble to have your goods taken by the government and redistributed after the government takes their cut.

    Let people help through voluntary donations to charity, not through forcible withdrawals from pay which are then skimmed before being given to people that don’t actually need the money and create a permanent under-class. How can it possibly be considered kind to trap someone in a permanent cycle of low income government dependency?

    Imagine if people spent the money that would otherwise be taxed and given to “the needy”. That spending would go to create jobs, which could then be filled by… you guessed it.. “the needy”.

    I am in favor of fiscal responsibility, but neither party seems to support that. So I have frequently voted third party. Yet I still classify myself as a conservative, just not as a Republican.

    As for big or small government, I would prefer small. The federal government should provide justice and basic defense (not military-industrial complex) and that’s about it. Anything else can be better provided at the state or local level, or by charities.

    The debt ceiling is about raising the amount which can be borrowed. Stop raising the ceiling and either revenues must go up or spending must go down. You can try to do a three-card Monte trick which makes it seem like not raising the debt ceiling is only about paying bills that are already incurred, but in reality the original intent of the debt ceiling was to say that when we hit the ceiling, we’ll stop over-spending and live within our means. Which we haven’t.

    I want intrusive big government to use some common sense. An 11,000 page health care bill that no senator has read in full = not common sense. Write the bill in ten pages or less and have EVERYONE read it. Then vote on it.

    I also want legislation to focus on ONE SUBJECT AT A TIME. I don’t want any more hidden Monsanto Protection Acts in bills on a totally unrelated subject.

    I want ALL bills written by legislators and their staff, NOT BY LOBBYISTS. That’s the basic job that we hired them to do — write legislation. Not to have someone else write it and then pass it off as their own work. Ideally, we’d have a “laws wiki” where you could see exactly who wrote which law and the entire history of changes and amendments to the bill, along with who made the changes and proposed the amendments.

    Tax cuts create jobs, but not tax cuts on the people so rich that they can not possibly spend all their money. Tax cuts on people that will spend the difference does create jobs.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Sam.Knudson Sam Knudson

      Just a couple of points.the majority of people support a womans right to choose. So if it were outlawed then frankly our government would no longer be doing its one job of listening to the people. Same thing with the background check bill falling through. The vast majority of Americans supported it including the majority of gun owners. Though the ones who scream the loudest get heard, talking about the NRA. Assault rifles need to be banned and there needs to be background checks. Those are logical. That is all that i support for gun control. I think liberals are pushing for the farthest form of gun control just so we can meet in the middle ground on this.

      As for charities they are extremely ineffective and most of the time cruel. I would honestly never give my money to a charity because i live in LA i see how these charities operate and it is sickening first off they pay their employees kings salary then what ever is left over goes to the poor. Remember Christians Children Fund? How badly they screwed the people who actually want to help the poor? Remember every business is it to make money even private charities. here is how the Charities work down here. They FORCE anyone who wants a scrap of food of drink to sit through hours of Religious rants telling them how they are all going to hell and only if they accept jesus will they receive food. THAT is sickening i would much rather pay a little extra in taxes and poor people get food.

      Tax breaks for the wealthy or business owners will never create jobs people buying that companies products create demand which creates. jobs.

      11,000 page is a bit much but remember they are completely reworking the healthcare system if you could fit that all on 10 pages then you will get not a single thing done with it. 5k pages it probably the minimum for a rework of such a massive system the extra 6k are probably just nailing down the fine details so there is no room for abuse.

      I agree on the one subject at a time and get rid of lobbiest though with you 110% Lobbiest are the scum suckers of our political system

    • David Shaw Jr

      Eugenics?

      • Zak Edward Dolan

        How has that worked out, historically?

        Germany tried it. Booming economy, strong currency. Do you have a counter example where eugenics has resulted in a death spiral of poverty? Most poverty death spirals are the result of socialism and communism, historically.

        Do heroin addicts make good parents? I would argue that they do not. Do you have any data to the contrary?

        You will note that I am not advocating forced sterilization, but rather education of women and use of birth control. I cannot imagine western civilizations against the education of women… Can you?

        Heck, consider bribing people to get sterilized — should still be self selected, though.

        Forced sterilization would only be for those found guilty of felonies by a jury of their peers in a court of law, and only for felonies that indicate the person would be a bad parent (domestic violence, pedophile, murder, etc). And we could use reversible techniques, so that it could later be reversed if needed — plastic clip on tubes (male of female) which could later be removed.

      • Zak Edward Dolan

        Voluntary, except for convicted felons whose felony indicates a lack of child rearing skills. Narcotics, pedophilia, murder, domestic violence assault = pretty much not good parenting material. Or do you have data to show that heroin addicts make good parents?

        You’ll notice that I’m advocating educating women (which naturally leads to birth control) not forced sterilization. Other than Muslims, is there anyone who is opposed to educating women?

        That said…. let’s look at what has happened historically when eugenics has been tried. Germany’s economy is booming and their currency is strong. Do you have a counter-example where eugenics has been tried and the country is in a poverty death spiral? The only causes of the countries getting trapped in poverty death spirals that I’ve seen in the last century or so have been socialism and communism. Which, of course, leads to genocide in many cases. Which I find much more distasteful than birth control.

  • Greg

    Was this written by a 12 year old? That’s the level of argument

    • Bannedfromposting

      A liberal shared it with me on facebook and added, “yep, that sums it up” I came here to read it and it was full of emotional rants, hate filled comments, and absolutely nothing that could be backed up. Just opinions which parrotted what every hard liberal has been saying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/julie.monroe.923 Julie Monroe

    Reading this I at first thought it was meant for people who actually believe in personal responcibility and freedom.
    As I read on I realized this is for talking to a “conservative” republican. The flip side to the liberal coin. The ying to the liberal yang. Both modern republicans and modern liberals have done nearly nothing to help this country and they have, as a team, lead us into this horrible situation we’re in now.

    Note: The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The founders didn’t just free themselves from an oppressive tyrant and then write that in to make sure they could hunt deer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.benzik Jim Benzik

    What i see in this article is that you are right because republicans are wrong. You are half right, but the reality is that there are way more colors than red and blue. Yes anyone should be able to marry the person or people that they love just as banning interracial is now obviously unjust. However spreading logic on that front does not give you the moral authority to remove antibody’s right to protect themselves period. Full disclosure i Believe as the founders did that we have constitutional republic and therefore our rights weather they are to marry others or protect ourselves can not be taken away by the government. And if the government tries then it is our responsibility to limit it’s size.

  • Alex

    Wow, the comment section is becoming quite hostile! How about we all just keep our opinions to ourselves? You are an idiot until you realize that your political views are next to infinitely insignificant–that goes to people belonging to any party!!

  • Don Liston

    I post this name on Facebook and am responsible for ALL of my posts. What I see here is an assortment of cowards who are selling fear as their main “product.” Most of you are poorly educated as shown by your weak English. The “critical thinker” would be using his or her own name if he was intellectually sure of him or herself. Most of you are trying to sell a point of view, but why would ANYONE be interested in the ideas or opinions of someone who cannot reveal their selves in an “opinion or comments page?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.anderson.568 Dave Anderson

    Replace the word “Abortion” with “Firearms”. Look through a different lens.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dave.anderson.568 Dave Anderson

      Perhaps we can agree on both points then…but probably not.

  • litrocker

    such one dimensional ‘selective’ rebuttals. Sad part, you libs will follow the ‘progressive’ leaders right into communism, where you belong. It is no longer a mystery to me – that is what libs are communists. Weak minded messiah prone followers…

  • Captain_Larry

    Each of those arguments needs to be reduced to a phrase which will fit on a bumper sticker. Until then, the Right wingnuts, with their really short attention spans, have no chance of understanding. Those on the Right who actually have the intelligence to understand these arguments are the ones making the opposite arguments and being clever enough to put them on bumper stickers. The left is losing the argument by not pandering to stupidity.

  • jabberwocky

    Obama does indeed want our guns. He just can’t come right out and say it since we have the Second Amendment. Hold on to your guns and your rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000129103545 Cliff Bowman

    The only things that are going to help restore our economy is, do something to return our work from overseas. Then the CEO’s will have to pay American workers and that will cut down on percentage differance between workers & CEO’s. Then go back to the tax rates of the 50′s & 60′s. Tax the ones that can afford to pay. It dosn’t do any good to tax people with no money.

  • Mister Matt

    Regarding Marriage Being a Sacred Bond…one of the major glaring points that never gets mentioned (and radical Conservatives selectively choose to ignore) is that a religious ceremony is not required for any marriage to be recognized legally in this country. This fact renders all the religious rhetoric moot regarding the subject. You can be Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccan, Scientologist or a Branch Davidian for all the government cares as long as one person is male and the other is female and they are not related by blood.

  • The_Great_Fraud

    This is the most backward thinking article I’ve read in a long time. This article is only promoting the idea that there are ONLY 2 choices on how to run the country…the Republican way and the Democrat way. Not true. I’m going to take apart this whole retarded article for you people right now. First of all, this article is really just an attack on the Neo-Conservative way of thinking. But it is addressed as an attack on the Republican party, thereby including, “all Republicans” and anyone who refers to themselves as a Republican or Conservative. What this article fails to make clear is that the Neo-Conservative movement does not count for all Republicans. So the entire article is based on a false premise. Really what this article amounts to is an attack on those who don’t want gay marriage, with some other stupid “progressive” ideas on top. What this article fails to realize is that many Conservatives like myself think that issues like marriage should not even be a federal issue. The federal govt has no constitutional authority to dictate those kinds of decisions for everyone as a whole.

    In terms of “gun rights” you’ve made no argument to support the proposals that Obama has put forth. All three of these measures, universal background checks, ban on high cap mags, and ban on “assault rifles”(which by the way, is not the proper term for semi-automatic weapons)…will not do ANYTHING to stop or reduce crime. Of course you don’t explain how they will help, you just say you don’t like when people put up pictures of shotguns and say, “we’re not trying to take your “hunting” rifles…Please. So, just because you don’t want our hunting rifles that means your stupid ideas are smart??? I don’t think so. I hear people saying these are “common sense” gun laws and expect we should all accept that as the truth. The truth is, out of the approx. 30,000 gun deaths per year in the USA, about 45% of them are the result of suicide, accidental shootings and citizens or police officials using guns in self defense. That leaves about 18,000 gun related homicides per year. Out of that 18,000 gun deaths, 97% of them are committed with illegally acquired hand guns. Only about 3% or the deaths are a result of semi-auto rifles. Most of these deaths occur in major metropolitan areas where the population is much larger in a smaller area and where the gun laws are the most strict. Places like NYC, Chicago and DC all have very strict gun control laws and they have the highest murder and violent crime rates. Cities with conceal carry laws and open carry laws have the lowest violent crime rates in the country…that includes rapings, muggings, home invasions, burglary, theft, car-jackings, murder and armed robbery. Universal background checks and gun registration does absolutely NOTHING to stop, prevent or deter crime. They only create a federal database of legally owned guns that account for nearly 0% of the crimes in the US. Why would we need a federal database of legally owned guns when the problem is illegally owned guns??? Does that sound forward thinking to you?? Being that this article really made NO argument for gun control, I don’t think I need to explain further why Obama’s ideas on this subject are stupid.

    You say that because marriage is between a couple and God, then the state should have no place in it at all. What is failed to realize is that even though it is a bond between 2 people and God, it is also a contract that entitles each person to fair and equal treatment if the marriage is dissolved or annulled. In that case, the state MUST get involved to protect the property rights of each individual. So although it is a bond between both partners and God, those partners are a part of a larger society in which they are both equally subject to the law of the land. And both protected by the law of the land by the govt..Therefor, the state DOES have a role in potentially protecting the rights of each individual and possibly their children.

    Same sex marriage, another issue that should be left up to the local communities and state govt. NOT a federal issue.

    The Republican PLATFORM IS a fiscally conservative platform…However, the Republican PARTY is a bunch of lying, manipulative war mongers who want to be able to spend and borrow money endlessly. This is why many Republicans like myself, are not supportive of the Neo-Con agenda. This is why SO MANY REPUBLICAN PEOPLE supported RON PAUL in the last election cycles.

    You say that your entitlement programs help the sick, poor and needy…So why do we still have as many, if not more, sick, poor and needy people as we did before the programs were created?? Because the programs don’t help them in the long run…They only give them enough to barely get by and just enough to keep them dependent on these unsuccessful programs. The programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps are all going broke and more and more people are depending on them. Face it…Your entitlement systems DON’T WORK! They never have in history and they never will. The only thing that WILL help these people is creating a vibrant economy, a well educated society and an environment in which people can thrive on their own accord. Dependence on govt re-distribution of wealth will not solve ANY of these problems.

