10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican, 5th Edition

paul-ryan-cluelessIt’s back, ladies and gentlemen.  This is the fifth edition of my monthly installment titled 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican.  As always the premise is pretty easy.  About once a month I write this feature with 10 new questions I believe liberals should present to their conservative counterparts to have them answer.  The questions are generally fairly direct and simple.

So let’s get to it!

1) Change Cliven Bundy’s name to Mohammad bin Nayef, then change his group of “patriotic Americans” to a group of armed Muslims pointing guns at federal officials (in the exact same anti-government situation).  Would Fox News and conservatives be viewing these people as proud conservative icons or radical terrorists?

2) If supporting the Confederate flag is “just about history,” then couldn’t people say the same thing about the Nazi swastika?

3) How is voting against a bill that would make it illegal to pay a woman less than a man for equal work “supporting women’s rights”?

4) Do you not find it just a tad bit interesting that almost every policy the Republican party supports would benefit the Koch brothers?

5) Isn’t the canceling of insurance plans by insurance companies and higher premiums an argument for actual socialized health care instead of the repeal of “Obamacare”?

6) Does it ever occur to you that the reason why your party says climate change is a hoax, opposes mass public transit systems and rallies against green energy is because none of those three things would benefit big oil?

7) Do you realize that almost everything conservatives complain about in “Obamacare” is caused by the compromises Democrats had to make with Republicans to get the law passed?

8) If your party’s goal was to make Obama fail, and many of them have cheered any time he has faced failure or adversity, why would they have done anything up until now to help him succeed?

9) What freedoms have you lost since Obama became president?

10) Why is it okay for the government to seize land in order to build an oil pipeline, but not okay to fine an individual because his cattle were illegally grazing on federally owned land?

Well, that will wrap up this edition.  I hope you enjoyed it and I hope you’ll take these questions with you to ask your conservative friends and family.

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.


Facebook comments

  • rossbro

    Why the HELL isn’t Bundy in jail. If I thumbed my nose at a judge, I would damned sure be locked up. Why does the Fed keep backing away from arresting Bundy????
    I say take his cattle and land, then sell them to pay past-due grazing fees.

    • Buck Narked

      Maybe a trial first? Some due process? I applaud the restraint shown so far. They will eventually arrest and try him. No need to make a martyr of him.

      • ts

        eventually but since this all started in 1993 eventually is sure taking its sweet time

      • ProudACLU

        Trial has already occurred (multiple times) and he lost every time

      • Raylusk

        He has been tried several times in federal court and lost everytime. He refused to pay on those judgements against him. He needs to be arrested in tried in criminal court. In addition the armed terrorists who came out in support of Bundy should have also been arrested and tried for interfering with a federal officer in the performance of his or her duties.

      • disqus_2j3OBqnkt0

        He’s already been to court.

    • Sandy Greer

      I think the Feds are being circumspect.

      It’s no secret there are some in this country would be only too happy to ignite another Civil War.

      Secessionists/Separatists/TeaPugs. ‘Patriots’ from the wilds of Idaho, and assorted other RWNJs so far to the right their own mothers couldn’t find them…

      Ever since Obama was elected in 2008 they’ve been ‘preaching’ #9.
      I think Obama is/was afraid of another Waco. As well he should be.

      Because those folks are just crazy enough to want it too.

      • ruledbysound

        this babble is not coherent.

        First off, no one is for a Civil War without purpose, which is what you insinuate.

        Second, “secessionists/separatists” has nothing to do with what most Conservatives in America want, which is simply to restore the principles of the Constitution (preserving the Bill of Rights, and removing the power of executive order which gives far too much authority to the individual who is president, for example).

        Third, I’d be careful to act as if these people are just “from the wilds of Idaho” as they have already begun to primary establishment republicans who are so out of touch with the Conservative base, and even your buddy Nate Silver is now admitting Democrats are unlikely to retain the Senate after 2014.

        Fourth, principles dont change (unless youre a liberal). We’ve been saying this since before 2008, I promise.

        Glad to give you some perspective on Conservatism, as I am sure you’ve never interacted with any actual conservatives. Be happy to have an adult conversation, but its clear how greatly the Left’s fear of the Tea Party has grown, considering all of the inventive nicknames they have come up with. (I guess you “progressives” finally realized “Teabaggers” was overtly offensive to those you wish to instill “equal” rights upon… thats a big no-no, as youve apparently learned)

      • LiberalJarhead

        Please. Executive orders were fine with Buscho. Try some history. I was a rethug, but I learned that it is easier to breathe when your head is not up your ass. Please post a list of all the great things rethugs have done for the country in the last 30 years.

