10 Easy Ways For Republicans To Solve Most Of Their Problems

obama-thumbs-upI often like to be generous, even toward my conservative opposition.  Why always battle when I can help?  So that’s what I’ve decided I’m going to do with this article.

See, many times I run across conservatives who are just angry.  I mean, geez, these people can get down right nasty.  They’ll air their grievances, rant about the atrocities they claim liberals wish to force upon them and preach about how their “way of life” is constantly under threat.

So I decided with this piece I would take a different approach to interacting with conservatives.  I’m going to help them.  Many of their biggest grievances I see them talk about have very simple answers.  They just seem unaware of them.  So why not help, right?

A “people helping people” kind of thing.

So here are ten issues I see Republicans freak out about the most and simple solutions they should follow to avoid some of their hostility.

1) Gay Marriage: This one’s real simple – if you don’t support gay marriage, don’t marry a homosexual.

2) Abortion: If you don’t agree with abortion, much like with gay marriage, then don’t have one.

3) Socialism: At any time feel free to stop using public roads, public highways and public schools.  Also, millions of you should stop utilizing programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  While you’re at it, end your support for our military (their pay and benefits included) while refusing services from the fire department and any law enforcement.  Heck, you might as well stop eating that safe food, stop enjoying that public sewage and deny your home access to safe public drinking water (West Virginia conservatives already have this one covered).  If the tens of millions of conservatives in this country would do these things, imagine how much less socialism we’d have?

4) Birth Control: If you don’t like birth control, or don’t support it, I have great news for all of you – you don’t have to use it.

5) Guns: Guess what?  More good news!  Even if we expand background checks for everyone, and limit magazine capacity, you’ll still be able to own every single gun that you have now.  And you’ll still be able to purchase all of the same guns you could before.  Isn’t that awesome?

6) Taxes: More good news here, too.  Taxes remain at some of their lowest levels in United States history.  The rich are richer than they’ve ever been before.  All we need now is for that “trickle-down” economics to start working.  Been about 33 years now.  I guess it’s a slow trickle.

7) Religious Freedom: The good news just keeps coming!  With a seemingly endless selection of churches, and a First Amendment that prohibits the government from making laws establishing any particular religion, you’re free to privately practice whatever religion you like.  Not only that, but you can privately spend as much time as you’d like in whatever church you wish to attend.  Well, as long as they’re open of course.  But when you’re home it can be a non-stop religious party all the time.  Talk about religious freedom!

8) Women’s Rights: Whatever rights you give to men, give to women – including having control over their own bodies.  Yes, it’s that simple!

9) LGBT Rights: Much like #8.  Whatever rights you give to heterosexuals – give to homosexuals.

10) Small Government: Just imagine how small our government will be once it stops denying rights to homosexuals, stops preventing same-sex marriages and allows women to have complete control over their own bodies.  That’s a heck of a reduction in government regulation.

Well, there you go Republicans.  Some extremely easy explanations and solutions to many of your biggest complaints.  I’m not sure why this stuff never occurred to you folks before, but I’m guessing Fox News has something to do with it.

I sincerely hope this helped!

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • TaxPaying American Voter

    Well said. Get on with your lives.

  • strayaway

    #2 Abortion, #1 gay marriage, #4 birth control, #8 women’s rights over their own bodies, #9 LGBT, and the redundant #10 are all things libertarians already support and constitutional libertarians support especially at the federal level but please take responsibility for whatever you do to your body or put into it. Libertarians would just request that you assume responsibility for your liberty.

    #3 Socialism. Roads, schools, and food and water safety are basically state issues. But isn’t food safety a bit of a contradiction sometimes when government dumps fluoride in water and encourages preservatives, promotes GM food, BGH, and food preservatives while conducting swat raids on farmers and co-ops selling unpasteurized milk? The FDA allows Doritios to advertise its product as “heart healthy” but considers walnuts a drug. If its so ok to take drugs and put foreign objects in one’s anus, even seemingly desirable among progressives, why can’t we drink unpasteurized milk? Since paying for programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is mandatory, does not utilizing them include the option of not having to pay for them? Nice offer if so. The Amish prosper without them. The military is the one thing on the list that is a mandated responsibility of the the federal government although It should never be used without a declaration of war or a letter of marque authorized by Congress. That would cut military expenses and the size of that part of government .

    Last week the USDA permitted Dow chemical to go ahead with Agent Orange resistant crops because Monsanto’s Round-up resistant products were losing their effectiveness. Nothing like Agent Orange spiked Wheaties to make big government types start off their day.

    #6 Taxes. Deficit spending equals deferred taxes, Consider the $5T under Bush and, so far, the $7.3T of debt accumulated under Obama. Those are just deferred taxes billed to our children (“child abuse” anyone?). Taxes are not at there lowest levels. Higher taxes have, instead, been deferred.

    #7 Religious freedom. Sounds like its still allowed is specific places; sort of like the little fenced off “free speech areas” that are popping up where something controversial is going on. Removing all Bibles from school libraries will keep schools safe from religion or something. Do your religion stuff in that building on Sunday morning.

    • Logan

      Libertarians are wack jobs. Ideas for fake realities that never existed and never will exist are a waste of time. If it were left to them, most Americans would be living in tents by the railroad tracks.

      • strayaway

        Libertarians are the opposite of authoritarians. I guess we know where you are along that spectrum. You must mean fake realities like the law of supply and demand. Some Americans are blessed, instead, to live in Democratic hell paradises like Detroit and Camden. Did you notice a recent study showing that the disparity between the rich and poor was greater in blue states than red states?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Which study was that one? A CATO, AEI, or other Koch funded, Heritage Foundation subsidiary report?

        WHY are they SO ASHAMED of their membership and donations that they guard their secret money laundering more diligently than they protect their children?

        Could it possibly be that of the 4 most populous states, THREE are headquarters for more than HALF the mega corporations in America?

        Could that explain why the most affluent CEO’s of these companies WHO LIVE IN THESE # BLUE STATES, changes the bell curve? Does the logic your ‘study’ claims to use ONLY plot the outliers on the graph to make it’s point? While avoiding the mean and the median?

        How corrupt is THAT? Why is it positively Republicanly Corrupt.

      • strayaway

        “Which study was that one? ”

        It was information collected from the US Census Bureau which calculates “the Gini coefficient, a standard measure of income inequality, (that) calculates the ratio of income at the top of the income scale relative to the income of those at the bottom. The higher the ratio, the more inequality.” “The three places that are most unequal—Washington, D.C., New York and Connecticut—are dominated by liberal policies and politicians. Four of the five states with the lowest Gini coefficients—Wyoming, Alaska, Utah and New Hampshire—are generally red states.” -WSJ 6/4/14

        I don’t know who you are referring to (they) in your second paragraph. You must be referring to the Census Bureau being ashamed of itself. That doesn’t make sense so I assume that you are just ranting assuming the source was the Heritage Foundation or somebody. It does sound like you are ranting and grasping at straws.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They are also among the LEAST populous states.
        Where did RI and DE come in? And the Dakota’s?