    I am for limited govt. NOT BIG govt. However, the Republican party is FOR BIG govt. But the list of things in this article “regulated” by the govt is just fucking ridiculous. “what language you speak”?? are you kidding me..Since when is the federal govt jailing people for speaking a language? “what religion to follow”…Our govt doesn’t regulate what religion anyone can follow. Don’t be stupid. “Who can serve in the military”? Do you think our govt should allow children to serve if they want?? Should they should allow sick or mentally ill people to serve?? Don’t be stupid. “when to serve alcohol”, “Needing an ID to vote” this is the most ridiculous list of stupid things, if I ever saw one…It even states “The Patriot Act” as one of the “things the govt. regulates”…The patriot act is a law…It’s an unconstitutional law, but it’s a law nonetheless. YES our govt has been getting involved in things it should not be involved in and passing laws that it has no authority to pass in the constitution…laws like “who can marry”, “Corporations are people” But each one of these things are separate issues and this article lumps them together as if they are all equally unconstitutional.

    I am pro-choice, however, there is nothing in the constitution that protects or rejects the right of a woman to have an abortion. I don’t know why you insist that “abortion” is a “constitutionally” protected right. If you want to have a scientific debate on when life begins, that’s fine…but the constitution simply protects the life of all people, not the right to specifically abort an unborn child. I don’t know where you are coming up with this statement, “Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. That isn’t debatable.” But since you say it’s not debatable, I’ll just state that you are an idiot. That is not debatable.

    You say the Debt Ceiling isn’t about more spending, it’s only about “paying our bills”…Nicely regurgitated from the crap that Obama stuffed down your throat…

    The truth is, it’s about how much more we can borrow in the future. So YES, it is about more spending..>If we push the debt limit up to pay our bills today, then next year, we can legally borrow more and spend more and on and on it goes. If Obama is so concerned about being able to pay our bills, he should REDUCE SPENDING!!! WOW! It probably never even occurred to you.

    We know how many times Bush, Reagan and Clinton raised the debt limit…Why do you think we have such a huge debt??? Are you saying they were right to raise the debt limit??? Because Obama is just raising it more!!!

    The last two paragraphs are probably the most ignorant of the whole article. Roads, Schools, Police and Fire Dept, Traffic Lights, Highways, Running Water…guess what…Most of those amenities are provided through LOCAL and STATE govt..Which means, local and state TAXES! All of those services are also tied to big business’ and big contracts. There are many investors in building roads, highways, water, electricity, even schools and universities. Sure, they get money from govts and much of our state and local taxes pay for these things. But guess what, 0% of your federal income tax is spent on ANY of those things. Not only that, but when the federal govt gets involved with public education, with the Dept. of Education for example, we get a lower standard of education, more people graduating without the skills needed to compete, the cost of education goes WAY UP, and when you graduate your college with an enormous student loan debt, there are no jobs available to help pay off your debt because the economy is tanking. As far as the Highways go, these TEMPORARY jobs are all given to union workers who are way overpaid and don’t have the incentive to compete and finish the jobs faster than a private contractor who DOES have that incentive. So for all you genius’ out there, we don’t want NO govt. we just don’t want WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, BLOATED govt. that gets involved with things it has NO AUTHORITY over.

    As far as Tax Cuts for the rich, true Republicans don’t want that…We want Tax cuts for EVERYONE!! You say “DEMAND” creates jobs…Demand for what??? I hope you said, SUPPLY…Ok, so since you only need DEMAND to create jobs…where does demand come from? It comes from people with jobs who have earned money and are willing to spend it on something they want or need. Where do their jobs come from? They come from an EMPLOYER!!! Surprise!!!!! Where does the employer get money to pay their employees??? SAVINGS!!!! How does an employer create a supply to provide for the demand?? SAVINGS!!! So the more money any employer is forced to pay to the wasteful, inefficient govt, the less money they can save to invest in making more money for themselves, their families and for their business to grow.

    I hope this all shed a little bit of light on how inconsistent, mindless and immature this article really is. It doesn’t state anything of true value and has no real significant message. It solves NONE of our problems and it is really only here to further the Right/Left paradigm that so many people are still stuck in. This pathetic agenda that the Right/Left paradigm is promoting is not representative of the actual opinions of the people they claim to represent. Although so many people still get fooled into falling for the theatre/show/act that our politicians try to entrap us in.

    This article is garbage.

  • Jabba hutt

    So I am guessing that all of you folks here sticking up for American workers support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline and the exploration for fossil fuels domestically so that energy can be used to build manufacturing plants in the US right?

  • Jabba hutt

    Allen you act as if all Republicans hate poor people and want to end public assistance and aid for the poor. That is simply not the case. Aid should be a lifeline not a way of life. Lets start by improving public education and making inner city neighborhoods safe. We cant be satisfied just improving the lives of their children. Why not make the receipt of government aid contingent upon attending job training? Give the poor a way out of poverty. I don’t believe you do that with never ending government programs.

    Are you in favor of government aid to individuals who can work but refuse? If we offer poor people an opportunity to improve their lot in life through college aid or job training don’t they have an obligation to do so? If they refuse can they reasonably expect the people to take care of them for their entire life?

  • Ez

    I have a company that I started from nothing 11 yrs ago. I have worked 7 days a week 12 hrs a day and haven’t taken a day off.
    We currently employ 800 people with an average salary of 70k. After reading the liberals posts I think I will sell out and move to another country!

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.levinson Rob Levinson

    I agree with this post 99.9%, but you’ve quoted the one thing that right-wingers can flip around as the same sort of asinine statement: “ban assault rifles”. What’s an assault rifle? A rifle that is functionally identical to the uncontested hunting rifles, but painted all scary black with spooky accessories bolted to it? An assault rifle is _not_ an “automatic” rifle, those are already banned. All this nonsense about grips, flash suppressors, stock length, is just a severe waste of time, resources, and political attention. Concentrate on the background checks and the mental illness issues… it ain’t about the hardware.

  • Kate

    Could you please give me the quote in the Constitution where the founding fathers stated: “Abortion is a right” or where in the constitution the right to abortion was ever mentioned.
    Thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/suzann.fulbright.9 Suzann Fulbright

    Nice work but, as tortured Brazilian students put it so eloquently during the 1960′s fascist right wing military junta take-over, “we are shouting at the wind.”

  • Nick

    Our viewpoints differ in almost every category and that is a good thing because that is what the troops fight for. The thing that irritates me about this article are the gun comments. I know that he isnt trying to take away shotguns/handguns, but as far as assault rifles, they have been banned for a long time. An AR15 is NOT an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle! Now, if they want to ban semi-automatic rifles, send it to congress and let them hash it out.

    I would also like to point out that every conservative does not share the same view on every topic. The ones that lean far right strongly disagree with everything that you are saying because they are just that, far right. just as you, from the text in the article, appear to be far left.

    At some point all of the bickering is going to have to stop. When you write articles like this, you are putting fuel on the fire, the fire that is dividing this country. I respect your opinion but instead of trying to sway those who either dont need to be swayed or those that cant be, lets try to come up with solutions. There is going to be a difference in opinion on every subject so lets work together to find a common ground. That is where OUR country came from and it is the only way to get OUR country back to the awesomeness that it was.

  • Pingback: What I know now // 003 - Jack Does Good - Visual communicator on a mission to do good well.()

  • Barack’s Conservative Friend

    All of you dopey liberals fail to realize that you NEED high-capacity Capitalism to fund your socialist, welfare state, but the two are INCOMPATIBLE.

    As leftists/democrats/liberals have practically killed Capitalism, which is desperately needed because of the $17 TRILLION dollar debt and the $100 TRILLION in UNFUNDED LIABILITIES that the socialist, welfare state has cost the United States since the 1930s, and with the repression of Capitalism, these debts will NEVER be paid off, and the socialist, welfare state will COLLAPSE ON ITSELF.

    I just won’t be here when that occurs.

  • Maggie

    I agree 100%, however I cannot share this with people who disagree because it is not professionally stated, calls people names, and generally talks way down to them. Who ever was convinced to change their mind by being denigrated. Entertaining piece but not useful.

  • http://www.facebook.com/norma.milliman Norma Milliman

    It’s a crazy world we live in. It gives me comfort to know there are others who feel the way I do. Thanks for posting.

  • psbintl

    Bravo! Definitely sharing this!!

  • GaryP

    the best retort IMO on the gay marriage issue is to point out that there are 8 different types of Biblical marriage,,including a rape victim being forced to marry her attacker.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.richeson Dan Richeson

    Barely scratches the surface….

  • joshua2415

    rebuff: gun rights. Infringe: to commit a breach or infraction of. Background checks, magazine limitations. These are infringements. Your readers talk about the slavery of the chinese worker. Well their gun rights are the only reason your readers aren’t enslaved.
    same sex marriage: you’ve heard it all before and regurgitated it nicely so what’s the point.
    Party of christian values: God never said (Old or New Testament) take up a 20% tax, have the government skim 15% off for itself, loose 4% in beauracracy, and make sure the 1% gets to the people. He said give directly, out of love, to the people around you. And he and his disciples never gave any money. They healed people so they could go work for themselves. Give a man a fish and all that…
    Republicans are fiscally responsible: Well we are. Can’t say much for politicians though. Most of them seem to morph once they hit Washington But I’m sure you probably say the same of the people you elect.
    Small government: see previous answer.
    Abortion: Please show me where abortion is listed in the constitution. I dare say if society gets to say that murder, rape, assault, and battery is wrong, we get to define crime. And as a fetus meets all 7 qualifications of life, and as it has it’s own unique DNA strand not it’s mothers, it is undoubtedly alive.
    Debt ceiling: it might be about paying bills, but they are going to pay their bills. If they can’t borrow, they can’t over spend. And for all your concern for the poor, inflation has hurt the poor in america more than anything else. What can you buy for a dollar? How many times have you asked that question? Well the source of that little issue is government borrowing. It wouldn’t matter that Steve Jobs invented a really cool computer, phone, tablet, and mp4 player and earned for himselft 5% of america’s wealth (or whatever percent he had) if inflation meant the money we all had left after we CHOSE to buy the product was worth more.
    big intrusive government: Notice all the potholes? Notice all the kids not graduating from school or graduating but can’t read? Notice how college rates have skyrocketed faster than any cost in our nation? That’s all government. Captive audiences don’t have to be placated until election time.
    Taxes. You’re right. At the heart of this we don’t want tax breaks to create jobs. That’s a talking point. We want tax breaks for fairness and security. Fairness because the rich already pay the lions share of taxes and the government is taking in a record share of taxes this and next year. They have more than enough to operate at the 18% tax to GDP ratio which creates a stable prosperous country. Security because they tax the wealthy today, they will tax everyone tomorrow. If you know anyone who escaped from Cuba, or the Ukraine, or North Korea, please go talk to them. Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.

  • Jeff Beutel

    Republicans have lost the Title
    “Conservative” as well as their credibility. If you mean
    that a Fiscal Conservative, is the one that keeps the cost of
    government down, doesn’t grow the role of government and moves toward
    efficiency in all departments. AND by Social Conservative, you mean
    that the U.S. Constitution is based on the separation of Church and
    State, thus the word GOD is not even used in the U.S. Constitution
    (and should NOT BE – unless you expect Churches to pay
    Federal/State/Local Taxes). If you mean that long standing policies
    of diplomacy FIRST and as a LAST RESORT before war, based on a
    defined reluctance to enter into a war (certainly NOT in a unilateral
    manner) are the earmarks of a Conservative Foreign Policy base… the
    Republicans are NOT conservatives by ANY STRETCH of the IMAGINATION.
    But WE Democrats have proven (historically) that we are!!
    Conservatives believe in freedom for all, are against discrimination
    of any kind, and understand the necessity for separation of Church
    and State. It would be Republicans that are minimizing human rights,
    proudly continue bigotry, and have actually voiced a desire to have a
    “State Religion” in at least two states. Conservatives
    know that U.S. Taxpayer’s dollars should not be used to support
    entire industries that would FAIL in a Free Market, Capitalist
    economy, Conservatives believe that the phrase “all men are created
    equal”, means ALL MEN – AND WOMEN, not just white men as
    originally written. Conservatives know that the cost of blood,
    outweighs any gain in revenue caused by war and will avoid war at all
    costs. Do you really think that making abortion illegal would make a
    SMALLER government, that God want’s his name on our money, or that WE
    are the world’s unpaid police force? Conservatives are not the
    problem – Republicans are the problem… I just wish the Main Stream
    Media would actually look up the word “Conservative” and
    stop using it when they are referring to Republicans, it makes them
    all look… STUPID.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Bobsyouruncle1 Victor Amoroso

    If this is the last line of defense for liberals, and this seems to be, it just proves how intellectually bankrupt and pseudosmart you think that you are. Liberalism is a mental disorder, seek help.

  • asgnet

    I love reading these blogs from people who still wonder why they get rejected from every major publication in the country. I guess anyone with an internet connection can get their “point” across these days. I don’t disagree with everything, but I do think that some points get made against arguments that fabricated and or embellished by the author to prove his point. But for the sake of argument, yet not to appear as a dreaded republican (which I am not) I will make a few points to the contrary, if you are willing to listen to the opposing viewpoint and not repeating “end of story” every other sentence.

    1: abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. It does not say in the constitution that you can have an abortion. Prohibiting abortion was deemed unconstitutional back in the 70′s when people didn’t have a real scientific understanding of a fetus and were trying to defend the woman’s body (rightfully so), but biological life is now all but proven to have begun at conception (and if you don’t want a Christian argument, which I don’t blame you, google atheist pro lifers for an argument you may stand to listen to).