      • ruledbysound

        Bush was a Republican, not a conservative. I assure you there is a difference. Everyone seems to be obsessed with this party loyalty bs, make up your own damn mind! I am a conservative because what I have seen in my lifetime from establishment democrats and establishment republicans does not agree with the kind of leadership I think will benefit myself and the largest number of Americans. The perfect example of this now is immigration reform. Let’s start with the premise that a nation’s immigration should benefit its CITIZENS first. If you don’t agree with that initial premise, then I cannot even debate you on the merits of immigration reform. Of course, the Senate-proposed (and even the version attempting consideration in the House) do wonders at further destroying our middle class, AND most negatively affect low-income blacks and hispanics! Its simple supply and demand. And only CONSERVATIVES (not Republicans) have spoken up to defend the rights of Americans over citizens of other nations.

      • Diane Win

        The only reason why the BLM backed off is because those insurrectionists, as defined by lines 15 and 16 of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, put women on the front line as shields. This is the very same thing Palestinian terrorists do in the West Bank and Gaza after they lob missiles into Israel, showing the ENTIRE WORLD just how cowardly those paramilitary anti-government gun fetishists really are. Oh, they talk tough, but in reality those alleged “patriots” are nothing more than scared little men that are masturbating with their guns while fantasizing about gun battles.

    • LiberalJarhead

      He is not in jail because IOKIYAR. Do as I say, not as I do.

  • Buck Narked

    1. Good point.
    2. Most Republicans are indifferent at best toward the Confederate Flag.
    3. How do you define equal work? I am a teacher, paid by my years of
    experience and education. Should a first year male teacher be paid the
    same as a 30 year veteran female with a masters degree? We would be performing the same job.
    4. Many of the policies supported by the Democrats also benefit the Koch brothers. Both parties look after the rich.
    5. Many Republicans argued that this was the point of ACA in the first place-to wreck healthcare as we knew it so that the only possible solution was single payer. Is this really a point you want to make?
    6. Most thinking people consider that ACC may be true. If you are going to argue point 4 though, you must also concede that it is valid to point out that there would be tremendous financial gain for Democratic supporters under the radical plans to tax carbon.
    7. Are you on crack? ACA passed without any Republican support. The compromises were made so that Democrats would pass it.
    8. Bad policy fails on its own. It does not succeed or fail based on how we think or feel about it. “They wrecked the system, We’ll let them sit at the table, but we’re not going to do what they say.” BO in the first year of his first term.

    9. I can no longer speak with a reasonable assurance that my speech will be protected about issues that may offend others. I worry that my online activity is monitored. I am certain that the IRS has been used to further political ends of the current administration. I’m fairly certain my vote is being diluted in a systematic way by Democrats who are registering people who do not have the right to vote. BTW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    10. False dichotomy. It was correct for the government to seize the cattle. Eminent domain is part of the U. S. Constitution.

    • Adam Smith

      You lost me at #3 because your response was just silly. How do we define equal work? How about two first year teachers with the same degree getting paid the same regardless of gender? Seriously, it’s not that hard to figure out.

      • Buck Narked

        I think it is impossible to figure out as stated. If we are to be paid the same based on work, then all teachers of the same subject would need to be paid the same regardless of education and experience. We do the same work. Of course the pay scale is gender neutral for teachers with the same experience and education. No school system could pay male and female teachers different amounts based on gender. But this is not how the numbers are cooked to come up with the wide disparity reported.

      • Raylusk

        Not in private schools is it necessarily gender neutral. Oh and the law does define equal pay for equal work and that definition includes similar qualifications.

      • Cliven Bumbling

        And the fact that a teacher couldn’t figure this simple point out is a little scary.

      • honesty

        A 30 year vetted teacher at that!

    • Eddie Schmidt

      Lol at 9. In 2005 Bush had to go through NSA hearings as well. It was the patriot act that granted them their abusive powers. The IRS “scandal” has been proven incorrect several times. They were in fact targeting tea party organizations that were improperly using their tax exempt status. They also targeted Occupy entities for the same reason. Gerrymandering is actually a huge problem for both sides. Unfortunately there is no good solution at the moment. And voting fraud, really? We should just not allow black people to vote, that should make you happy. Hell the Supreme Court has already taken steps to help that along. As far as the rest of your answers, nice sidestepping.