        I was referring to political contributors who are funding the groups I asked you about. I thought I recognized The Heritage standard manipulation and omission in your claim.

        “It was information collected from the US Census Bureau…” now WHO collected this data and made a ‘study’ of it? Do you have a link so we are BOTH reading the same page?

        Because I KNOW you did NOT claim this was DIRECTLY from the Census Bureau.

        NOw ABOUT that ‘Gini’ in your bottle…

        “There are some issues in interpreting a Gini coefficient. The same value may result from many different distribution curves. The demographic structure should be taken into account. Countries with an aging population, or with a baby boom, experience an increasing pre-tax Gini coefficient even if real income distribution for working adults remains constant. Scholars have devised over a dozen variants of the Gini coefficient”

        So it is a highly flexible, theoretical ‘statistic. … humn…

        “The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example where only one person has all the income).[3][4] However, a value greater than one may occur if some persons represent negative contribution to the total (e.g., have negative income or wealth). For larger groups, values close to or above 1 are very unlikely in practice.”

        And apparently EXACTLY what I said is WHY the highest #’s are posted in more populated states.

        Where did “The Census Bureau” place Texas, Illinois and California?

        also:

        “There are some issues in interpreting a Gini coefficient. The same value may result from many different distribution curves..”

        Which means this has no correlative meaning as a statistic because there are multiple variables that can get the same answer. in other words, rolling dice is more accurate … statistically speaking..

        It has been a pleasure embarrassing you YET AGAIN.

        Hook Me up with the LINK to that ‘study’ so I can see WHO manipulated the records you so proudly flaunt as a flexibly wavering, chimera of an illusory pretense of reality.

      • strayaway

        You can ask me about those groups that you brought up but I’m not responsible for them and didn’t mention them so why don’t you just go on with you rant? I instead, answered your question and provided a source. Why don’t you call the Wall Street Journal and have it out with them? Surely, you know more about finance and economics than that organization. Then you could bask in the pleasure of embarrassing them in your imaginary world.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I asked a simple question. WHO or WHAT ENTITY used the Census data in their report.
        WHICH ‘study’?

        And you don’t have the integrity to NAME IT.

        Tells Me I am very right. As with all Republican propaganda, the closer to the truth I am, the harder you double down on the LIE.

        Romney did it with his LIE about Jeep closing it’s plants and moving jobs to China.

        he also did it in the debate. Obama knew it and just said “GO on!”… and let him HANG himself with his own lie.

        Are you saying that the Murdoch owned Fox Subsidiary WSJ ‘conducted’ this “study”?

        Or are you saying they ‘reported it’?

        Why is being straight up honest such a frigging chore for you people?

        I am not all together sure that the publishers know a thing about finance. Or economics. They publish what Roger Ailes told then Rupert Murdoch wanted then to say….

        They lost their credibility as a news source when they went 100% ‘opinion is fact’ RED propaganda.

        And WHAT exactly does your OH SO TOP SECRET ‘study’ have to do with either? it’s about population extremes and the vagaries of a regularly inconsistent easily manipulated theoretical # in relation to other easily manipulated, regularly inconsistant #’s

        Nice deflection BTW. But the problem is that just like a 6 year old caught LYING to an adult, you REDS only have one escape hatch… pretend you never made a fraudulent claim and invent another attack.

        Too bad I have an upgraded, 4G, modified, multiparameter BULLSH*T DETECTOR app on My smartphone!

        What dodge will you use next to AVOID being caught in your lie? Spelling errors? Typos!!!!

        Try the truth. it will give you less headaches from beginning to end.

      • strayaway

        If you don’t approve of the Census Bureau statistics, take it up with the Census Bureau or produce some other statistics showing how well the poor are doing in blue states relative to red states. It would make more sense than flapping around trying to drag Romney, the Heritage Foundation, Jeeps, and whatever else into the conversation in a pathetic attempt to give yourself some lift.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      I LIKE the fluoride in my water.

  • dougtroy3

    At what point in this message does it justify LYING to every American to force Obamacare in to our lives? At no point do I see it justify ignoring the laws or destroying our constitution. At no point do I see it justify Killing millions of jobs while increasing the American debt. Democrats are wrong for supporting terrorism, liars and thieves! Yeah, libs want free stuff, I get that but destroying the country should never be an option just to get free stuff!

    • Diane Rhodes

      Troll, troll, troll your boat, on some other page…

    • JohnTNT

      Please provide specifics to ignoring laws and destroying the constitution. Also please provide the facts behind killing million of jobs. Also how ACA increases the American debt? Where are the facts????? You can’t just go around saying stuff that isn’t true. Also many republicans are currently benefiting from socialist programs. Until they all jump off of them their words lose meaning.

      • fafhrd

        Executive order commonly known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), subverting immigration law, contrary to Presidential Oath of office to ensure that all laws are faithfully executed (Constitution Article 2 Section 3) and bypassing Congressional power to enact legislation (since Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act) contrary to Constitution Article 1 Section 1 (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”)

        Violating Constitution Article 2 Section 2, by making ‘recess appointments’ when the Senate isn’t in recess per the Constitution Article 1 Section 5 (“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”)

        Is that enough demonstration that the ‘Constitutional Law Professor” has been ignoring laws and (attempting to) destroy the Constitution?
        Do I really need to expose in detail how the ACA is destroying jobs and increasing debt?

      • John M

        What is says is that he’s done what every other president since Washington has done.

      • Amanda

        God you’re stupid. Just, wow.

      • fafhrd

        Could you clarify your claim with evidence? Or are you just throwing firebombs on ancient threads?

      • Amanda

        Happily! You. Are. Stupid. Is that enough clarity for you?

      • fafhrd

        Very nice opinion piece Logan. Evidence? Facts to support your opinion…

        None?

      • Logan

        Huh? Are you losing your mind?

      • Amanda

        Clearly!

      • fafhrd

        No. I am not losing my mind. I’m being double teamed by you and Amanda over something I haven’t seen in months.

      • Logan

        The article was just reposted. God, you really are dim.

      • fafhrd

        So, you’re expecting me to keep up with liberal garbage talking points because they put it out again as a re-run? Nothing new, eh?