    2. making an argument against a term from an administration from three decades ago is almost as absurd as blaming George Bush for our impending invasion of Syria. The argument conservatives have against having tax cuts is not for instilling trickle down economics. It is that raising taxes on the rich is not the end-all solution to our budget crisis. Go ahead, tax the rich 100%, you still wont come up with enough money to cover the bloated Defense budget every year. Barack Obama and his Senate completely reject the idea that maybe we spend too much money, because his “expert” keynesian economists have never heard the concept that if you dont have the money, don’t spend it. I don’t defend the republicans’ budget, but at least they are willing to understand all the issues that need to be addressed, instead of an ideological argument against the evil rich. The point that demand creates jobs is grossly over-generalised, but even if you want more demand, lowering tax and regulation on everybody helps jump start businesses and puts more money in peoples pockets.

    3. Find me an example of a government program designed to help the poor, sick, and dying that isn’t grossly over budgeted and mis-managed, and I will show you a private charity, a fund, a non-profit organization that do actually help the people they intend, rather than line the pockets of bureaucrats with money from the ear marks thrown in too last minute for any congressional aide to read to their fat bosses.

    4. Public schools, roads (mostly), highways and intersections, public university, and public utilities are all examples of responsibilities that the states have. Not the federal government. It is typical of big government apologists to bring up these issues as pro government arguments, even though they comprise maybe a percent of the total federal budget. Let the states have some responsibility for once. Otherwise, whats the point of having states?

    These are just a few responses but my major qualm here is the author tries to lump all conservatives into the same category, even know almost none of them make the arguments that the author claims they do. Maybe a vocal minority, I agree with the points on gay marriage, “Christian” party remarks, and to some extent gun control. but to believe in small government doesn’t mean I want more elementary school children to die.

  • ALJONES

    THE SADNESS OF THIS COUNTRY IS CAPITALISM……EVERYTHING FOR A BUCK….WHAT WE NEED IS TERM LIMITS,THIS WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY

  • gingie

    Bravo!

    • gingie

      oops, sorry bout the -29 rating!

  • ConservativesAreUnamerican

    Statistics show that the greatest increase of GDP was when the highest tax rate was 90% so I do not abide their argument. If extensive background checks are not going to affect those that have weapons, why should they be concerned? It would make more sense to require a periodic proficiency examination and mandatory submittal to a psychological test before owning a weapon is permitted. Moreover, anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence or who has an existing no contact order should be required to relinquish their weapons until psychological testing has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner would not consider the weapon an option is resolving conflict. Finally, the pledge of allegience was written by a socialist Baptist minister.

  • Leak

    Your a moron.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marcus-L-Davis/1041256079 Marcus L Davis

    I see one problem with this article. You don’t cite WHERE is says ‘Abortion is a constitutionally protected right’. your arguement amounts to ‘because I said so.’ and that won’t wash. Before you get your panties in an uproar, I am pro-choice. However, this is supposed to be an article that, in simple terms, refutes republican ill conceived ideas. Unless you cite the actual passage, ammendment, where-ever-the-hell-it-says-it, then it doesn’t refute anything.

  • A Responsible American

    Hmm, why is it
    that every article starts out with a derogative slam. Good Communications as
    with Good Statesmanship, requires a level of respect for our opposite view
    holder. Sadly, because of the absolutism that has overtaken this country, we
    have been unable to accomplish much of anything of use except for the hidden
    administrative pork for special interest groups.

    The article lists a lot of topics that divide our country. In our all-or-nothing
    society, it truly is ok to be on either side of the issue. It’s American and
    that is your right. Because someone else disagrees with you, does not make them
    a buffoon. The embracement of diversity is a national treasure, but blasting a
    differing opinion only proves your hypocrisy.

    Again, the list is short and presents a derogatory bias that allows for no
    discussion and the sound bite approach does little to win the argument. Most of
    the list items contain half truths which only inflame the rhetoric furnace.

  • Yaice

    Regarding the term “job creators”… that’s a lie, a label plastered over wealthy people to hide the fact that they are greedy money-grubbers who want to keep all their wealth to themselves by hiding it offshore. The economy is improved now, the stock market is up, so why aren’t they creating those new jobs now? If they really were job creators, that’s what they’d be doing, instead of whining about taxes.

  • Developer Test

    You are showing your partisan ignorance. Honest question, when you bring up hunting, “nobody is going to take …. hunting….gun” you are just doing this to piss people off right? Because it has about nothing to do with hunting.

  • tracr

    This is a terrible article. Being a Libertarian, I agree with much that has been said about gay marriage and bit about Republicans not being “small government”. However, I’ve read the constitution and have never once seen the word “abortion” in it as a protected act. I am pro-choice, but I don’t need to make up crap to defend my stance. The second amendment, however, specifically does protect the right to have guns. And the Supreme Court held that guns in common use can not be banned. An assault weapon ban would regulate one of the most commonly sold guns today, the AR-15. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles or handguns and everything to do with personal right to defend oneself. An AR-15 is a defensive weapon as much as any other gun. Perhaps a better one than any other semi-automatic rifle because of how common it is.

  • bill j.

    No facts in this article. At least ACCURATE facts. Regan signed into law the firearms owners protection act of 1986. Supported a ban on “machine gun” fully automatic weapons. Never a ban on high capacity magazines or semi auto rifles.

  • Dymaris

    Oh wow! I’m so convinced now. The only thing I need to become a liberal was for some brilliant progressive tell me how silly I am! You guys are so smart and Obama is my hero.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.sanders.75641 Brian Sanders

    These are some of the most foolish arguments I’ve ever heard

  • government is the problem

    progressives are so stupid…

  • DrPhrogg

    One disagreement. Feinstein & Schumer do want to take all guns. Until they STFU, the NRA can argue, correctly, that Liberal leadership wants to take away guns.

  • DrPhrogg

    Bush never vetoed a spending bill until he had a Democratic Congress. Until then, Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like.

  • Cindee Hieser

    Your arguments are very much invalid AH ! Guess who just my enter hell one day for those arguments. This country might have amendments, congress , a constitution, Republicans, Democrats AND FLIPPING LIBERALS, but was first and foremost a God fairing country , founded by our fore fathers way before your stupid azz was around , and yes, I don’t know who in the hell you think you are, but in my book, maybe YOU NEED TO TRY ONE OF THOSE CHURCHES YOU SO BLATENLY TOSS AROUND !!!!!

  • HDMom

    Exactly! Thank you!

  • TL

    Strange that the authors states abortion is a ‘constitutional right’ therefore not up for debate, but the other Constitutional Right that is actually spelled out word for word is…..with the former being responsible for exponentially more deaths than the later…Hmmmm

  • http://www.facebook.com/mrtp.knight Michelle R. Knight

    Always love to read your articles. My other half and I go at it all the time. Of course he voted for nit wit Mitt and I voted for Obama again!! He hates it when I can get the better end. Thank YOU!!!

  • Heather Gray

    let’s all ignore “bannedfromposting” tonight. I think he gets his pennies not just for posting his fox parrot points, but for any response.

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show a Conservative | andirach()

  • Lisa

    Reagan inherited an economy mired in stagflation — a combination of double-digit economic contraction with double-digit inflation. To combat recession, Reagan aggressively cut income taxes from 70% to 28% for the top income tax rate, and from 48% to 34% for the corporate tax rate. He also promised to reduce government spending and regulations, while reducing the money supply to combat inflation.

  • Lisa

    Republicans want to cut spending. But what do you think Democrats wanted when Reagan was president? Democrats wanted to INCREASE spending. And they were in a position – about every five months on average for a grand total of 18 times by Obama’s own count – to force Reagan to increase government spending in order to get all those 18 debt ceiling increases every five months or so.

    Alternatively, when Bill Clinton was president, the deficit was dramatically reduced. And why was that? Because Clinton and Democrats failed so massively the first two years of Clinton’s presidency that Republicans swept into power over both branches of Congress in the historic 1994 Republican Revolution. And they FORCED Clinton to say “The era of big government is over.” Republicans began to act on the very first platform of the Contract with America, which called for balancing the budget. That, and of course, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush having just won the Cold War and putting an end to the Soviet Union, Bill Clinton was able to gut the Pentagon and Intelligence agencies budgets (which helped precipitate the 9/11 disaster, for what it’s worth).

    When it comes to penetrating Obama’s constant web of demonization and lies, a few facts go a long way indeed.

    • Dave

      Your argument is pathetic. Clinton was one of the best presidents in the history of America. Quit drinking the Fox Nazi Channel Kool-Aid.

  • cc

    Well, I was going to read your article, but then you used the word “sheeple”. Sorry, I can’t get behind anyone who says that word, no matter how much I may agree with them.

  • katmomdu

    oh, btw, Oliver Stone didn’t create ‘Natural Born Killers’ OR the two ‘Wall Street’ movies for you to make the villains your heroes, they were a warning that people like that are BAD for the country. Crazy people having tons of assault weapons and huge amounts of ammo, and ‘Greed is Good’ – a lot of you seem to have misunderstood – THOSE guys were the villains, not the heroes..

  • CAR1999

    WOW, what a load of shit….

    1. Liberal does not = Democrat, as conservative does not = Republican.

    I know some fairly conservative Democrats, and some (puke) liberal Republicans

    2. EVERY weapon is a potential assault weapon

    3.Millions of Christians that support same sex marriage? That’s like saying there are millions of Vegans that eat meat

    4.Regulations Section:

    What is wrong with IDs to vote? This would cut down on ineligible voters, dead voters, etc…

    5.Where in the constitution is abortion even mentioned?

    6. Tax cuts may not be the answer, but using tax dollars for bullshit like supporting african dictators, nonsense like “green” energy, arming our enemies, giving lazy-ass bums steak and lobster needs to stop!

    If anyone has a contradiction to my comments, let me know. I would love to see an actual answer with an opposing point of view(NOT answering with a question).
    Also, I didn’t like Bush either; but I would like to challenge anyone to come up with something good for America that Obama has done (without previous administration’s help).

    • Dave

      You have been brainwashed by the Fox Nazi Channel. Heil Hitler!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1292907235 Don Roberts

    The Republican Party is for ineffective government: big business unaccountable to the people in anyway shape or for.

  • Pingback: The Article Every Liberal Needs to Show a Conservative - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum()

  • http://www.facebook.com/kate.dyson kate dyson

    don’t forget us socialists…a label I proudly wear…

    Your article is good…otherwise… :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/Lynx2thr334 Robin Simrill

    Agree with most of what you said except divorce being the thing that ruins the “sanctity” of marriage. How people mistreat each other ruins marriage. (Not sure where the “sanctity” part even enters the average marriage, though.LOL) At any rate, since marriage equality has zero effect on straight ppl marriage, the whole “marriage equality (or gay marriage) ruins the sanctity of marriage” is completely irrational. And hilarious–we ruin our OWN damn marriages whether or not our gay neighbors down the street tie the knot! What does sanctity look like anyway? Must be short for sanctimonious.

  • Nick

    Almost everything proposed by this writer is 100% nonsense – simply reflections of the slanders the Left has manufactured about conservatives, and gross ignorance of the actual beliefs and actual issues, including a complete rejection of the actual meaning, purpose, and intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    For example, the idiotic slander that since many conservatives disagree with many government assistance programs, at least in their present form, that they are not charitable and thus in conflict with Christian values.

    In fact, conservatives outdo leftists in both charitable giving, time worked for charities, and in-kind donations by a vast amount.

    Furthermore, charity is a PERSONAL responsibility, which leftist abdicate to the government, which not only does this very poorly, it creates further poverty and dependence.

    When “charity” is forced, as in taking money via taxation and redistributing it, not only has the essential component of PERSONAL CHOICE, thus virtue, been taken out, rendering it NOT charity by definition, as well as compounding this with the sin and crime of THEFT.

    Of course, a leftist will never understand such fundamental concepts, preferring to live in a world of delusions, platitudes, and comprehensive and centralized government control of their lives and activities.

    • Dave

      Oh course a rightist is just a Nazi!

  • http://www.facebook.com/kira.price.16 Kira Price

    But this makes the assumption that they will listen to, and understand, logic.

  • miserableoldfart

    Good article. But the “conservative” Amerikans don’t care about the truth. They just make it up as they go along and proclaim it was God.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Macleod/1302471888 Paul Macleod

    what an incredible lame article.. sounds like a campaign speach for the far far left.. but nothing and I mean nothing makes sense here unless you are a historical idiot.. meaning that history escapes you completely.. just the gun issue alone makes this aricle a non participant…it’s exactly what the supporters of Hitler said.. oh I know here it comes..not that again.. but of course. it’s how it happens.. it’s already happened.. so you’d have to live on mars to think it couldn’t happen here. in the gool ole USA

    • tomtomtom

      What exactly don’t you agree with about the gun issue. (By the way, contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not make personal gun ownership illegal, not that that’s relevant here).

    • Dave

      You fail to realize that Nazism is a far right political philosophy.