      • BacSi

        Helo Eddie Schmidt. If I may, I would like to suggest a correction. I worked for a large Government Taxing Agency. The IRS “scandal’ was not proven to be incorrect at all. And you cannot claim the IRS was targeting organizations that were improperly using their tax exempt status, when they had not YET been given tax exempt status. They were singling out Conservative groups, spending 3 years investigating applications, and demanding extremely inappropriate questions that had never been asked of any other applicant. And I have even heard some Socialists describing their rallies as riots. I personally investigated a rally in my state.
        The description that I gave was more like a retirement home meeting. Yes, we flag some taxpayers as “Tax Protestors”, an actional identifier. Their tax returns are always given special attention. And I’m sure there were a few people there that were obviously not happy about paying taxes. But free speech does not get you flagged as a Tax Protestor. They must break the law first.

        When one of the most powerful investigatory agencies is directed to target a political group that is in opposition to the government, and then that agency works in conjunction with other investigatory and policing agencies for that same purpose, then you are not just suppressing free speech, you are penalizing free speech. When a Socialist government (and yes, our government does control the means of production in several areas; health, welfare, energy, and communication to name just a few) you move into the world of Fascism. And even die hard Socialists (I do not mean to imply that you are one) avoid admitting that they want a Fascist government.

        Can you imagine what would happen to this country if governments were allowed to investigate and punish opposition parties as soon as they took office? Even the appearance of such a policy could cripple this country. Even if you are in denial about the severity of this issue, you need to appreciate the reaction of the people who believe it. And that, in and of itself, is a serious issue that is getting worse as each “lost” Email is announced.

    • Alierias

      The ACA is Your. Own. Damned. Plan.
      Authorship from of the Heritage Foundation!
      First put into place in MA by that guy, remember him, Mitt Romney !? The ONLY reason the Repugs can’t stand it is because that Black Guy in the White House is the one who got it passed nationwide…

      • Cliven Bumbling

        Stop using facts and logic to debate Conservatives. They abandoned those low down dirty tactics a long long time ago.

      • ruledbysound

        This Heritage authorship of the ACA has been debunked. Also, I love this argument. Are you for the ACA or against it? As soon as it turned to shit (predicted by many conservatives from the start), all you progressives turn to the lie “but oh YOU guys wrote it”. It is a shell of the plan the Heritage Foundation put worth, with little to no resemblance. This is just another progressive talking point. But believe me, it’ll only get worse, we’ve only seen the beginning. thanks for capitalizing “black guy”, we now see who you view as a Messianic figure.

      • ruledbysound

        recall, not a single republican voted for the ACA. It is a law introduced, voted on (in the middle of the night) and passed, solely by Democrats. #OWNIT

    • Chris Judy

      You lost me at #2. The Confederate Flag and and a swastika are two different things and stood for two completely different things. Read a f*cking history book please.

      • Chris Judy

        That’s wasn’t a reply to Buck N, just a comment in general–clicked the wrong reply link.

      • D.j. Maverick

        The Confederate Flag and the Swastika stood for completely different things? Sorry but hate is the same no matter the language or country of origin…..

    • Phil Keast

      Lets see,

      Skip 1 to 4, since I am not current with how these issues are being addressed (or not addressed), so I’m not going to comment.

      5): Health Care: Until you have universal access to affordable health care for all citizens regardless of their financial situation, race, gender, sexual orientation, geographical location, and all the other things that currently restrict access to health care, then all you have is an insurance racket.

      6): I’m with you on this one, to a point. Is man-made climate change a real phenomenon? Probably. Is it as severe and all-encompassing as Al Gore and other extremists claim. Not a chance. Can non-polluting energy sources provide the base-load energy required to maintain industry and keep the lights on in cities? Not a chance. [Nuclear energy is capable of providing the required base-load energy, but is so much of a hot potato that both pro and anti green energy advocates try to pretend it doesn’t exist]. Does this mean the entire debate is driven by commercial interests? I hope not. In Australian it is more of an ideological issue, not a commercial issue. If it is driven by economics in the USA, clean up the influence of political lobbyists on elected officials regardless of political affiliation. Actually, do that anyway, probably a much more worthy cause that debating how many millimeters the sea levels are going to rise 100 years from now.