    • Dan Mackey

      Did you notice that that the ACA was passed by both houses of Congress, reviewed as constitutional by SC (with Republican justice vote) and that it is a law? Who has come to your house and forced you to have health insurance? Accusations of lying are bold talk from somebody claiming the ACA has killed millions of jobs and increases the debt. You might just be listening to Faux Propagada too much. Since your post sounds like you are terrified, I’ll give you the terrorism part. Republicans might be terrified that it will work.

      • fafhrd

        Have you noticed, that not one Republican has ever cast a vote in favor of the Affordable Care Act? No, it wasn’t passed by Republicans.

      • Edward Krebbs

        Are you aware that the votes are recorded and not only a matter of public record but easily available on the Internet – and how silly such preposterous and easily disproven statements make you look?. I’d look and give you the exact list, but I’ve gotten tired of the idea that I should do the fact checking for Faux. Limbaugh, trolls, etc

      • fafhrd

        I am acutely aware that Congressional votes are recorded and available as a matter of public record. I stand by my assertion that not one Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, more Democrats voted AGAINST it, than Republicans voted for it.
        I’ve gone and checked the Congressional record, but this site doesn’t like links.
        In the Senate, the vote on 24 Dec. 2009 was, 58 Democrats in favor, 0 Democrats opposed. 2 Independents in favor, 0 Independents opposed. 39 Republicans opposed, 0 Republicans in favor and 1 not voting. For a total of 60 in favor, 39 opposed.
        In the House, the vote was held on 21 Mar. 2010, and was, 219 Democrats in favor, 34 Democrats opposed, 0 Republicans in favor, 178 Republicans opposed, for a total of 219 in favor, 212 opposed.
        I would include the link, but this site doesn’t like links and would hold it ‘for moderation’.
        What seems evident, is that you hope that bluster will see you through. You are either stupid, a liar or ignorant. I shall await your apology.

      • Just my opinion.

        I would like to see the web site that is available on the internet. Could you provide it for me?

      • John M

        Have you ever noticed that we live in a democracy and the majority in congress make the laws?

      • fafhrd

        Have you noticed that we DON’T live in a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic?
        Have you noticed that the Constitution puts limits on what laws Congress can make?

      • John M

        Oh dear god. Does Polly want a cracker? “Constitutional Republic” is a meaningless term invented to make people feel smart. What we are is a Federation. But either way, we’re talking semantics. They are both Democracies (or at least can be). Yes, I have noticed that congress is limited to what laws they can make. They can’t make any laws. It requires the President to sign a Bill before it becomes law. And if it then is brought before the SCOTUS and they deem it to be legal, it is constitutional. So you may not like they ACA. And you have every right to disagree with the SCOTUS decision. But they are the final word on whether or not something is constitutional.

      • fafhrd

        Assuming that the entire law is challenged instead of parts of it.

        First the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA was NOT a tax (per the Anti-Injunction Act). This allowed them to
        proceed to hear the ‘merits’ of the Individual Mandate and forcing states to expand Medicare spending.

        Second, the SCOTUS found that as a penalty, the Individual Mandate was NOT constitutional, under the
        Commerce Clause. However, per the solicitor general arguing that the ‘penalty’ could be viewed as a tax, instead of sending the law back to Congress to be
        re-written, the Chief Justice re-wrote the ACA to make the ‘penalty’ for the Individual Mandate, into a tax, which would be Constitutional under Congress’s
        taxing powers. (Not that the Judiciary has the power to write or re-write laws).

        Third, even though there was no ‘separability clause’, while finding that the Federal government trying
        to force states to expand Medicaid spending (under threat of losing federal funding) was NOT Constitutional, SCOTUS was going to allow that section to be
        separated without voiding the entire law.

        And finally, now that it is a tax, we must wait for that tax to go into effect (per the Anti-Injunction Act) before the ACA can again be challenged. This time for violating Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution. “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”, the ACA originated in the Senate.

        Now, you may argue that the bill (number) originated in the House as is well and proper, But when gutted and replaced with the ACA, it was no longer the same bill (in content) as had come over from the House. This too, is being challenged in the courts.

        So no, the ACA (as a whole) hasn’t been found as Constitutional. In fact, most of the rulings that SCOTUS did make regarding the ACA, two years ago, were that it was unconstitutional. The free exercise of religion was challenged this past month, awaiting ruling.

      • Logan

        Reading what you write is lowering my IQ.

      • fafhrd

        No, the WHOLE law wasn’t reviewed by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. First the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA was NOT a tax (per the Anti-Injunction Act). This allowed them to
        proceed to hear the ‘merits’ of the Individual Mandate and forcing states to expand Medicare spending.

        Second, the SCOTUS found that as a penalty, the Individual Mandate was NOT constitutional, under the Commerce Clause. However, per the solicitor general arguing that the ‘penalty’ could be viewed as a tax, instead of sending the law back to Congress to be re-written, the Chief Justice re-wrote the ACA to make the ‘penalty’ for the Individual Mandate, into a tax, which would be Constitutional under Congress’s taxing powers. (Not that the Judiciary has the power to write or re-write laws).

        Third, even though there was no ‘separability clause’, while finding that the Federal government trying to force states to expand Medicaid spending (under threat of losing federal
        funding) was NOT Constitutional, SCOTUS was going to allow that section to be separated without voiding the entire law.

        The Chief Justice didn’t vote on the passage of the law. And other sections of it, are making their way to the Supreme Court again.

      • dougtroy3

        “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep it.” These were real LIES from our president, not accusations.

      • Logan

        You do realize the ACA set standards for coverage so insurance companies couldn’t continue offering “coverage” that doesn’t actually cover anything, right? You do realize that if your crappy company changes or cancels your coverage you should blame the free market you so happily support, not the president, right? I understand that in your very tiny brain, everything you don’t like is the fault of democrats, but you need to put on a fresh diaper and get a fucking grip because your way of thinking is dying out fast and if you don’t evolve, you’re going to be left in the dust.

      • fafhrd

        You are aware, that the government added so many new requirements for insurance policies (add coverage for things not needed by particular customers, but so the cost could be spread to other people…is this what you mean by ‘adding value’ to insurance policies? Adding items not needed or desired, making costs go up, and claiming that those unnecessary items remove the policy from the realm of ‘junk’?)
        You do realize that the President claimed that I’d be able to keep the policy I had, if I liked it? Period. (Knowing that the government was going to ‘force’ insurance companies to change policies, so that I couldn’t keep what I had and liked.)
        You do realize that the law then required the insurance companies to stop offering (cancel) what they had been offering before?
        Is there a purpose to your swearing?
        Evolving is a process that occurs over time. A person doesn’t evolve, they are set with certain DNA at the time of conception. (It might change under radiation or other carcinogen….)
        Thoughts, evolving? On the basis of what new evidence and facts?