  • tomtomtom

    I agree with most of your points, but I think the article would have more oomph if it was written with more fact and less emotion. For example, you say that abortion is a Constitutionally protected right, but that doesn’t stop those who want a Constitutional Amendment or a revisit by the Supreme Court. Plus it only applies to fairly early pregnancy. How about the argument that making abortion illegal, does a poor job of decreasing the number of abortions. If you really want to do that (as opposed to just making it illegal), the best way is to make birth control readily available and to improve the economy, especially for the poor and lower middle class.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fairmont66 Rodney Neal Powell

    great arguments BUT I always believe that you can take a wingnut to facts and logic but you can’t make them think!

  • amanda

    YES!!! love this. :)

  • http://twitter.com/cthrurlies [email protected]

    You can’t tell those dumb ass people anything. They do not listen. They believe what they want to believe. They won’t be happy until they destroy all the unions and we are working in sweat shops afraid to look up and mumbling “I am so glad I have a job.” They are hell bent on destroying everything our labor unions fought and died for. Remember the Triangle shirt factory fire. Look at the Fertilizer plant in West Texas.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504948705 Jacob William Hoss

    If you’re actually looking to create a hairline fracture in their worldview, one that one day, through genuinely open minded further learning on their part, might change their opinions, I’d try to aim more like a sniper rifle and less like a shotgun. The idea of “easy evangelism” in the Jack Chick model is so ludicrous it has a TV Tropes page, when people change their mind in real life they do it very, very slowly. Usually it starts with being caught off guard by a lone fact, or a single anecdote that challenges how they saw things before. First they try to deny it, and when they can’t they try to incorporate it into their existing paradigm. Which will make them more likely to read, watch, and listen to people who share this single new opinion they have, however these people generally have LOTS of different opinions. Now that they are consuming this information without filtering it all through their (anti-)confirmation bias, they are much more likely to consider seriously other ideas that they’d hitherto debunked. Thus, rather than having their “mind blown” by a lengthy and multifaceted diatribe, they instead have their mental defenses penetrated by a single new piece of knowledge, that then works like a virus, altering the person from the inside.

  • NOREX

    Agreed. But surely ‘progressive liberal’ in the US context is an oxymoron, no?

  • weslen1

    I would add all the idiots that say, and post graphics that say, that the Constitution was written to LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NO it WAS NOT. The Constitution was written to ESTABLISH the federal government to make all the states, together into one cohesive country. It clearly states that when there is a conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law trumps the state law and that states cannot write laws that take away a citizen’s guaranteed federal Constitutional rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=851612299 Ken Olshein

    70% of jobs that were outsourced were union jobs and they were out sourced because they were union jobs. when ever you go against the free market you get the problems we have. basic economic principals are completely ignored by liberals. wages of the middle class have gone down as compared to the cost of living for the last 50 years pretty much when all the liberal policies have kicked in. obama is using the epa to kill our economy making it very difficult for most businesses to be profitable which would allow them to hire more people. unions do not offer any benefits to anyone except their corrupt union bosses and democratic politicians because 90% of dues end up going to them. no one can make a case how providing democrats with their liberal anti business and anti american policies your union dues makes any sense. the tax code is broke look at how many big obama donors got away with paying no tax after making billions, in fact they got tax refunds or tax credits which comes out of the pockets of the middle class. just about every law, regulation hurts the middle class economically, the whole global warming was a big scam to sucker the middle class out of their hard earned money. bring back policies and laws we had in the 50′s with a simple tax code and this country would grow faster than china did the last 2 decades. obama is doing everything he can to protect profits of the saudis and billionaire bankers, they are the only ones who are better off under obama. people simply do not understand basic economic principals or have common sense and let politicians pass all kinds of laws that only help special interests not the majority of the citizens.

    • Dave

      Blah, blah blah…die yuppie scum.

  • Me

    Why define a religious rite? why not have an amendment where Civil Unions give the same rights and privileges as marriage. a, shutter…..religious thingy. why change the definition. by the way, a radical feminist said it was not about equal rights, but getting rid of marriage all together. fuck you feminist lesbows fuck you

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      how about fuck all religions ( see: voodoo)?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-L-Perry/1480476468 Gary L Perry

    This article is titled

    “The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show a Conservative” nut is actually about Republicans and mostly big government Republicans, not true Conservatives.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      what exactly are “conservatives” conserving???? screwing equal rights>? keeping voodoo( see: religion) in politics?

      • Rynstone

        Moe, can’t make up your mind who you are ?
        Conservatives are people who believe in obeying and following the US Constitution. We are more about equal rights than progressives and believe in the total freedom of religion as long as it does not infringe on the tights of someone else.
        Please provide a specific example of where you think “conservatives” are screwing with equal rights and where you think “voodoo religion” has affected politics.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        sounds great! problem is– isn’t roe V wade not being followed by “conservatives”? or– the ACA???? ( note- non partisan CBO says the ACA will cost 5 BILLION less than anticipated in 2014- betcha FOX “news” and “conservatives ” will NOT report this)
        equal rights>? why so tough to get equal rights for gays? women???
        voodoo religion ( Christianity 2014) is attempting BIG TIME to keep gays from equality( see: marriage) and wanted them forever NOT in military,,,,VOODOO doing its best to make abortion ( legal in USA) near impossible; thus making women ( see: inequality) go back to outlawed style abortions.
        regressives ( conservatives) screwing with voting rights– don’t you find it FUNNY how they ( regressives) NEVER never NEVER cried about this UNTIL 2009???? stultifying voting in ethnic areas; snrinking voting periods; which of course screws with liberals ( minorities; see– IN-equality) to the benefit of conservative scumbags. you and I both know that so-0called voter fraud is negligible; and why do they decry an ID for voting ( not a bad thing) when they do NOT decry an ID for gun purchases ??? Hmmmmmmm,,,,,,
        ask your stars such as michelle Bachmann about her view of constitution ( she wants certain amendments repealed ) as she cherry picks what she likes– similar to cherry picking the stupid error-laden BOOK ( bible) to fit HER– and all2many “conservatives ” views ( see: racism/inequality ETC)
        =====================================
        BUT—– ( gotta luv’ when someone says “BUT”),,,,,,,, I see correctly you did NOT address the prior inquiry of;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ” what exactly are ‘conservatives’ conserving”????

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — Part 2: The Article Every Liberal Needs to Show a Conservative()

  • bhkhgjf

    this is the close-minded equivalent to certain conservatives who claim that all liberals are “raging” socialists. all of this is just on the opposite end of the spectrum. talk about sheeple.

  • Voicedude

    Sadly, as great as this article is, it’s set-up and structure will alienate any Republican before they can get three paragraphs in. You REALLY want me to show this to a conservative? You think THIS will sway them, somehow? How can you expect those so adverse to the truth to even get past being called ‘babbling buffoons’ in the second sentence…?

  • Criss Contino

    Wow, this has to be one of the dumbest, ignorant, simpleton-authored blog posts I’ve seen in a very long time. Not to mention, a great example of “the same asinine comments constantly repeated” from leftist simpletons.

    I can’t wait to see “Part 2″ of this comedy rag, but before I do, let me address some of the ignorance and bigotry displayed here in “Part 1″ so far.

    1. “Gun Rights”. Guns do not have rights. People have rights. and unlike abortion, the right to keep and bear arms actually IS a constitutional right. Furthermore, the POTUS is not a King, so who gives a crap what he wants? It’s a matter of what the People want, but since you so ignorantly make claims you know nothing about, I’ll start with “Obama never said he wants to take away your hunting rifles and handguns, he only wants universal background checks, a ban on high capacity magazines, and assault weapons”.

    You seem to not have a clue. For starters, Obama nor anyone else can openly propose that which would be a blatantly obvious all out gun ban. Why? because it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Instead, He is proposing a way to track and register gun sales on a federal, instead of state level. This might come as a complete shock to you and other latte sipping liberals, but criminal background checks are already required, even in the most pro-gun states. Why? because no law abiding, ethical gun dealer wants to sell guns to criminals, known felons and violent husbands. This does and always has made perfect sense, and is a law regulated by the State, and therefore is not needed on a federal level…… unless of course the govt just wants to know where they all are. Why would they need that information?

    Can you even define what an “assault weapon” is? As you are so quick to state that Ronald Reagan and others “supported” bans on what you call “assault weapons”, let’s show you where you are mistaken. Reagan supported bans on FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons, and those have been banned and unavailable to the public since 1986, unless existing owners were grandfathered in, or a prospective owner goes through lots of red tape and forks out a minimum of $10-20K in fees. They might look like a “machine gun”, but the rifles you refer to as “assault weapons” and are clearly confusing with fully automatic “machine guns”, are semi-auto rifles that only look scary to you, but in reality do not function any different than a semi-auto handgun, like that tiny Walther PPK that “James Bond” is known for, is a small caliber .380 semi-auto handgun. An AR-15 fires a .223 round, which is pretty small compared to shotguns and higher caliber hunting rifles. Lastly, “high capacity magazines” or Pelosi’s name for them – “assault magazines” – were banned during the Clinton administration and had no effect on keeping kids safe from mass shootings as evidenced by Columbine. Reloading of a magazine, no matter what it’s capacity, takes between .5 to 1.5 seconds. Not long enough to make any difference.

    2. Abortion – I am no religious person by any means, but you cannot possibly state that “abortion is a constitutional right”. No it is not. The right to personal privacy (14th amendment) is a constitutional right, and abortion was ruled to fall under that broad, general right to personal privacy. Unlike the 2nd amendment that states we have the right to keep and bear arms, there is no such clear definition of “right to keep or terminate pregnancies” in the constitution.

    3. Big vs Small govt. – You seem to be confused on this issue as well. You cite obviously needed regulations like traffic signs that no one has a problem with other than anarchists. Rules and regulations are needed in a civil society, but those things you use as examples of government are on city, county and otherwise local levels and should stay that way, including gun regulations. Big government is when the federal government extends it’s boundaries and reach to the state, county, city and personal levels, as it is trying to do with all this new and unnecessary proposed gun regulation.

    4. Most of your other examples of “when big government is ok for conservatives” is mostly stereotypical bigotry as it assumes conservatives are all religious. However, on what planet do you live on that one should not have to prove they are a citizen in order to vote? Sorry, but as per the constitution, being a US citizen is a requirement in order to legally vote on US matters and elections. Therefore, one must provide proof of citizenship before they get to vote. Voting is a right, reserved for US citizens only. Sorry.

  • Criss Contino

    Wow, this has to be one of the dumbest, ignorant, simpleton-authored blog posts I’ve seen in a very long time. Not to mention, a great example of “the same asinine comments constantly repeated” from leftist simpletons.

    I can’t wait to see “Part 2″ of this comedy rag, but before I do, let me address some of the ignorance and bigotry displayed here in “Part 1″ so far.

    1. “Gun Rights”. Guns do not have rights. People have rights. and unlike abortion, the right to keep and bear arms actually IS a constitutional right. Furthermore, the POTUS is not a King, so who gives a crap what he wants? It’s a matter of what the People want, but since you so ignorantly make claims you know nothing about, I’ll start with “Obama never said he wants to take away your hunting rifles and handguns, he only wants universal background checks, a ban on high capacity magazines, and assault weapons”.

    You seem to not have a clue. For starters, Obama nor anyone else can openly propose that which would be a blatantly obvious all out gun ban. Why? because it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Instead, He is proposing a way to track and register gun sales on a federal, instead of state level. This might come as a complete shock to you and other latte sipping liberals, but criminal background checks are already required, even in the most pro-gun states. Why? because no law abiding, ethical gun dealer wants to sell guns to criminals, known felons and violent husbands. This does and always has made perfect sense, and is a law regulated by the State, and therefore is not needed on a federal level…… unless of course the govt just wants to know where they all are. Why would they need that information?

    Can you even define what an “assault weapon” is? As you are so quick to state that Ronald Reagan and others “supported” bans on what you call “assault weapons”, let’s show you where you are mistaken. Reagan supported bans on FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons, and those have been banned and unavailable to the public since 1986, unless existing owners were grandfathered in, or a prospective owner goes through lots of red tape and forks out a minimum of $10-20K in fees. They might look like a “machine gun”, but the rifles you refer to as “assault weapons” and are clearly confusing with fully automatic “machine guns”, are semi-auto rifles that only look scary to you, but in reality do not function any different than a semi-auto handgun, like that tiny Walther PPK that “James Bond” is known for, is a small caliber .380 semi-auto handgun. An AR-15 fires a .223 round, which is pretty small compared to shotguns and higher caliber hunting rifles. Lastly, “high capacity magazines” or Pelosi’s name for them – “assault magazines” – were banned during the Clinton administration and had no effect on keeping kids safe from mass shootings as evidenced by Columbine. Reloading of a magazine, no matter what it’s capacity, takes between .5 to 1.5 seconds. Not long enough to make any difference.

    2. Abortion – I am no religious person by any means, but you cannot possibly state that “abortion is a constitutional right”. No it is not. The right to personal privacy (14th amendment) is a constitutional right, and abortion was ruled to fall under that broad, general right to personal privacy. Unlike the 2nd amendment that states we have the right to keep and bear arms, there is no such clear definition of “right to keep or terminate pregnancies” in the constitution.