      7): The Republican party proved, when they shut down the United States government’s ability to pay its employees, that their support is required for the passage of legislation. So Republican support was required to pass the ACA. If the Democrats had the numbers it would have passed unamended. And don’t tell me it was the Democrats who shut down the governments ability to pay public servants, they are not stupid enough to vote to shut down their own administration, they may have been unwilling to negotiate, but they didn’t vote in favor of that piece of stupidity.

      8): The problem with democracy is that sometimes the citizens decide to vote for someone on the platform of reforms other citizens disagree with. If you have a problem with the current administration’s policies, vote them out (oops, that didn’t work, maybe next election). Beyond that, stop whining, accept the mandate that the people have granted. God knows there have been plenty of previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, where people had strenuous objections to some of their policies. The world didn’t end, the USA isn’t going to be damned to hell by God because Republicans don’t like President Obama, and he will be replaced in time (probably by another Democrat, wake up and smell the roses).

      9): Present evidence of people having their freedom of speech restricted, not fears or worries with no evidence, actual cases. If someone makes a positive assertion that something is happening, then it is their responsibility to prove it. If there is no evidence then the default rational position is that it is not occurring. Just as those who believe we have been visited by extraterrestrials who do anal probes and then wipe the memories of their victims must be proven, otherwise it is dismissed, so must those who believe their freedom of speech has been eroded must provide evidence beyond their fear that it is happening. Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but if you wish to assert that something is occurring, the responsibility to prove it lies at your feet.

      Is your phone tapped, your internet activity monitored, your shopping habits recorded, personal information collected (and distributed) without your permission? Hell yes, not only by the NSA (and that’s been happening for decades), but also by Facebook, Google, your credit card supplier, and a whole raft of privately owned entities.

      Is your vote being diluted? Does the USA have the universal mandate that all its citizens have the right to vote? Then all citizens, no matter their political affiliation, have the right to vote. If non-citizens are being registered as voters, then I’d ask two questions. Is your voter registration system so incompetent that they can’t tell a citizen from a non-citizen? If the electoral commission (or the equivalent US agency) is having trouble distinguishing those with the right to vote from those without, then surely the requirement to present evidence of citizenship is a way of overcoming those inadequacies in the system. (Oops, Republicans are against that, aren’t they? If you are confident that all of your supporters are legitimate voters, then what’s the big deal about asking them to prove it? You can’t demand that others meet a standard you refuse to recognize as applying to yourself. That is called hypocrisy.)

      10) No comment, I’m not well enough informed on the details of the oil-pipeline issue to address it.

      • Cliven Bumbling

        Is man-made climate change a real phenomenon? UNEQUIVOCALLY, YES. The international scientific community doesn’t reach 97% consensus on much & they certainly don’t publish reports as aggressive and brash as the one recently brought forth that basically says the world is pretty f’d…unless we reduce the crap out of carbon emissions NOW.

        Is it as serious as Al Gore and and other extremists claim? The overwhelming majority of scientists say it’s even worse than what they claim.

        Here’s the thing man, what if you’re right about your belief that it’s not as bad as they say? Then we’d be cool for another 100 maybe 200 years at our current pace…

        But what if the scientific community is right? The outcome is significantly worse than total crap. That fact alone should get most on board. The fact that green technology and renewable energy would turn into a global economic boom that could end almost every war and keep the planet from going into kick the humans out mode is just a bonus.

      • Phil Keast

        The international scientific community has reached consensus that man-made climate change is real. Agreed. Do they all agree on the rate of change or the precise effects that climate change will bring? No, they don’t. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, suggesting that because 97% climatologists and meteorologists and other scientists who work in fields related to weather agree that somehow 97% of all the scientists in the world agree is sloppy, and one of the reasons there are climate-change skeptics out there. I’m not a climate-change denier, but I’m not going to run around declaring “the end-is-nigh” either.

        If climate change is as bad as Al Gore says, why isn’t Melbourne knee deep in water? He predicted it would have happened by now. Why are the pacific islands Al Gore predicted would have disappeared below the surface of the ocean still above sea level?

        Yes, man made climate change IS an issue to be addressed, but with the sort of disciplined scientific approach that detected it in the first place, not with videos depicting the end of the world and major cities drowning in less than a decade.

        As for green energy, you don’t get something for nothing in physics. ,The energy you are harvesting with current green energy sources is coming from somewhere. Do you know where? Do you know the consequences? Sucking Giga-watts of energy from the environment (i.e. solar or wind power) without any idea of the side effects is bad science. And pretending that solar power or wind power can provide the the 24/7 base-load power generation required to keep manufacturing going and the lights on in the cities is bad engineering.