      • Logan

        The stupid troll is a stupid troll.

      • dougtroy3

        I realize the law of aca was passed before anyone even knew what was in it. What kind of messed up system does that?

    • Cue the utterly predictable fact-free Fox-fueled diatribe. Doesn’t matter if it’s true as long as you’re angry! lmao

  • dutch163

    love it! spread the word!

  • Dan Mackey

    Don’t waste your time. Republicans don’t want these problems solved for them. They need them as smokescreens and wedge issues to get elected. Their real problem is they want even more power, more money and more control over peoples lives. They get elected by saying government doesn’t work, and if elected, they make sure it doesn’t work.

    • fafhrd

      waist – is your midsection.

      • Dan Mackey

        Thank you, perhaps I found the subject hard to stomach.

  • Edward Krebbs

    I get your humor and your point (basically around the idea of “if you don’t like it, then don’t do it.” But you are being WAY TOO LENIENT!
    For example, your first item, Gay Marriage, promoted under the aegis of defense of “traditional” marriage (anti-legislation even called DOMA). To claim that banner, GOP needs to stop getting divorced and re-married. Needs to build an economic system that promotes the ability to stay married (raise minimum wage, universal healthcare, adequate safety net – especially ending provisions requiring dad to move out of the house before mom and kids can get benefits, etc. etc.)
    To be anti-gay marriage under the banner of defending traditional family values, then need to also add items such as enhancing education (perhaps strengthen to Dept of Ed, provide full tuition through college, ….) more programs against domestic violence (and build the Dept of Social Services protection of children – which the repubs consider Satan Incarnate) etc.

    • LEK56

      I always thought anti-LGBT right folks were in it for the self-loathing…

  • fafhrd

    1. Don’t support marriage, don’t get one, just “shack up”. Really , Mr. Clifton, make a useful suggestion. Why must the altering of the meaning of words be so essential to your “solutions”?

    2. Is being complicit to murder an acceptable solution to you?

    3. Socialism isn’t the required duties of the Federal Government. Establish Post offices and post roads. No duty for Federal government to be involved in schools (and it wasn’t until Jimmy Carter started it in 1979). Military is a required function of the government. Nonsense claim here Mr. Clifton…

    4. Birth Control “I have great news for all of you – you don’t have to use it.” But forcing me to pay for it for someone else, is the problem. That you don’t see what the problem IS, is the whole problem with your list of “solutions”.

    5. Guns, Really, people would be able to keep their guns? Why are they being confiscated in Connecticut? Because the police can’t tell when a gun was sold, that’s why.

    • Just my opinion.

      Isn’t it sorta funny just how both sides see things? They are so totally different from each other aren’t they? I love seeing both sides of everything. I know, maybe one side thinks with the left side of their brain and the other thinks with the right side. But it seems both sides will say…Right is right and wrong it wrong haha.

      • Logan

        The issue is that only one side thinks.

      • Just my opinion.

        Love It!!

    • Anonny

      so fafhrd is saying he wants to shack up with a gay person. Typical.

      • fafhrd

        Where did I say that?, or are you just attempting to be annoying?

    • Anonny

      “complicit to murder” – only a brainwashed 12 year old has such a limited and ignorant view of the world. Just because you are the product of incestual rape and should have been swallowed doesn’t make it right.
      Oh yes, the guns I own are SO grabbed up. In fact, I’m sure there are millions of examples besides this isolated one in which you don’t know the facts of the case.
      Fucking moron.

      • fafhrd

        How is it going in Conneticut?

      • Blacksteel

        As someone who lives in CT and owns guns, not too bad. The “CT is confiscating guns” news story to which you refer was a massively over-hyped leak of an unsent draft of a letter, and even the actual letter didn’t state that guns were being confiscated, just that continuing to own guns that were not registered under the new law was illegal, turning them in to the state was one option for resolving the issue, and police action (as with any other crime) might be taken if the issue was ignored. Hardly a letter saying turn over your guns or the swat teams are going to break down your door.

      • fafhrd

        And yet, can’t you recognize that this ‘new law’ violates the 2nd Amendment?

      • Logan

        No, it actually doesn’t. I understand why you’re having trouble grasping it though. You’re clearly a fucking idiot.

      • fafhrd

        I am NOT fucking an idiot. She’s actually pretty bright.
        Anytime the state wants to make my 2nd Amendment rights illegal, is wrong on their part.

      • Logan

        No one is trying to take your guns, but clearly they should. You don’t seem overly stable.

        What you seem to be is a crazed moron who doesn’t know what they’re talking about and has zero to back up your ridiculous claims.

      • fafhrd

        Again, you are making claims without evidence. The United States government has supreme confidence in my mental stability, to the point of allowing me to operate nuclear reactors..oops, that blows holes in your claim of my being stupid also (though I doing wonder what having intercourse has to do with it…)
        “No one is trying to take your guns.” Patently false statement. Please tell us what guns you personally own, so that we know which ones are against the law that we just passed. (So that we can rescind your right to own them…)

      • Logan

        Intercourse? What the hell are you talking about? Are you hearing voices? I said “You’re clearly a fucking idiot”, not you’re fucking an idiot. Oh god, can you not read? Poor thing.

        You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. No one is trying to take away your guns. If you think so, again, you are a fucking idiot. A big one. You need to stop watching fake news and opinion programs hosted by paranoid lunatics because it’s clearly turning you into one.

      • fafhrd

        Are you so insecure in your ability to debate facts, that you have to instantly ‘up vote’ everything you claim?
        Stop watching ‘fake news’..What would that be? The station considered the most reliable, or the least reliable?

      • Logan

        First part of brainwashing a group of people is to convince them everyone else is lying to them.

        I’ll debate facts the moment you present some.

        What is up vote?

      • Stephen Barlow

        THAT ^ clicked is an UP vote. the other one is a thumbs down on any post in this blog.

      • Amanda

        It’s pretty funny that you want other peoples claims backed up when you spew absolute nonsense with no proof.

      • fafhrd

        All one has to do is to read news reports coming out of New York regarding gun registration, required by the SAFE Act, the massive failure that that is turning out to be, and the reports of police activity trying to recover the newly ‘illegal’ guns from their owners.
        But I guess facts have nothing to do with those news reports….

      • Amanda

        I live in New York and what you’ve just said has never happened. Either you’ve made it up or the person vomiting in your ear made it up. It’s also worth mentioning that New York City, the largest city in the country, has virtually zero guns and thus very few gun deaths. Compare that to red states where you can’t go a day without reading about a shooting. Reality doesn’t favor your side of the argument and so your side makes up stories about guns being taken for no reason other than to scare stupid people, up gun sales, and laugh at how easy it was.