    3. Big vs Small govt. – You seem to be confused on this issue as well. You cite obviously needed regulations like traffic signs that no one has a problem with other than anarchists. Rules and regulations are needed in a civil society, but those things you use as examples of government are on city, county and otherwise local levels and should stay that way, including gun regulations. Big government is when the federal government extends it’s boundaries and reach to the state, county, city and personal levels, as it is trying to do with all this new and unnecessary proposed gun regulation.

    4. Most of your other examples of “when big government is ok for conservatives” is mostly stereotypical bigotry as it assumes conservatives are all religious. However, on what planet do you live on that one should not have to prove they are a citizen in order to vote? Sorry, but as per the constitution, being a US citizen is a requirement in order to legally vote on US matters and elections. Therefore, one must provide proof of citizenship before they get to vote. Voting is a right, reserved for US citizens only. Sorry.

    • Shacea

      Crap crap crap. Spoken like a true redumblican asshole

  • SP2912

    Damn I am just reading this one… *standing ovation while hopping on one leg*

  • Eidolonkami

    Abortion isn’t a constitutionally protected right. Roe v. Wade established a precedent for a woman’s right to abort a fetus; it did NOT write that right into law, which is why attacks on abortion is so scary: there IS NO LEGISLATION right now protecting it, only limiting it. :(

  • http://www.facebook.com/ron.althoff.1 Ron Althoff

    no offense, but as an independent voter, i am here to remind you that neither democrats nor republicans have anything to brag about in their agendas.

  • WarMaker

    I found this on the interwebs on a discussion about Obamacare where some TP types were rehashing bs talking points. I thought y’all might enjoy it.

    Wish I could bronze it.
    ———————

    I was just thinking. You know what really livens up a Tea Party? My Fact Fist™. This very moment I can actually hear the rusty portcullis in your brains slamming shut. I understand that you don’t want to hear anything that challenges your misinformed conclusions. And that’s okay. It just makes this a fair trade, because I’m sick of hearing your astro-turf funded faux patriotic stupidity. So pay attention like you’re watching Honey Boo Boo wiping out on a pair of water skis while trying to stick the landing after jumping her mother’s floating front butt. No? Okay, then how about a drunken strip tease by Michelle Malkin just before getting DP’d like a rotisserie chicken by Sean Hannity and Bret Baier? No? What if she just scissors Sarah Palin then? And that’s my final analogy. Damn. Tough crowd.

    Moving on. First of all, ‘Obamacare’ is ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ (PPACA) or just the ACA for short. And it was authored by the GOP under Clinton. Remember him? Probably not considering Mark Sanford was re-elected, but that’s off topic. Anyways, Bill Clinton wanted to pass a law requiring all employers to pay for their employee’s healthcare. The GOP killed it and authored their own solution that shifted the responsibility to the employees. Looking out for the ‘job creators’ as usual. And Mitt Romney, that moron you were stuck voting for because Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaigns sunk faster than the RMS Lusitania, actually implemented it in Massachusetts. Well, you didn’t really vote for Mitt, you were just voting against Obama. Because… He’s a Marxist Kenyan socialist double agent for the Muslim brotherhood.

    Anyway, the GOP writing this legislation is not really important. The need to reform the system was common sense. Or ‘uncommon sense’ for anyone here who reads Voltaire. Who am I bullshitting? His books didn’t have any pictures and most of you think that sounds like playing cards alone with four AAA batteries up your ass. Regardless, what is important is that uninsured Americans using emergency rooms is the most expensive healthcare on planet earth. By law, they have to be treated, and when they don’t pay, the hospital has to be reimbursed from the general Medicaid fund. Still don’t get it? How about this: YOU HAVE TO PAY BOTH HIGHER HEALTHCARE COSTS AND TAXES TO REIMBURSE HOSPITALS FOR UNINSURED PATIENTS WHO DEFAULT ON THEIR BILLS. Of course there’s other coverage benefits and cost savings. But let’s be honest. If you had any inclination to think for yourselves, you’d have read it and made an independent assessment instead of regurgitating Fox News talking points.

    So excuse me while I put on a heavy pair of boots and stomp the living shit out of these loosely crafted myths you assholes cling to like baby monkeys dangling above a tank full of starving piranhas. The only people who oppose limitations on insurance company profit margins are insurance companies, and those they pay exorbitantly to lobby congressmen. Along with pharmaceutical companies, they make billions exploiting sickness and suffering. And all you do is support them by waving misspelled signs and crying about the constitution, even after the Supreme Court has already ruled that the ACA is constitutional. And good luck trying to repeal the ACA for the 37th fucking time. The fact that you can’t repeal it unless you can propose a viable method of reform to replace it will just be my little secret. And the fact that these meaningless votes prove your predisposition to failure as a political ‘movement,’ along with the sad truth that collectively, your ‘party’ is just a herd of hateful, retarded sheep trained to proudly defend the wealthy farmers fucking them behind their gold-plated barns… Well… THAT really isn’t a secret to anyone. You’re fucking dismissed.

  • 19 yr old conservative

    now continuing the discussion of partisan/left-right politics and america… they are honestly two words that never should have been in the same sentence.

    America was founded to be a “government for the people, by the people”. Well, it has become “for the poor/lazy/unemployed, by the rich/hard working”

    here’s the issue with this whole neo-socialistic liberalism that people are into today, and its the same issue that has been the undoing of EVERY SOCIALISTIC STATE EVER. socialism is a “good” idea at its core. but in reality, it is IMPOSSIBLE. SOCIALISM IS AN IMPOSSIBLE, UN-SELFSUSTAINABLE SYSTEM.

    i’m sorry liberals, but not everyone is good. not everyone is willing to work hard to help his fellow countrymen. not everyone is honest.

    socialism, when implented at any level, makes every body more equal… as in more equally poor. except for the people who run the system.

    the direction america is headed in totally SICKENS me, and the fact that people who claim to be “intelligent”, “researched”, and “involved” with politics support it is beyond comprehension.

    in my next statements i refer to “I” as anyone, and “you” as everyone else who is not “anyone”.

    my hard earned cash, that i labored and struggled for, woke up early in the morning and worked late in to the night some nights for, does NOT belong in YOUR bank account. That money is rightfully mine, and the fact that you are just too god damn fucking lazy to get a job does NOT entitle you to it.

    i know some people have harder times and worse situations. BOO FUCKING HOO i’ll call the damn WHAAAA-mbulance for you. everyone’s life isn’t as good as the next guy’s life, and thats just how life is. the populace of america needs to grow up and realize that.

    i shouldn’t have to support the hoodlum drug addict who can’t hold down a job. i shouldn’t have to support the single mom with 6 kids by 4 different men. and the one that pisses me off the most… i shouldn’t have to support god damn illegal immigrants.

    • Dave

      Does your mom know you are trolling political sites? Just because you made a long comment doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about. Go play a video game. Adults are talking.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      how about starting with getting rid of voodoo( religion) in politics??

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — There’s Not Much That’s Funnier Than a Republican Confronted With Facts()

  • jazz4ya

    Good points in this article. I think, however, that it would still be a waste of time to show this to Republicans with the kind of commitment they have to “The Big Lie”! This is nothing short of Ivy League Commitment to the discriminatory practices of “Ivy League Commitments”. LOL It is about money for the “haves”, by limiting the benefits of established programs that help the middle class and poor…or “have nots”. Nothing has changed since 1776 – here in America – until we got our first President of a different ethnicity than the prior 43 out of 44. And…everybody, regardless of party affiliation…voted for him – TWICE! I think the common denominator is within the MANDATE and AGENDA FOR CHANGE that the people are demanding. We need a government that responds to the needs of PEOPLE, not lobbyists, contractors or focus groups. When a law is passed…it must FIRST…benefit PEOPLE! Any product, corporation, or business concern that elicits favor from this government, (the people)…should always be looked at FIRST for the BENEFIT that it provides the CITIZENS of this country! I mean, since these exceptions usually are requests for grants; for exclusions from being taxed; for subsidies; or for some other benefit of inclusion – or even exclusion…they wind up being an expense on the nation’s economy – or monetary finances of the PEOPLE! A lot must change…and you can’t CHANGE, if your party’s objective is to continue granting all the exceptions and amenities of partisan wealth and politics to only those who continue to “meet” the criteria of inclusion or exclusion…and who are willing to sacrifice their position in the interests of adhering to partisan concepts, beliefs, and principles.

  • Steve Dudzinski

    Its getting a Conservative to read this entire article thats nearly impossible !! They won’t admit to doing anything wrong, or hurting our Country with their obstructionist actions.

    • Shacea

      Amen..good grief. And its their way or the highway. Their opinions are golden and liberals are idiots. NOT

  • normalice

    having not a lot of conservative friends, I’ll say that there is no political piece anywhere that I will share with them, especially a liberal piece, unless it is: polite, well referenced, articulate, and as much as possible, unbiased (that is to say, it at least acknowledges that we know what their perspective is and why).

    Anything else and they will simply not read it. And once they have not read it, they will further never read anything I ever send their way ever again, because that’s how conservatives are.

  • Robert

    Gun rights:

    When assault weapons are banned, violent crime goes up. This may not be a causation, but in America, it is a pretty strong correlation. On top of that, in America, more people are beaten to death than killed by assault weapons. We’d save more lives by requiring everyone to wear boxing gloves.

  • Robert

    Abortion:

    I don’t disagree with your stance on abortion, but I do disagree with your statement that “Abortion is a Constitutionally protected right. That isn’t debatable.” I assume that you are basing this on Roe v. Wade. First of all, their decision to protect abortion based on the Constitution was derived, rather than explicitly stated in the Constitution, so yes, it is up for debate. Claiming that it is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court said so is an appeal to authority, and proves nothing. Second, the Supreme Courts decision that people have a right to privacy, to do with their own bodies what they want to do, has not been consistent. Given that people have the right to what they want with their own bodies, drug consumption should not be illegal. However, it is illegal.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      not drugs known as alcohol and nicotine

  • Robert

    No Big Intrusive Government

    The private market could handle all of those things better and cheaper if government was not involved at all, and if you want to debate me on any of those things, I’m down. Let’s go.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      who regulates them when human greed digs it heels into making profits?

  • Robert

    Tax Cuts

    While it’s true that they don’t create jobs, they certainly help. Let’s think about this logically. The common worker would not be employed without employers. When taxes are cut, the employers have more money to spend. They can hire more workers, expand the business, or raise wages. These are all good things.

  • Stephanie

    Thank you, Allen, for writing this. I think you did a beautiful job. Now, I’m off to “stir the pot” with some of my facebook friends by sharing this. :)

  • Pat McGrew

    I think I am falling in love with you! LOL

  • evenstevens

    “Attention all Fox News Sheeple:

    Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away. He said he wants universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on assault weapons (a ban that every Republican President in the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bushhas supported).”

    I agree with all of them too. So do most of the NRA membership, and I dare say, so would most of the thieves, hit men, mercenaries and militia types, if they would come forward to vote on it.

    Why then do the gun regulation lobby and supporters always fail to mention the constantly insisted upon national gun registry when dreaming up other excuses why so many of the above are against the actual gun control that is up for consideration? Can’t compromise on the registry thing? Then you want more than background checks and are willing to obfuscate that fact in order to “win” a blog argument. This is not a case of lofty ideals winning out, but dishonesty in debate.

    Expect unnecessary resistance if background checks were all you truly sought, but couldn’t shed that registry idea.

  • Kiltedbear

    I’ve tried these arguments before. In the end, it just makes them cling to their irrational factless belief even harder. In the face of evidential fact even presented with links for verification, they will say that you are “drinking the koolaid” and go along in their merry little blissfully ignorant way. Some people just do not want to know the truth if they can cling to a lie that validates their very incorrect belief.

  • Pingback: Questions and Truths You Can Share With Your “Conservative” Friends…….. | Just Sayin'()

  • nothern sympathizer

    I feel so sorry for intelligent, worldly Americans who have to deal with so many ignorant idiots who don’t even have a passport. In other democracies, the Republican party would have been voted out of existence after the financial crisis in 2008.

  • Dennis L. Cooley

    I read a lot of comments re: Unions; and, greedy corporations sending jobs overseas. Indiana, where I reside, has passed a right to work law. Our state does not have a budget deficit or debt and is currently running a cash surplus in the billions of dollars range. The best selling American Made (85% of it anyway) car in the United States is a Toyota Camry, made in Indiana. The non-union workers producing those vehicles a NOT screaming about being mistreated or underpaid. When unions were formed in this country, they were desperately needed. Now they accomplish two main things. They reduce accountability and raise costs. With the exception of a non-productive worker being protected, most everything unions fought for in the beginning is now LAW. You complain about companies shipping jobs overseas. The U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world and for decades the government has protected unions and unleveled the playing field between labor and management. Then add in the NON ELECTED bureaucrats in the EPA, OSHA and the Dept. of Labor creating “rules” (laws) and enforcing them without Congress having voted on them. That’s called Tyranny for the under educated. Couple that with the liberal position of lax border control allowing millions of undocumented workers to enter the U.S., and obtain jobs and scratch your heads to figure out why jobs went overseas and wages have declined. PROFIT IS NOT A DIRTY WORD! Three or four old white guys do not own GM or Ford. If you have a retirement plan or a 401K, you are almost certainly part owner of those companies and many others. Millions of American investors own the corporations. You, who call yourselves liberal, need to rely more on facts instead of name calling and political rhetoric.