        Now if the Doomsayers would get out of the way and let the scientists and engineers do their job, the problem will be solved. The exponential rate of scientific advancement over the last 150 years pretty much guarantees it.

        As for emission reduction, until the USA and China and Europe and Russia, or even one of them, ratifies the (now out of date) Kyoto agreements there is nothing the rest of the world can do, the combined emissions of the rest of the world are miniscule, and completely eliminating them without the big 4 will achieve nothing.

    • Raylusk

      I’m only going to respond to a few of your points because I feel strongly about them however I also disagree with almost all of your points.

      3. Your how do you define equal work is an attempt made by many conservatives to spin the issue. The fact is equal work means under the law that women in the same position with similar qualifications shall be paid the same as men. The law the Democrats tried to pass in the last few weeks about this issue was designed to stop the practice of employers keeping wage information private even to the extent of having workplace rules that prohibited employees from disclosing their wages to coworkers. With out this information women wouldn’t know if they were paid less. This is what the GOP opposed.

      4. Democrats also support policies of tax reform that stop wealthy individuals from paying a lower tax rate then many in the middle class, they support raising the minimum wage, they support unions that have been proven to raise wages, and they support laws that prevent workplace discrimination.
      7. Even the GOP admits that over 100 GOP soponsered amendments were included in the ACA. So know they aren’t on crack, you appear to be though.

      9. I agree with some of what you said here. It has been proven that there was no political reasons for what the IRS did it was just a clumsy way to handle an overwhelming situation. You are display ignorance on voter fraud. Ohio conducted an extensive investigation into voter fraud in the 2012 election and found no evidence of any significant voter fraud. In Florida which is controlled by the GOP the only prosecutions for voter fraud stemming from the 2012 election were two GOP operatives. When republicans are pressed on where voter fraud has occurred they can cite no real cases of it.

      • ruledbysound

        ever worked for a private corporation? The amount you make is based on your qualifications, their perceptions, the position, and your negotiating ability. Nothing else.

      • Raylusk

        I think you made my point. Preceptions are just another word for discrimination if it results in less pay for an equally qualified person doing the same job. Negotiating ability for salary is just another excuse for discrimination.

        Yes I worked for a private corporation and I have also owned a small business. I never used perception or negotiating ability to set salaries for those who worked for me. I didn’t do so because there is too much chance for discrimination. I decided up front how much I was willing to pay for a position and that was it.

        It’s been made abundantly clear that women face pay discrimination in the workforce. You conservatives offering excuses for this discrimination is what’s costing you any confidence from the American people. You are on the wrong side on this issue and it will crush the conservative movement if you don’t quit making excused and quit slinging crap and start offering solutions to fix the problem.

    • disqus_2j3OBqnkt0

      Your arguments are convoluted at best and just display your cognitive dissonance.

  • Mack

    Don’t you find it ironic that the Feds had no problem blowing up thousands of tortoises by testing A-bombs in the Nevada desert, but they have a serious problem with 900 cows owned by the last rancher to survive the Bureau of Land Mismanagement’s Policies?

    Last time I checked, confiscation of property without due process was unconstitutional. He is more than willing to pay the State the fees that are due. He does not want to pay it ti the Feds so that Harry Reid’s son can take in millions from the sale of the confiscated land to the Chinese solar energy company.

    Yup. Harry has his dirty paws all over this one. That’s why the Feds backed off.

    • Cliven Bumbling

      Mack- Read Nevada’s Constitution….You won’t have to read far…it’s in part 1. The Feds ARE following state law. Bundy on the other hand is not

    • mre2000

      He lost in court a number of times… how much due process do you expect? Not recognizing the federal govt doesn’t make it ok to not pay or decide to pay someone else. Not toi mentuon thats the stupidest damn argument I’ve ever heard. And thats not even taking NV Constitution into consideration.

    • Mack

      How nice of you to conveniently avoid answering my main question:

      “Don’t you find it ironic that the Feds had no problem blowing up thousands of tortoises by testing A-bombs in the Nevada desert, but they have a serious problem with 900 cows owned by the last rancher to survive the Bureau of Land Mismanagement’s Policies?”

      Way to go. You should be a politician…

  • I just came across this… Thanks, Alan!

  • bretthig

    I have just found the STUPIDEST person in the world! You are a piece of freakin cow poo.