      • Logan

        THIS^^

      • fafhrd

        New York City, the largest city in the country, does have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but according to FBI statistics, has the third highest gun death rate in the country. Right behind Chicago and the District of Columbia…
        “Reality doesn’t favor” my “side of the argument”. Right.

      • Logan

        Yes, correct. It’s also the largest city. What you need to do is look at per capita shootings by guns and you’ll see that you’re more likely to be killed in rural Alabama than New York City. Reality will always favor your side when you leave out information or intentionally miscalculate data to try and back up your defenseless arguments.

      • fafhrd

        So you’re being deliberately misleading by going for statewide data, as opposed to major metropolitan areas.
        I wasn’t leaving out information on specific areas. Outside of New York city, there are quite a few people that engage in this activity known as ‘hunting’. They are pretty good about gun safety. Which skews statewide data downwards.
        Take a look at the FBI data base.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I; for one do appreciate how U spun away from gun confiscation to the irrelevancy of shootings in rural/metropolitan areas
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        I do like how more shootings happen at white churches than at schools

      • fafhrd

        A gun free zone anywhere is fertile ground for anyone wanting to kill a bunch of people quickly. Easily stopped by someone armed.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        totally non sequitur as churchs are not “gun free” zones

      • fafhrd

        Hey, you are the one that brought up churches. And they are more likely to be ‘gun free’ zones, than schools (something about sacred ground….).

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        what about my

        “gun registration now equates to gun confiscation”
        (which U implied)
        ……………..so———————–
        ‘ car registration equates to car confiscation”
        ***********************************************************
        your turn

      • fafhrd

        New question…
        I didn’t imply it. The government implied it, when it made guns capable of holding a magazine of more than 7 rounds illegal (under NY SAFE Act, and demanding gun owners register their weapons.) Notice how few guns got registered?
        Total non-sequitor and non-equivalence.
        The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn’t guarentee the right to a car.
        In both cases, registration, leads to ‘the ability’ to reclaim the registered property. Doesn’t require that there is any current intent to not do so. But it increases the chances that, if there is a future change in intent, that it is possible.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I ALSO allows the Government to regulate as it sees fit, any and all ‘Rights’ and privileges.

        It does so when they are abused in order to protect the many from the few.

      • Stephen Barlow

        If you are so ashamed of your ownership of multiple killing machines, why do you have so many?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        HEY!!! im on ur side,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,im going after idiot FAFHRD
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, please make a note of that as I own no guns

      • Stephen Barlow

        Good for us.

        You DO know the Koch brothers are paying home workers By the word to disrupt non conservative internet pages. Don’t you?

        YOu can tell then because their rants don’t quite fit the articles, their facts NEVER get printed or referenced and they stalk people like you and I.

        CAn you please explain you handle?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        yes!!! gian keys is a white trash regressive with NO KNOWLEDGE of economics ( other than what his “peers” tell him: Detroit/ nanny state/ welfare/ Obama is a commie/ America needs to be ” taken back” ETC) who is a 43 yr old drunk who has told me -on these threads– how overwhelmingly superior his genetics are; telling me I am fat ( 6’2 209 with 34 waist- see my pic) and initially called me black and gay and an Obama puppet who used steroids and I am broke. I did enough homework on his ass to place that name up to ridicule his mom ( not my style but Im annoying him with it) as I saw his and his mom & dads pics. it more complesx and im not going 2 bore U with stuff that truly matters but U are correct: these creeps stalk us on these pages and place disruptive stuff up never to get int2 a real conversation with facts. ( example: he says calif–his state– is BROKE: I hit him with certified facts 2013-2014 cal budget– and he again says Im fat
        ======================================
        ergo I play with him as he is broke and claims to be sexiest man alive….. I like messing with him as he is very stupid

      • Stephen Barlow

        Ok… 6′ 2″… You wear heels or are you acrophobic?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        somewhat have a avoidance of heights,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that’s why I don’t like roller coasters

      • Stephen Barlow

        As if a psychopath like you has an APP on his phone to FIND a ‘gun free zone’ SPECIFICALLY to plan a mass murder…

        Even Deep Space Nine couldn’t find you in THAT parsect of mindless space!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Comparing the WHOLE STATE OF NEW YORK to Alabama and per capita… guess what?

        YOU LOSE AGAIN!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        He’s using raw number data.

        Upthebutt, AL population 33 1/3, 1 gun death annually. 3%
        NYC, NY Population 8.9 Million, 3,000 gun deaths annually. >.0003%

        Guess they don’t teach critical math skills in RED States…

      • Stephen Barlow

        Per capita or per SQuare mile?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Red state people even shoot each other @ Gun Shows!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        attention shoppers:
        gun registration now equates to gun confiscation
        ———————————————————————-
        in another breaking news flash:
        car registration equates to car confiscation
        ***********************************************************
        also- when U register to vote,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        the GOVT will now confiscate YOU
        *********************************************************

      • Stephen Barlow

        Nope, just your vote! LMFAO!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Just give us a link so we knew which manufactured NRA/FOX/Republican propaganda you are misquoting. OOPS!!! My bad, you aren’t even QUOTING any facts!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        FOR REAL!!!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You really are nuts. No guns for you.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        please document here and now the ( Obama) legislation which has OBAMA coming for (your) guns
        cant? geee…………………….. lets all chant BENGHAZI

      • fafhrd

        New Your State SAFE Act.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        I said OBAMA legislation federal please

      • fafhrd

        I know what you said, the claim was that states were doing this.
        Federal gun control legislation, after Sandy Hook, died in Congress.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        so; would U say OBSAMA is ” coming 4 ur guns”?

      • fafhrd

        I’d say he’s welcome to try.
        Doing such would be a patent violation of the Constitution. It would be a violation of his oath of office.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        by NOT answering a very easy question to answer u did answer ; didn’t you????
        ===========================================

      • fafhrd

        I’m not sure I understand your mangled grammar.
        I think I answered your question.
        Is he? I think he might like to…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ok,,,,,,,,,,,,,i will simplify as u don’t grasp well: what legislation did OBAMA attempt to go after YOUR guns????? OBAMA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,OBAMA,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        see? nice N easy

      • fafhrd

        Several Democratic Senators have introduced legislation to provide for an expansion to ‘temporary restraining orders’, to the extent that anybody can file for a ‘gun violence restraining order’, and have a person’s firearms to be confiscated.
        No advance investigation, no due process.
        I will try to file a link, but forward progressives doesn’t like links.