  • Ydoc

    Partisanship is destroying us.

  • Juan Lopez

    The information is good, but the tone is too based. You could never get a conservative to read past the third line, and why should they?

    Arguments aren’t effective unless you can get people to read them. You should replace the criticism with sarcasm and other less offensive forms of humour.

  • Holly Murphy

    Much of this is BS but the only thing I have time to touch on is the fact that the word “abortion” is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution.

  • cowcharge

    TO THE “AUTHOR”:
    Any real conservative to whom I showed this would just laugh at its absurdity. Because it doesn’t discuss anything at all about what real, POLITICAL conservatives think or believe.

    Since you use the meaningless term “assault weapons” and consider “good ol’ boys” representative of the mainstream pro-2nd Amendment mindset, you are clearly ignorant of most everything to do with firearms. Therefore your opinion on firearms is invalid, and need not be addressed.

    As for the rest of your nonsense, stop equating “conservative” with “Republican”. They do not mean the same thing. Any more than “liberal” and “Democrat” mean the same thing. And while you’re at it, stop equating “social conservative” with “conservative”.

    Religious fanatics are NOT conservative. They may decide to be Republicans, but they are NOT conservative with respect to politics. Social conservatism and political conservatism are mutually exclusive, by definition. Social conservatives are FOR big, intrusive government slapping people’s knuckles with rulers, exactly the opposite of real, political conservatives.

    The war on drugs, to a real conservative, is a waste of money, morally wrong, and frankly, harms the species.

    Yes, real conservatives hate big, intrusive government. Government has its fingers in far too many pies, and has far too much control of the population.

    Real conservatives do however recognize that local and federal governments are needed to fill certain needs. Duh. Like providing a military force, police, firemen, schools and roads. Duh. No one outside of militia or anarchist cults thinks that the government should be totally abolished. So snidely “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-ing” that tired old line about schools and roads (schools and roads that everyone already accepts as a proper function of gov’t, duh, dimwit) is just a childish example of reductio ad absurdum. It ignores and tries to silence the entire debate (a favorite ‘liberal” tactic), which is “how much government is too much?” Real conservatives think we have much too much already (but it ain’t firemen we object to spending money on, dimwit). Trying to reduce the conservative viewpoint to “any government is too much” fools no one but stupid, closed-minded demdrones, and acting like you believe it just makes you look like a fool who doesn’t get it.

    Yes, real conservatives dislike overtaxation. They dislike the government inefficiency, waste and corruption that exacerbates the overtaxation. They dislike the connected rich when they unfairly avoid taxes, like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel. They also really hate industrial subsidies and corporate tax loopholes, like those enjoyed by Obama Jobs Czar Jeffy Immelt’s GE, and King Angus’ First Wind. Who but an idiot wouldn’t?

    They do however believe that all else being equal, tax cuts are better than tax hikes. The government doesn’t have the automatic right to take a cut of every transaction performed in this country, or to try to spend their way out of every perceived “problem” that they get themselves into.

    Corporate tax cuts can directly create jobs, personal income tax cuts mostly cannot, except for incidental jobs.

    The debt ceiling IS about spending. It’s about not spending such absurd amounts of money that the debt ceiling must continue to be raised! What is so hard to understand? Stop spending money like an S.S. agent in a Colombian whorehouse!

    Who but an idiot or a comfy government employee would prefer that the government take MORE of our money to spend on $600 toilet seats and Vegas parties for the IRS? They simply can’t be trusted to spend our money wisely, they have proven this again and again.

    Republicans are NOT the party of small government. Not the Republicans in charge, anyway. You know, like the ones who discounted primary votes for Ron Paul because he WAS for small government. Those “Republicans”. It’s simple, they’re just not conservative. However, many, many, MANY Republican CITIZENS are for smaller government.

    Gay rights? Abortion? REAL conservatives are for all the rights they can get, for every citizen, gay, straight, black, white, whatever. Period. It is dictated by the “more freedom and less government intrusion in people’s private lives is GOOD” principle, and the “we don’t write law from the Bible” principle.

    They are also for all the responsibility they can get for every citizen. If you can work, you will work. If you infringe on someone else’s rights through crime, you’re gonna be held accountable.

    Let this be “The Article Every Conservative Needs To Show a Liberal”.

  • Vicki Trusselli

    well i am the black sheep of my family because i am the democrat and the libtard. so be it.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      black sheep are moving this country away from the atavistic control of regressives

  • Fudgewart

    I have a conservative pen pal, and i can tell you these arguments don’t make a dent on the conservative mind, because I have not only made all of them, but followed them up with studies and data, and he just refuses to believe anything he isn’t brainwashed in to. We need to address the brainwashing machine the right has going.

  • yzzlthtz

    You need a paragraph for “Climate change is a socialist fraud”

  • Joe Blunt Ltp

    Great post. Please consider writing a similar piece summarizing progressive ideals: what are they and why are they good?

  • David Watson

    RE: Procreation is not a requirement for the right to marry… You mean dogs don’t have to marry to turn out puppies? Wow. You would have thought a conservative could grasp that.

  • David Watson

    RE: Republicans are the Party of Small Government – Unless that big government regulates: When life is created.

    You missed on your list:

    How that life was created (NO test tubes) and in what position (Missionary ONLY) on only white sheets.

    Making sure that there is no Humming when that said life is was created.

    And No gear interfering when said life was created (NO commie Ribbed Condoms used) .

    My point: They want Big Brother in your bed room making sure you do everything to their liking, with the right person, in the right position, and NO toe tapping or having fun while you do it. After all Sex is for only making kids, not having fun according to the latest Tea party scuttlebutt. If you want to have fun according to them- you should go read a book.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      yesssssir!!! that’s one reason they are shrinking as populace

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1301564078 Tom Kidd

    Daddy always said “Tommy Joe, never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig!” That’s why I never argue with the GOP. :D

  • Nancy McCarthy Baker

    Yes, I told a former classmate “fuck you” today on facebook. Not too nice and I’m sure it got me zero points. So, I need to find an intelligent way to bitch slap a dumbass.

  • A. Nuran

    To be fair the the “assault weapons” ban Obama pushed for was expanded monstrously over Clinton’s 1994 Ugly Gun Ban. It didn’t have anything to do with crime prevention. It was all about banning nearly all rifles that weren’t bolt action, all shotguns that weren’t break-open or pump, and just about all self-loading pistols. It included every scary cosmetic feature that got Dianne Feinstein’s pulse rate above 40. It banned parts. It banned giving away or selling scary-looking firearms. It was a mess. And gun owners quite rightly thought “If this is the first cut, what comes next?” Documents released somewhat later included White House discussions saying registration would be necessary to make the measure effective. And there is precedent for “just registration” leading to confiscation.

  • LunchMoney

    Can’t really let it end on 665!

  • http://davidscottmoyer.wordpress.com david moyer

    No conservative will get past the masthead of the article before they dismiss it entirely.

  • karen_d

    “If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ”, don’t forget that Jesus was the epitome of a socialist.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      “there u go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,” ———– annoying regressive religious idiots with facts

  • Phil

    Some good points but mostly hypocritical crap. The article attacks Republican “generalizations” but then makes numerous generalizations itself. All republicans are trying to eliminate programs that help the poor and sick? C’Mon….

  • Connie Kay

    Best article yet!!!

  • Cos2mwiz

    Sitting in a Veteran’s Admin office yesterday here in FL and spied a RIFLEMEN magazine on the table. Cover: “How to Save Your Guns from King Pinnochio” – The gun nut right’s disconnect from reality is so far off the charts it’s outrageous.

  • Ma

    You’re confusing conservatives and Republicans. They are not the same thing. I’m a Libertarian with conservative values.

    YES! I want the government out of marriage, period. I don’t think we need MORE laws to make same sex marriage legal. We need LESS laws that make it illegal.

    Libertarians are fiscally responsible. I agree that REPUBLICANS are not. Democrats and Republicans are the same when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Check the definition of “conservative” because I’m pretty sure it covers finances. Republicans are not all conservatives. Democrats aren’t all liberals.

    Conservatives oppose the programs that help poor, etc because they aren’t doing what they’re intended. There is a lot of fluff involved when the government is involved. I would donate a lot more money to charities of MY choice if the government didn’t take so much of my money (taxes) to pay for programs that don’t work.

    Relative to Democrats, Republicans do want a smaller government. However, Libertarians want the smallest government possible.

    I laugh at your argument for abortion. Right after you are ok with the limits placed on the 2nd amendment. But abortion is a constitution right. More than the 2nd amendment is?

    So, the debt ceiling – remember when BO was a senator and said he considered it a failure of the administration to raise it? Oh, oops. CUT SPENDING. Don’t take on more debt. Why shouldn’t the government be forced to live like the rest of us? If I’m short on money, I make cuts. I don’t call up my credit card company and say, “I’m raising my credit limit.”

    What do roads and public schools have to do with the government telling me what I’m allowed to eat/drink, what kind of car I’m allowed to drive on those roads, etc? Not to mention, everything the NSA is doing.

    You know what happens when you raise taxes on businesses (especially small businesses)? They lay people off. They raise prices.

  • Susan Gray

    Another informed opinion from a kool-aid drinker

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      love regressive white trash crybabies using old republican aphorisms,,,,,

  • Mark Grenoble

    Dont even know where to begin on this stupidity. He states “Obama never said he was going to take your hunting rifles or handguns away”. Ok Idiot. Handguns kill over 100 X’s the people “assault weapons” do a year. Second they are NOT assault weapons. They are the same as any other semi auto hunting rifle but they just look scary to you. They fire no faster than my pistols or most hunting rifles. If you’re referring to the dreaded AR-15 my pistols fire a much bigger and more dangerous round. At close range the pistol is more dangerous and faster to reload. The AR’s advantage is in long range shooting which is not the issue inside a school or mall. Second the average hunting shotgun is MUCH more deadly than either of the above at close range. So why do we want to register or ban assault weapons again? The DOJ and the CDC did a study on the last assault weapons ban and both concluded they did not have any noticeable effect on crime rates or deaths by guns. So nothing but a complete waste of time and resources that did nothing to keep anyone safer at all. But it makes the sheep feel better. So now I am waiting does someone want tell me why we should ban a weapon that is hardly ever used in crimes, is less dangerous than the ones the author says we can keep? Waiting. Is it because they are scary looking?

  • Mark Grenoble

    Could write a book on the other “points” he makes

  • Impartial

    The amount of propaganda in this article is impressive.

  • Dave

    I gave up sugarcoating political arguments a long time ago.

  • Grant Zane Fowler

    No offense dude… but I seriously doubt your article will convince conservatives. It clearly insults them in several places, which is no way to convince someone of your opinion.

  • 44spamm

    I’m completely pro-choice, but abortion shamefully is NOT a constitutionally protected right. It is the result of a supreme court decision, (Roe v. Wade) but the constitution was not amended to protect it.

    • David Shaw Jr

      Read the ninth amendment.

  • Larry Swain

    Your explanation of the debt ceiling is better than Republicans’ but still way off. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with the president. It is a limitation Congress imposed on itself. Congress controls the purse strings. The president does not establish spending or borrowing levels. All he can do is jawbone Congress to act responsibly and pay for the spending it demanded through legislation. So you can’t say how many times Reagan or Bush or Obama raised the debt ceiling. They all did it exactly zero times.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      “there u go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,” ——– annoying regressive rightwingers with facts

  • Vranesh

    There’s an ad right in the middle of this that says “Single and Christian?!? Click here!!”

    Wrong audience. Very.

  • Roger Cotton

    Progressivism is one part emotions, one part delusion, and all parts crazy. What sort of pathology drives a Progressive is rooted in the need to have ‘Control over Others.’

    The term, Prognitive Dissonance perfectly captures just how out of touch with reality they really are.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      you don’t think this applies to regressive white trash religious scum?

  • pcttrailer

    I agree with most of this…but the cavalier way the author deals with abortion…”you might not agree with abortion, you might think it’s murder”…”it really doesn’t matter”…it really doesn’t matter? Because it’s protected by the constitution? Slavery was protected by the constitution for decades…it really doesn’t matter? Why don’t we think about this for a bit…what say we keep abortion legal (for now), but why don’t we agonize about it a bit? Why don’t we recognize there are good people who are torn over this and sympathize with them even though we disagree? Why don’t we all work together to end unwanted pregnancy?

  • Codycote

    Problem with this is, they will NEVER stray from their beliefs. Regardless of the facts. Maybe even in spite of the facts! They believe what they believe simply because they believe it. That’s what’s just so darn frustrating!