      • fafhrd

        I tried to post a link, the moderator for ‘forward progressives’ probably won’t let it through.
        However, Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced federal legislation for “gun violence restraining order” that would allow the government to also step in, and confiscate guns.
        Similar legislation is also introduced in the state of California’s legislature (filibuster proof democrat control).
        If the linked article doesn’t go through..Google ‘Pause for Safety Act’.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Ain’t it a shame when Majority rule WORKS!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Any shyster in the phone book has more credibility than you chat buddy FARFHD.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey!!! U gotta wait in line to abuuuuse him I get 2 go first!!!’
        ———————————————————————
        ….But I do LUV thy message ;))

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO! it was murdered by the NRA.

      • fafhrd

        Legislation, not being ‘alive’, can’t be ‘murdered’.
        The NRA, not being in Congress, had no direct influence on the votes in Congress.
        Congress, is intent on preventing new occurrences of ‘gun violence’, not one element of the proposed ‘gun control’ legislation would have prevented another occurrence.
        It was doomed to fail.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You don’t understand the English language at all do you?

        So the 100 million in lobby money was just a complete waste for the 4 million NRA sticker holders and the 200 gun manufacturing and distributing business partners of the NRA and 80% of Congress.

        YOU don’t frigging understand current American Government either do you?

      • fafhrd

        $100 Million? NRA doesn’t have $5 Million much less $100 Million.
        You don’t understand how to make a believeable lie, do you?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Isn’t that what Paul Revere rode up to Sarah Palin to tell her 238 years ago?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Is there a app to check how the US Government APPROVES of your mental stability?

        Like Homer Simpson!!!! LMFAO!!!

        WHO tried to relieve you of your firearms?

        When guns are outlawed, only gun owners will be criminals.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You are a fucking idiot. No one has made your 2nd amendment rights illegal, although, given your lack of sanity and intelligence, you shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey schmuck– the 2nd says U can bear arms
        ———————————————————————-
        it does NOT say someone cannot take them from an unqualified person

      • Stephen Barlow

        Are you a CELIBATE idiot?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No,it doesn’t. Where does the second amendment say government can’t make you register a gun?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        no it doesn’t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        FOX ” news” gotta show with u in it yet?

      • Stephen Barlow

        WELL REGULATED …
        MILITIA…
        for the security of the free state…

        Which part is unconstitutional?

        BNecause ALL those things are prerequisite to uninfringed possession of firearms.

        Which militia do YOu belong to? One on a terrorist watch list?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        why are U bothering such a sweeeeet American with such meannie ol’ facts???

      • Stephen Barlow

        THOUGHT SO!!! More NRA propaganda passed on by a troll with no concept at ALL of what he was gossiping about.

    • Logan

      Wow. You’re not very smart. For the sake of humanity, I hope you’re using birth control. Selfish sociopathic idiots need to die out.

      • fafhrd

        And you just added a whole lot of nothing to the conversation.
        In which case, I would ask that you clarify your statements from this ancient thread, to either support your original statement, or refute mine.

      • Logan

        Providing counterpoints to stupidity only helps to validate an opinion so uninformed it doesn’t deserve equal weight at the adult table. Furthermore, if anyone would like to know why I think you’re an idiot, they need only read what you’ve written here.

      • fafhrd

        You are entitled to your opinion. Changing my opinion, requires that you bring facts to the ‘adult table’.

      • Logan

        Bahahahahaha. Honey, you need serious help. Please give me your address. I’ll let the White House know so they can come take your guns away. Again, I’m only conversing with you because I’m bored and your idiocy is entertaining. When we get down to it though, your opinion doesn’t deserve an adult conversation, it deserves to be mocked.

        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2008
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2009
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2010
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2011
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2012
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2013
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 2014
        “They’re coming for our guns.” – Lunatics in 20……

      • fafhrd

        “Honey”? Please, I don’t swing that way (if Logan is any indication of your gender…).
        I’m sure that the White House is aware my address, if they were concerned.

      • Logan

        Oh honey, my god! They know where you live! Here they come to take your guns! Do you sleep in a bunker and wear a tin foil hat? You really should.

      • fafhrd

        No. They are aware of me, because of special confidences that they have placed in my hands. Nothing paranoid about it. I really have operated nuclear power plants on behalf of the US Navy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You’re still paranoid.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        rick james:
        ” cocaine,,,,,,,,,,,,,its a hell of a drug”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hes living out west in that bunker in the 1st TREMORS movie

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        sub ” jesus is coming” for ” theyre coming for our guns”
        fits nicely!!

      • Amanda

        To quote another article, “For Republicans, “truth” doesn’t really matter as long as they “muddy the waters” enough so that some Americans aren’t sure what’s real and what’s Fox News fiction. They keep demanding answers to questions based off their lies. Then they’re getting angry because people won’t answer them. That’s how good propaganda is done.”

      • fafhrd

        “Fox news fiction”? The most trust cable news outlet in the country, to you, is fiction.
        MSNBC, is surpassed in trust by John Stewart’s comedy show.

      • Logan

        When your news channel calls itself the most trusted cable news outlet, you know you’re being fed bullshit.

        When your news channel tells you they’re the only ones you can trust and the entirety of global media is lying to you but they’re telling the truth, you know you’re being fed bullshit.

        Nonpartisan studies have concluded that Fox News viewers are less informed than people who watch no news at all. Google it.

        Look, I’m not your history teacher. That complete and total failure went to someone else. It’s not my job to inform you, rebut your misinformation, or do the work for you.

        What I can tell you, is that you are, again, an idiot.

      • fafhrd

        No, that was the news on CBS.
        Media rated included FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, and ‘other outlets’

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Fox is NOT the most trusted cable news outlet. Stewart’s and Colbert’s viewers are far more informed than FOX OR MSNBC.

      • fafhrd

        You don’t watch the news much, do you? Nor is your reading comprehension all that great…
        The study that recently hit the news was about ‘trust’ in several media outlets. It wasn’t an opinion poll on how well people were informed.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Not like I care. Maybe I should have said, “Those of us with a modicum of intelligence don’t trust Fox, and for good reason.”

      • fafhrd

        Maybe you need more than modicum of inteligence then, if your information source(s) can’t be trusted to give you the full story.
        The good reason must be something like, you don’t like what they are telling you.
        Note: I have no vested interest in FOX news, nor do I make it a habit of watching/listening to FOX news. I prefer to do independent research.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What makes you think I don’t do research? I don’t watch cable news because it’s insipid and done for ratings, not to disseminate information.. I suspect you are one of those who only believes that which supports your previously formed conclusions. So, any sources that do not agree with you are automatically suspect.

        Not sure what you are getting at.

      • fafhrd

        CBS news, reported on a survey of over 1,000 people regarding ‘trust’ in news sources. I mention the fact that FOX was most trusted, Comedy Central was second to last ahead of MSNBC.
        You blast me for reporting facts, saying FOX isn’t ‘most trusted’.
        What I’m getting at, is that you are aiming at the wrong target.
        This after a different commenter is saying that FOX news is still wasting time and money on Benghazi. FOX isn’t wasting money. They will report whatever is found by the select committee. (I suspect other media will report it also, maybe)
        And again, this is after reports, that the administration knew in real time that it was a terrorist attack, the attackers used captured State Department cell phones to call their leaders, while the attack was still in progress the Secretary of State mentioning some video (out of nowhere), fast response teams reporting confusion over why they were being held back…
        Nope, nothing there…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ahem,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        FOX and the select committee have found——–
        ” N.O.T.H.I.N.G. “

      • fafhrd

        And you’re surprised? The select committee hasn’t even met yet. But there are some questions, still outstanding.

        — Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi?
        — Why were we the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left, the Red Cross had left?
        — Why did Ambassador Stevens’ requests for additional security go unheeded?
        — Do you know why no military assets were moved?
        — Do you know if the president called any of our allies?
        — Why was Susan Rice picked for Sunday television after the attack, and why wouldn’t the Secretary of State appear?
        –Considering the recent revelation that the State Department was listening to the attackers calling their leaders (on State Department cell phones) and the Administration thus being aware in real time that it was a terrorist attack…
        — How the did the mythology of a YouTube-induced protest gone bad become the official Obama administration position?

        But you apparently think that you know all of the answers. Nearly 2 years later, and you think that blatant lies from your government are acceptable?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        question:
        how many of these –and other- questions were already asked and looked at ” ad infinitum/ad nauseum”?
        ( and what about the 2 yrs repubs voted against extra $$$$$$ security for embassies?)
        your turn

      • fafhrd

        These and many more are still UNANSWERED, by dear leader and his “most transparent administration in history”.
        Glad you raised that question, answered by Hillary’s State Department…”funding was never an issue regarding establishing embassy security”.

        Quid pro quo, you demand I answer your questions, why don’t you answer mine?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        u did not answer my questions,,,,,,u slid them by
        case in point: why did repubs not vote for more $$$ for embassy =security? U slide it with hillarys rhetoric
        ****************************************************

      • fafhrd

        Not having had the opportunity to review ALL of the bills, in which increased funding may have been asked for, along with who knows what else… I have absolutely no idea why the votes were in the negative.
        And neither do you.
        To vary on Hillary, does it matter why? We know that increased funding is the claim of Democrats objection. The State Department report says that there was sufficient funding available for security, and that those votes weren’t an issue.
        To repeat a question, that bears no relevance, shows that you are concerned more with something that has already been explained away as inconsequential, than you are concerned about what really happened.
        Good job, keep protecting the failures by bringing up irrelevancies.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        explained as not consequential by whom? YOU??? cretins who slide away from a direct cause of the deaths?
        protecting failure? Im willing to wager a weeeeee bit of cash that regressive white trash were painfully silent when Beirut embassy (see: Reagan) 63 deaths happened- not ONE rightwing parrot cried.
        OH I CANT BRING UP PAST– TOOOO LONG AGO
        ========================================
        perhaps: but it is CONSEQUENTIAL when discussing the extreme noise U crybabies cry since the ACA cannot be a topic so u are so deathly afraid of Hillary that u resort to anything,
        I would also; considering the cost–

      • fafhrd

        No, not by me. By your idol, Hillary, in her testimony before Congress…or are you calling Hillary a cretin now?
        Really. I’d be willing to take you up on the money part of it.
        Extra security for Beirut hadn’t been requested, several times, only to be denied by Secretary of State George Schultz. Reagan didn’t blame it on a ‘video’, the internet was just beginning then. Youtube didn’t even get started until 2005 (22 years later).
        On the SAME day, Reagan denounced it as a terrorist attack.
        Oh, your bet regards why people didn’t cry about it for months afterwards? Because they weren’t lied to!
        ACA, you want to deflect with that now? Bring it.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and; of course a terrorist attack and an act of terror are radically non related according to white trash regressives ………….why the non sequitur about internet genesis/expansion? OHI4GOT– spin away!!! bottom line? rightwing said nothing then,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NOTHING . didn’t see rightwing go after schultzie either??? my idol? Hillary? I have no idols———- if I did it MIGHT be someone such as Humphrey bogart or keith emerson……………… artists/ not politicians
        still transposing your stupidity on threads???

      • fafhrd

        Sorry, but Obama’s Rose Garden speech was more of a generic, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve…”, spin aside as opposed to him specifically calling it an act of terror. Nor does his calling it an attack, absolve him of trying to blame it on an internet video for two weeks after the fact.
        At least, not since it has finally come out that there was a drone overhead, they were listening in on the attackers phone calls, in REAL TIME.
        There was shock, outrage that we had been attacked in 1983, but the outrage you’re looking for, didn’t happen because the President didn’t lie to the American people, didn’t blame it on something that it wasn’t.
        The difference? Is the way the President dealt with the attack. Reagan was open about what happened. Obama tried to spin it in a way so that it wouldn’t harm his chances at re-election. And flew off to a Vegas fundraiser. (We can all see where HIS mind was.)

        I’ve given you nothing but facts, and answers to your questions. But you, you still try to insult me. “White Trash, regressives..” Check your grammer and syntax…
        Stupidity, I suggest you look in a mirror.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        he is getting at he is a regressive crybaby too proud to wear that T shirt

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hows my new “BENGHAZI” T shirt?

      • fafhrd

        Let’s see, new information released proves that the administration was aware in real time that it was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration that got out of hand.
        Secretary Clinton is apparently the first person to mention a video. In particular, to say that the producer of it would be jailed when the bodies arrived in Dover AFB (two days later).

        How’s the President explaining it as a video, to the UN, two weeks later?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        Darrell issa isn’t not wasting more time or taxpayer money on this
        =====================================
        but FOX news is

      • fafhrd

        Since the formation of the select committee, the House oversight committee can focus on other issues.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        translation: even he is tired of empty nests

      • fafhrd

        Or, he still has Fast & Furious, IRS, NSA, Wiretapping, DOJ to deal with…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        if that’s soooooooooooooo true then why did he ( of the fiscally prudent repub party) waste so much f*cking us money on that charade???