  • htmn74

    NO ONE is going to buy this article. This doesn’t sound like America. I love this part… “Procreation is not a requirement for the right to marry, nor are those who procreate required to get married.” But at the rate we’re going it’s going to come to that. This country will soon need to require a license to have a sexual relationship.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      only in states controlled by extremist regressive republican religious trash

  • Julie Sipes

    The lack of jobs has not been due to a “supply” problem, or shortage at the “top”. Corporations have been sitting on record profits and the stock market has tripled since the recession and LOWEST TAXES IN DECADES. The problem is lack of “viable demand” (disposable.income at the “bottom”). It’s about the LAW OF CIRCULATION. That’s why our economy’s been stagnant. “Trickle-down economics” doesn’t work. Check out an income-disparity graph over the past 30 years…. (“Job Creators” my a–!!)

  • Julie Sipes

    I firmly believe that without some kind of government intervention on the economy there would be no middle class.

  • John

    Redistribution of wealth has occurred…into the hands of the rich….the entire time the rich were complaining that they weren’t getting their share, they were taking more and more…The Reagan era…such an American shame

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      bingo

  • James FireStarter Stowell

    Exactly what Constitutional Amendment are you citing to substantiate your argument about abortion. Please provide that information. I am only aware of a court case…Roe v. Wade (1972). To the best of my knowledge there is no Constitutional Amendment regarding abortion.

    • David Shaw Jr

      Try the ninth amendment.

  • d

    I am now dumber for reading this article

  • Bruce

    Most of these statements merely point out hypocrisy within the Republican party. So, I don’t see how they’d change anybody’s opinion on the substance.

    Also, in regards to the argument concerning big government, that’s easy; there is a difference between big and small government, and anarchy. They are for small government, not no government.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      smaller govt? the ones at the state level which side step roe V wade by making it near impossible to get an abortion? or state rights to gerrymander lads so the vote is altered –hiding behind a near nonexistent “voter fraud” ( note– where were all these conservatives with this canard PRIOR to jan 2009???)
      smaller govt? trying to imbue religion in legislation on the state level??

  • Kevin Gaiser

    …getting at liberal ignorance…
    Like the ingorance of referencing hunting rifles and handguns in discussing a ban on “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines? Why would hunting rifles be a discussion point when the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting? Why would handguns be okay when they are used in 13,000 homicides a year while rifles are used in about 350? And that is rifles in general. There is some liberal ignorance displayed:
    -The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting
    -rifles are not the issue, and the data supports that
    -The term “assault weapon” is a created one
    -the 30 rd magazine is the std capacity magazine for an AR-15
    -high capacity as a term does not mean more than 10 rds
    Why ban a rifle when the handgun is clearly the issue?

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      we should ask the NRA
      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but- ar 15 is a serious weapon which most ( nearly all) police on the street fear and wish was gone

  • Ben Blackhawk

    I have noticed that so-called “progressives” are getting increasingly testy about the fact that conservatives still have free speech in this country. This article could be edited down to one sentence: “Hey conservatives, you’re stupid and wrong, says ME(click on the link for more details), so shut up!”

    But then I realize that “progressives” are looking ahead to the 2014 elections when O-bossy-care could likely be the deciding factor in Dems losing the Senate. Yeah I can see how that would make them cranky. If I were them I would want conservatives to shut up, too.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      would this include the regressive rightwing imbeciles “freedom of speech” to include crying about equality? ( see: marriage) (see: man made institution; NOT any GOD made union) I don’t like when the rights which regressive religious “conservatives” have had forever and are now being given to all( see: equality/ pursuit of happiness) and the religious( see: VOODOO) crybabies bemoan it as secular satanic lack of virtues. all religion should be abolished on a social level- private? no problem, social? well; lets look at mankinds record(s) with what and how religions have screwed us all and slowed our progress as a species.
      religious freedom is a joke: so– maybe I have a “religion” which allows me to not allow ant=y religious humans to walk in my sight? or: maybe I can have my “religion” not pay state/federal tax? or– bitch about a chapel being built too near something else ( see: mosque ‘invasion’)
      religion is cancer…. GOD is awesome!!! religion is rat shit

  • Swope

    This person is an idiot.
    I refuse to agree to disagree when twisted facts are published out of
    emotion instead of intellect. He states
    incorrect facts just how he blames “Radical Republicans” are doing. What happened to fair and balanced.

    1.) 2nd Amendment rights do not say anything about hunting guns. “A well
    regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right
    of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It talks about the right to protect our ability to keep the government from getting out of control. Only way to do this is to have high capacity magazines and assault rifles. We are still at a disadvantage because we do not own automatic rifles, missiles, nukes etc.

    2.) Not going to comment on same sex marriage. That is between you and God and you can explain to him why you chose that life. Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

    3.) Republicans: Christian values: There is not a single republican that wants
    to cut spending on the sick, and needy. Obama has cut 716 million from the Medicare budget this year alone. Looks like Left wing is the one cutting sick
    and needy spending and giving to lazy people. Here is a Christian value straight from the scriptures. 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13 “For even when we
    were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall
    not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not
    busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.”

    4.) National Debt: Doesn’t matter how many time you raise debt,
    only how much you raise it. Facts can be twisted any way you want.

    Ronald Reagon increased 1.8 Trillion
    Bush Senior 1.4 Trillion
    Clinton 1.4 Trillion
    Bush Jr 6.0 Trillion (2 terms, bailed out greedy americans who couldn’t pay their mortgage and banks who invested poorly.) The money that the car companies and banks borrowed has since been paid back.

    Obama 6.0 Trillion (Only one term recorded so far.)

    5.) Abortion: Should not be regulated by the government. If you want to kill your baby, go ahead. Just don’t expect me to pay you to do it or pay for your medical bills.

    6.) Debt Ceiling: We have budgeted money for paying our bills. This was a twist on words by the Obama administration to make it seem like raising the ceiling was necessary. They just refused to make other budget cuts that are less important than the national debt bills.

    Tax Cuts: Who decides how much someone should pay for a product / Service. How is it fair that the harder someone works, the more the government takes. This promotes people to be lazy and unproductive. A flat tax percentage is the only fair way to a tax. Why should some pay 10% and
    another pay 40% of their income for the same benefits of voting, paved streets, stoplights, public schools etc.

    Unemployment is multifactorial. You have one thing correct, unemployment is based on demand, that is how much people demand to work. Unemployement was between 4.5-6 % under Bush administration and has Ranged form 7.6 – 10% under Obama. Could it be that people don’t need / want to work due to free programs?????

  • Matt

    This is absolutely ridiculous and I am going to explain in very simple terms WHY it is. 1) Not all republicans are conservatives…….no way/no how. Matter of fact, most big R Republicans share more in common with the left than they do with conservatives and this is proven by their voting record and policies. 2) The Right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This does not only apply to hunting weapons and I don’t care WHAT former republican has said or done……..the constitution is not up for debate by EITHER party. 3) Gay Marriage. Marriage isn’t a “right.” And marriage was defined by government(See Bill Clinton.) If everyone wants marriage to be equal then get government out of marriage. Done and Done. 4) Sanctity of marriage. Marriage between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same. I don’t care what anyone says. They can’t pro-create. Even Darwin knew this. We don’t force people to believe things in a free society. We will TOLERATE this but we will never accept it as equal, because IN FACT it is not. Hell, even gay people know their relationships aren’t the same as heterosexual ones…….but with that said, they should still be able to pledge their life and their belongings to anyone they choose. 5) “If you want to say you’re the party of “Christian values” and you worship Jesus Christ… Start by helping the sick, the poor, the needy—not opposing programs that do.” This is where compassion vs compulsion comes in to play. These “programs” create dependence. True charity comes from the heart, not from the force of law from government. See, taxes and social benefit programs alleviate charity and the sense of community from a society. We no longer look out for our communities because we just say “my taxes will do that” and then wash our hands of it. No person should incur debt simply because someone else exists. Your freedom to be you is also my freedom to be free from you. 6) Main stream Republicans are NOT against big government. Why do you think those same republicans are demonizing the Tea Party folks? True conservatives and libertarians ARE for limited and constitutionally accountable government. 7) Abortion is a constitutionally protected right. This has to be the dumbest comment on the list. NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ABORTION. Legalized abortion was created by CASE LAW and CASE LAW does not trump constitutional precedent OR amend the constitution in any way. 8) The fact that he uses roads to justify big government is a joke. Interstate highways ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION of our federal gov’t. This in no way justifies everything else they do that is unconstitutional. 9) Tax cuts DO create jobs because it frees up capital. The left would have you believe in trickle UP economics. But you know who gets screwed in that process? The middle class. Why? Because money is taken from them and the wealthy to redistribute to the lower class. The lower class then spends that money at businesses or aka “the wealthy.” It completely bypasses the middle class in the redistribution process.

    • David Shaw Jr

      If procreation is a requisite for getting married then why are people who are infertile, don’t want children, or the elderly allowed to marry?

      • Matt

        Ah see, I never said it was a pre-requisite for getting married. I said that when comparing the “equality” of the relationship. The dynamics surrounding the physical relationship are NOT the same and any gay person would agree to that……..pretty obvious actually.

  • Eric Longstreet

    If I can not live the life I want, you can’t either.

  • Rachel Kendrick

    As a moderate (but leaning conservative), I agree with most of what’s in this article. I do take issue with the abortion stance as listed here, because it assumes that law is enough to decide what’s moral and ethical. You would think that, being generally ethical beings, we wouldn’t be arguing to diminish the sanctity of life at any stage of development unless it endangers the life of another (i.e. THE last resort), but alas, some want the option of terminating a life only because saving it would be an inconvenience. The problem that I have with pro-choicers is not that they want the option, but that they want the option simply because of the ease of it. Life then becomes valuable only if it’s wanted, when life should really be an intrinsic value. So… Good article, mostly.

  • Nancy Bird

    Great arguments. Thanks

  • Michael

    These talking points are just getting tired. There is a little truth in all these points but I suggest each of you research the topics of this article and make up your own minds. Not just from Progressive or Far Right news sources but clearer minds. After the last two presidents I believe you shouldn’t just nod your head and say “yeah, that sounds good” but actually look something up. Remember you get the government you deserve.

  • Jen Adamo

    “sometimes you hit a point where you can no longer sugarcoat your political arguments. As you hear the same asinine statements constantly repeated, you just hit a point where you want to stand up and say, “Look you babbling buffoon, let me spell it out for you very simply.”
    Sometimes?
    This is all the time for me. There’s NO excuse for people being so stupid and i will not suffer fools gladly. I will call a dumbass a dumbass.

  • Steven

    As a conservative – I’ll respond.
    1) Your argument against firearms ownership is full of false stereotypes. It’s not “high capacity” magazines and it’s not for sport.
    2) I am not a (R) vs (D) kind of guy – I think the (R) party is equally guilty of many of the same issues I have with all politicians.
    What works for them, and works against us (the people) is that we fall for that crap. We keep allowing ourselves to be silenced because “our guy did it too” – instead of actually holding them all to a standard of service, example, and to live by the laws they require us to adhere to.
    3) Abortion kills an unborn child. It was a created right, and was never spelled out anywhere in the Constitution nor BoR. All laws are legal, not all are moral.
    You probably noticed I skipped a few – it might surprise you to know I love my gay friends and don’t want to stick my nose into their lives. I love the sinner and hate the sin – they come to my house and we treat them like …. (gasp) … everyone else. The subject doesn’t come up.

    I also disagree with some of my friends, gay or not, on a lot of other issues – and on others we disagree. Generally, it’s considered impolite to invite someone over and corner them and try to coerce them to your point of view – whatever that view may be. So I don’t and neither do “they” (whoever they are).
    Hope that helps.