      • fafhrd

        If it isn’t true, why is the “most transparent administration in history” withholding information? Why do other agencies get it (via FOIA requests) when it was promised to Congress years ago? Why are promised emails (from a year ago) suddenly reported missing right before the weekend? Why is “Executive Privilege” being cited regarding Fast & Furious (if Obama’s claim that he didn’t find out about the program until a few weeks after it was canceled is true, then there is no basis for him to protect documents that he wasn’t involved with)?

        Essentially, what is this administration hiding and why is it dragging these investigations out, making it cost more?
        So much more has been done or implied than what Nixon faced impeachment for… and the lesson from Clinton’s impeachment (perjury and obstruction of justice), was that his own party wouldn’t convict on charges.
        As far as “charade” is concerned, you’re blowing smoke in your own eyes, for you don’t want to see…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        again; as all white trash regressive s do—
        U did NOT answer my direct question

      • fafhrd

        Which did I not answer…?
        Your blatant bias is showing, that you didn’t recognize the answer, and require that I repeat myself. (I will admit, the spelling, grammar and syntax errors did make it difficult for me to understand your question.

        Fast & Furious, long withheld information due to “Executive Privilege”. But he claimed he didn’t find out about this operation until weeks after it ended. What privilege is there?

        IRS, emails promised a year ago, suddenly reported as unavailable (yesterday). {Shades of Nixon’s missing 18 and a half minutes, but more!}
        And the other scandals… and the “most transparent administration in history”?

        You call it a ‘charade’, but until the information is made available, you don’t really know. “Charade”?
        But I really appreciate the invective that you throw. Stay classy.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        the question was + is:
        why did he ( and all regressive repubs) waste SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much MONEY ( see: financially prudent white trash tea party) on soooooooooooooo many hearings; and they are doing it again?
        stay classy ok dumb punk? and,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        U didn’t compare where Uve been with where Ive been re: fine fine looking chics
        ———————————————————————
        NOTE: my 23 yr old daughter would make ur “boys” spank away all night

      • fafhrd

        Why are you asking me, about why the “most transparent administration in history” isn’t forthcoming with the information requested by Congressional oversight?
        Congress is trying to do their job. They will continue to try to do that job, until the administration provides answers, the administration is out of office or until the party that doesn’t want answers takes over Congress.
        The administration is raising the costs by continuing to stonewall.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        then read and reply to my comments above towards thee

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        fathrd doesn’t need birth control……………… no one has sex with fathrd

      • fafhrd

        I’d love to show you a picture of my gorgeous kids.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        enjoy the photo of my 5’8 136 lbs gal veronica here in hollywood FL beach
        =======================================
        do U really wanto compare here weve been???

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      u are paying for government subsidies for huge oil companies; and U have paid for useless wars which killed and maimed thousands of GOOD americans
      …………..and I didn’t hear U BITCH about those

      • fafhrd

        Then, you weren’t listening.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        read ur above lachrymose post. no where does it chime in with anything about that
        …………… U lose

      • fafhrd

        Because my complaints were on other forums where it was relevant, 8 years ago, instead of only 5 months ago when this article came out.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Marriage is a legal transaction.
      What murder? of a nonviable potential life? A whale blasts 200 million sperm into your drinking water every time he’s horny and GOD aborts 199,999,999 of them BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!
      LMAO @ “no government duty to provide education” Educated citizens not only provide a better common defense, they are also economically more productive than a nation of Republican dolts. And because they are more likely to be more self sufficient, and educated population is actually CHEAPER to provide for and lowers your taxes.

      HOW exactly to you PAY for it? insurance premiums PAY for it. That’s how shared risk, group policies and the concept of insurance works. I don’t want to pay for your Viagra!! or your cancer meds because i don’t have cancer. Why should I share the cost of ANY of YOUR medical problems just because we work for the same employer?

      A National Register to track gun crimes.
      A felony charge for NOT reporting a stolen gun.
      20 – life for any crimes committed with a gun you lost control of.
      And as with RICO, forfeiture of assets as well.

      THAT will slow the illicit, NRA backed gun trafficking down to a crawl.

  • GraciesDaddy

    All spot-on items, Allen. Too bad it’ll just fall on deaf ears… Uh… Eyes!

    However… I’m going to split a really fine hair here in regard to the use of a certain word in your article. That word is “sewage.” Aside from the Ick Factor, the word is misused over and over again and raises my own Plumber’s Sensibilities.

    “Sewage” is what flows *through* the pipes, down the street and into your local treatment plant… or the septic tank in your yard. The pipes are the SEWERAGE which get it there. In essence: Sewage flows through sewerage.

    As many of us Progs are wont to point out the fact that tea partiers and their ilk can hardly speak [to wit: Bachmann & Palin] nor spell [to wit: read their “protest” signs!], I just wanted to bring accuracy and a little more erudition into your article. More power to ya!

  • bamcintyre

    You forgot about the one where if you don’t want someone to make it harder to vote, then don’t make it harder to vote.

  • Bob

    I am think this article is plain stupid. You didn’t give them anything they could actually do. Plus you did t give any arguments that would change their minds. You basically just said they were stupid. I think this article was the stupid one. When I try to talk to conservatives I try to persuade them rather than just say things that will make them mad. Have some facts to back up what you say not just don’t so this or do this. Have some facts man.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      They are stupid. Doing everything he suggested would take no effort.
      Fact: No one is forcing them to marry a gay person

      Fact: No one is forcing them to have an abortion

      Fact: They DO benefit from socialism
      Fact; No one is forcing them to use birth control.
      Fact; No one is taking their guns away
      Fact: We have the lowest tax rates of any country.
      Fact: We’ve always had religious freedom, that is until the right figured their brand of Christianity was the only “true” religion.
      Fact: Giving women and gay people equal rights doesn’t hurt Republicans.
      Fact: If they believe in small government, they should stop trying to get government to interfere with people’s lives.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        to quote “saint Reagan”……………..
        ” ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”
        annoying a regressive with FACTS

      • Stephen Barlow

        Actually, DOING THESE THINGS might even recruit new Republicans. Some of us don’t look so great in blue.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      facts?? ok !!!! glad u stopped by—
      fact: regressives are stupid
      fact: state governments ( run by Christian repubs ) are too intrusive/ too ‘big’
      fact: giving EQUAL rights to AMERICANS is NOT keeping rights from the crybaby white trash suppresionists who cry

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    The “slow trickle” is colored yellow.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      wealth-induced jaundice yellow

  • Stephen Barlow

    This is one of the most intelligent reality articles ever written. Kind of like St Francis’s Prayer.

    If you want peace, don’t make war…

    But if they DID any of these 10 things, their reason for existing would vanish like a nanofart.