  • JadedWarrior

    If you’re conservative or libertarian, you read this piece and were left with the feeling you get when you ask someone what time it is, and they angrily tell you how to build a watch. The author thinks he refuted every right-wing argument out there easily, when he didn’t even try.
    Gun rights. Personally, I hate guns, but it doesn’t matter. Every time there’s a senseless gun incident, the Left proposes more laws to take the place of the ones that were already in place that did nothing to prevent it. It’s almost like a reflex – go after those who most responsibly own and use firearms. I would be open to gun restrictions, provided they begin with those who least follow gun laws – criminals. But the debate hardly ever goes there; instead, it goes to those who perpetrate the least amount of these acts. I’ve lost count of how many of my liberal friends have told me that they want to confiscate firearms, period. Obama may not want to, as Clifton claims – ostensibly – but many of the people who voted for him sure do. They’re perfectly fine with that stance, and never fail to tell me so. Lately, the majority of these incidents are perpetrated by those with severe mental issues. And, personally, I’m in favor of background checks, provided they begin with issues of mental illness. But when I raise this with my Leftist friends, they dismiss them as infringements on the rights of the mentally ill, with just as much vehemence as you get from Second Amendment supporters. It’s happened more times than I can recall. There is a middle ground here, and the Left needs to alter its stance just as much as the Right, a position that I suspect that Clifton will never concede or even acknowledge.
    Gay Marriage. The single most-mentioned response as to why people oppose Gay Marriage is not the sanctity of marriage, or mentions of God, as Clifton claims, but that it changes the MEANING of marriage. This reason generates more mention than any other, yet is not mentioned by Clifton, nor by most others advocates for the issue, and for a very specific reason. The reasons they cite instead are almost exclusively Fairness and Equality. There is actually a sizeable amount of people out there who would be open to an open debate on the issue of meaning, but the Left conspicuously avoids it, instead labeling anyone who opposes them or calls for such a conversation a bigot. At that point, debate ceases, which is what the Left usually wants all along.
    For those of us who are concerned with the issue of meaning, the argument is simple – if same-sex unions met the definition of marriage, they would have been included from the start, and the current debate would not be taking place. That it is is because Marriage has had a very specific meaning for the past five thousand years, and like it or not, it is a meaning that is firmly rooted in heterosexuality. Now, if you wish to include same-sex unions in marriage, well fine. At least acknowledge that they represent a change in meaning to what has been the case since societies began organizing. But the Left strenuously objects to this, choosing instead to focus exclusively on fairness and equality, and hey, who can be against those?
    To engage in a debate on meaning is to accept that marriage actually HAS HAD a meaning, and to accept that is to concede that it is a meaning that has up until now not included same-sex unions. And, in the end, advocates would need to concede that a definition of marriage that included same-sex unions is one that would be different than has been the case the past fifty centuries. And since a basic premise of advocates is that same-sex unions are no different than heterosexual ones, that flies in the face of that argument. So they avoid it, labeling anyone who tries to raise it a bigot. I’m a process person, and an issue as momentous as this deserves an open an honest debate, not one couched in obfuscation and evasiveness. I actually think that advocates are doing themselves and this issue a disservice by avoiding the issue of meaning. I and many others would actually accept a redefined meaning of marriage, but provided it is done with a spirit of honestly. If a new meaning of marriage is to eventually be accepted, a union of two consenting adults as opposed to a union of a man and a woman, society can adapt to that, but it will be much better served if that debate is conducted with openness, not the kind of politically correct dismissiveness that the Left currently is employing.
    Republicans are fiscally responsible. Fine, they’re not. But if you tout that, concede that Democrats are even less fiscally responsible. Claiming that your opponent is a hypocrite when you’re just as much one is no basis for building a political movement. When George W. Bush passed a prescription drug benefit, the liberals who railed against its fiscal irresponsibility forgot that the Left wanted an even bigger bill, and were perfectly willing not to pay for it either. The only president to preside over a balanced budget in recent memory was Bill Clinton, who was dragged kicking and screaming into fiscal stances by the first Republican Congress in forty years, and that was also with an economy fueled by an Internet bubble. To ignore that is to engage in a partisan pissing contest. Since then, all hell has broken loose, on both sides of the aisle, and our current president has increased debt to levels that have removed all seriousness from the conversation. Seventeen trillion? Unless the Left wants to own that one, it is just as guilty as those on the Right that it rails against.
    The debt ceiling? The only reason it keeps going up is to match the extra spending that Government voted and didn’t pay for, and you know it. Period. Stop the ridiculous argument to the contrary – everyone knows it, and both sides of the aisle are just as guilty.
    Trickle down? You can make a much better argument that it worked when Reagan tried it than trying to argue that Obamacare is working, which the Left never ceases to do. It’s like arguing our foreign policy is one rooted in strength and is working too, even as Putin gobbles up more of Ukraine. Funny about arguing whether something is working or not – when you go out of your way to claim that something works, odds are, it isn’t. And when you don’t need to argue the claim, odds are whatever it is actually is working. During the eighties, no one needed to constantly parade that the economy was working – people could see it on their own, with job growth that the Left would kill for today. And that was with thirty million people less in the country than today. Today, all the rhetoric in the world can’t hide the fact that Obamacare is NOTHING like what was promised, and that it was passed with lies that would force a Republican into impeachment.
    But considering the tone of Clifton’s piece, none of this matters to him and many on the Left. Very little of what I hear from my friends on the Right are things that he mentioned in his piece, and I suspect that is fine with him.

  • Yosemite

    You lost me at the protected right to kill babies thing. Before that I was almost saw a pattern of rational thought emerging.

  • Yosemite

    *I almost saw a pattern of…

  • Patrick Kettner

    The President and the rest of the Idiotic DeMs are RUINING this country more and more each day! As they tell you they are for the poor,….they have cut every single social program across the board!! From education, food stamps, unemployment—you name it, they have CUT IT!!! Now they are Raping and DESTROYING the health care system as they tell you that they care about your well being. High capacity rifles and extended clips are used in LESS than 1% of the shootings in this murderous country every year. In the mean time they have spent what??—11 TRILLION?? Name a republican who has damaged the US to the tune of 11 TRILLION—-YOU CANT!!!!!!!

    • Rob Bailey

      Take your meds. Turn of Fox News. Get a clue. Ah, what the hell – even if your 1% is accurate, what’s a few dozen six year-olds mowed down here and there in the big scheme of things. Lessee – 30,000 gun deaths a year – 1%… Just short of a person a day if my math is correct.

  • Brad

    I read this article. I am very conservative. I believe Abortion is murder but it is a constitutionally protected right. I believe taxes kill jobs, any taxes. I believe in a very small constitutional government. I prefer anarchy and self-governeance to rule and subject. I believe the answer to our problems lies in education, tolerance, and community. We all value life. We all value freedom. This two party system divides this tribe amongst it’s membership along lines with no correlation. I believe in the freedom of religion. I believe in the power of education. I don’t believe in the power of the state. We have safe roads because we have safe, caring, and responsible drivers, not because we have an inneficient and overreaching government. Quit trying to promote the idea of a great and powerful state. All of the great and powerful states in history have been barbaric, murderous, and unequal. What would make yours any different? I don’t want one and asking me to be forced to be subject to one is like telling a rape victim she can’t abort her child because someone disagrees with her decision. The same government your promoting would give parental rights to the father, the rapist. How can you live with that?

  • Tudy Flansburg

    dems always love to cut people up with insults. They cant just state their case. Gotta throw insults in there dont ya?

    • miketothad

      NOBODY plays the victim like a low-IQ right winger.

  • BkDodge42

    Lets start again with the first one. Since Liberals don’t like facts and prefer to claim that Conservatives are the ones that don’t like facts (Sounds like projection to me). Pres Obama’s comments about background checks are misleading.
    — President Obama, remarks on gun safety, March 28, 2013
    “FACT: Nearly 40% of all gun sales don’t require a background check under current law.

    The problem is that this is about 20 years old and the study took place before the Brady act so the data is out of date and now inaccurate but facts don’t count if it sounds so good.

  • Standefiant

    Your premise on the Second Amendment is incorrect. It has NOTHING to so with hunting. It only there so that WE THE PEOPLE can defend ourselves against oppression whether it comes from a foreign or domestic source is irrelevant. So banning the “assault weapon” goes against ALL that the second amendment was created for.

  • doridietz

    Not all conservatives watch Fox news. Here is my conservative view. Government needs to be significantly smaller. Americans need to stop depending on government to take care of them. Yes i drove in the roads today. That my overtaxed dollar overpaid some worker to just patch. Abortion being a constitutional right is as stupid as birth control being a right. Grow up people. Take care of yourselves.
    If I want an weapon regardless of what type. I should have that right. I will pass whatever background check out there. Don’t infringe on my right to own as much ammo on whatever choice of weapon I want because you are uncomfortable with weapons. Regulate welfare so that it’s a temporary assistance and not a lifestyle. Improve the ridiculous public school systems to teach children education not political agenda.

    • miketothad

      “Conservatives” don’t have to watch Fox news to be just as civically ignorant.

  • Stephen Barlow

    A lot of truth in all that.

  • openminded_montanan

    Here’s a thought-For the so-called “job creators”. Just like our local economic development organizations who receive their funding tied to jobs created, hold their feet to the fire. Fine them for sending jobs overseas. Make them live up to their false advertising.
    Elect representatives who aren’t either already in their private club or really want to be. Take ownership of our country and our government.

  • Mike

    I’ll add the Republican argument that the free market economy will regulate health care. When was the last time you went shopping for an emergency appendectomy? When was the last time paramedics revived a patient to ask them their preferred hospital or surgeon? When was the last time an accident victim asked a paramedic their ambulance fee or compared it to their competitor (as if they have one)? How often do people even question their doctor’s recommendations?!

  • weezie

    I’m pretty sure abortion isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Just because a group of judges interpreted it to be protected, doesn’t mean another group couldn’t come along and legally restrict it. It can still be debated.

  • Tired of the BS

    I can’t tell if this is an anti Neo-conservative article, or and anti-argument article but this persons arguments are just as wrong as the ones being depicted.

    Gun Rights- The second amendment states

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The 10th states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    and the 9th states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

    the irony is the 9th amendment which is what allowed Roe vs Wade to prevail, is it also applies to gun rights.

    Per the constitution we can state it this way: The right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. As there is no direct right of the Federal Government in the constitution which allows it to control arms, they are not allowed to write laws that give them that power, which would take away from the peoples right.

    But the States can.

    On marriage I will lump them all together -

    Its just about money, while it should be a religious thing, Its about tax breaks and benefits, insurance coverage, and blatant monetary gain, which is ridiculous and should have nothing to do with marriage anyways, take out the monetary benefits, and you won’t here about gay marriage, (yes, gay because PCness is also garbage), there might again be sanctity in it, and it will go back to what its suppose to be.

    Christian Values- I am sure, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Mormon, and all the other non-christian Republicans out there would slap you upside the head for even mentioning, I have never heard a Catholic say I’m christian,

    And your example of not opposing social welfare programs, well how about Socialist pigs like the writer stop supporting the redistribution of funds. Frankly and simply, private soup kitchens, church run hospitals, St. Judes from the Danny Thomas foundation, Shriner’s Hospital and other Freemason run entities all do a much better job, and give much better care than any federally run social program.

    On a Federalist side, you are guaranteed to pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, but no where in the constitution does it say you are guaranteed it. Again:

    The 10th states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    and the 9th states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

    Therefore it is unconstitutional to even have these programs on the federal level.

    Republicans are for Fiscal Responsibility – not has there been a Democrat, and while people might try to say Clinton did, he never balanced it, and the closest the government got was under Republican Newt Gingrich and his contract with America.

    Republicans are the Party of Small Government

    The authors idiocy is beyond transparent, Small Government refers to Agencies and Entities, not Regulations. but I agree that what was on the list is unconstitutional, so are these agencies:

    Department of Agriculture
    Department of Commerce
    Department of Education
    Department of Energy
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Department of Homeland Security
    Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Department of the Interior
    Department of Justice
    Department of Labor
    Department of Transportation
    Department of Veterans Affairs

    So I guess you have to eliminate not opposing the social welfare programs as they fall under the above departments and are all unconstitutional.

    Abortion

    Abortion is not constitutionally protected, the 9th Amendment was enforced which states:

    9th states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

    At any time any State could put a ban on it, and there is nothing anyone could do.

    The issue with abortion is the ridiculousness of both sides, and here is what should be discussed and stated publically:

    IF ITS A WOMAN’S BODY AND A WOMAN’S DECISION, THEN IT IS ALSO A WOMAN’S RESPONSIBILITY—–

    Let’s stop hearing about dead beat dad’s, and seeing special parking for pregnant woman, because, plainly and simply its an independent choice, one the WOMAN made, and it is now her RESPONSIBILTY to bear.

    I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life! –

    Gotta love the examples, because all the things listed by the author’s own debate are unconstitutional (or state and not federally run.)

    Tax Cuts Create Jobs

    There is only one thing to say on this STFU, put a flat tax in place everybody pays the same percentage of there income, eliminate the IRS, and you’ll achieve fairness in taxes. And that’s the only way you will.

    • miketothad

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • gbrbr

    The Cons will just deny it, say it is not based on facts and call us liberals the normal names. The best way to take back this country is to really vote….. and stop having temper tantrums when the candidate hurts our feelings.

  • Mike Santoro

    I dont agree with number one. It makes the left seem like hypocrites. You can’t argue the merits of one constitutional right and simultaneously trample another.

  • pabkr

    Really don’t have time to go after all his so called progressive truths, but can the “genius” who wrote this article explain exactly where in the Constitution it is written that abortion is a Constitutional right? I would really like to read that section. I have apparently missed that somehow.

  • Pingback: RE: The Article Every Conservative Should Scoff At | Rants of the Gadfly()

  • M Possible Photography

    Do you want to be a free man (or woman)? Then face this fact. Government is anti freedom. Look it up. The work “Govern” means to control, an act that is anathema to freedom. Now, I’m not suggesting anarchy, but don’t ever look at government-any government, liberal, conservative, democrat or republican-as your friend. They are not! The goal of any politician is first and foremost to be re-elected which immediately makes them a whore for the biggest bankroll. Term limits are part of the answer, but we must also prohibit politicians from becoming lobbyists as 90% of them do. And we must return almost all control to local government, to cities, counties and the state. Make them provide the water, roads and services you need. They will still be corrupt and seek to be too controlling, but you stand a better chance of reigning them in at a local level. National taxes should be dramatically reduced which will force local taxes to rise. There ain’t no free lunch. You want potable water at your tap? Then you pay for it. YOU! No one else. You want the road in front of your house to be paved? YOU pay for it! We have an abundance of pain to go through either way, but at least there is an option to be free.