10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican, 6th Edition

bush-ummmLadies and gentlemen, welcome to the sixth 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) Do you realize that the House Majority leader of the United States of America was just defeated in their primary for the first time ever by an economics professor who couldn’t even answer a simple question pertaining to his stance on the minimum wage?

2) If you’re so big on “Constitutional rights,” why do so many conservatives believe that we should have left Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan to die based on the accusations that he was a deserter?  You do realize that’s essentially sentencing someone to death without due process, right?

3) If 30 “urban looking” African-Americans strolled into a predominantly white upper-middle class neighborhood with AR-15’s and AK-47’s strapped to their backs, do you think the people living there would feel safe?

4) If a criminal, in possession of a gun, walks into some place determined to commit a crime (robbery for example) and you’re openly carrying your weapon where they can see it – don’t you think you would be the first person they’d target?

5) If “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” then why in the Nevada shooting (in one of the most pro-gun states in the nation) did no “good guy with a gun” stop the two shooters?  In fact, the third victim would probably still be alive had he not tried to confront one of the shooters (he had a concealed weapon).

6) Do you realize that had John McCain been elected president in 2008, we’d still have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and troops in Syria, Egypt and Libya – as well as still be fighting in Afghanistan?  For the record, that’s 5 wars, not including what he might have done in Iran.

7) Explain to me how Ronald Reagan is an “American legend and conservative icon” when he illegally sold missiles to Iran to negotiate the release of American hostages, yet President Obama is “anti-American” and should be impeached because he traded five terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl?

8) Are you aware that no matter how much oil we drill here in the United States, almost all of it still gets sold on the open market to the highest bidder?  “Drill baby drill” doesn’t make any sense unless we essentially nationalize all of our oil.  Are you then suggesting we nationalize our oil?

9) In Iraq, Obama basically had 2 choices:

  1. Keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, costing trillions more over probably the next 10-20 years (because that’s how long it’s going to take to even try to establish real democracy in the country).
  2. Remove our troops, likely handing the country over to radical Islamic insurgents shortly after.

Which solution would you have had him choose to clean up Bush’s mess?  Oh, all while reducing our deficit and listening to the vast majority of Americans who wanted us out of Iraq.

10) We all want energy independence.  So, tell me, out of the following three which two are unlimited, can’t be taken away from us, don’t pollute and would completely remove us from relying on other countries to meet our energy needs?:

  • Oil
  • Wind
  • Solar

Well, that will conclude this edition. I hope you enjoyed it and I hope you’ll ask your conservative friends and family these questions to see what kind of responses they can muster up.


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

  • dcdrew8171

    Way to much wisdom of knowledge, not enough of the falseness of feelings based on an ideology that mankind is under the Biblical law, when in fact “biblical covenants says totally the opposite” claiming the law disqualifies the sacrifice of Christ as deliverance from the perfection of the law, the very foundation of Christianity.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      good stuff!!!

  • MTemplar

    This is the biggest one for me. “4) If a criminal, in possession of a gun, walks into some place determined to commit a crime (robbery for example) and you’re openly carrying your weapon where they can see it – don’t you think you would be the first person they’d target?”

    Personally concealed carry is the only way to carry. Open carry is no better than putting a huge sign above your head saying, “I’m a wannabe vigilante with a gun, please shoot me first and take my weapon from me.”

    I do understand there are still issues with concealed carry and sadly one person paid the price. However, not all would so willingly jump at a situation like that and would likely be a little more tactical about it.

    I do not want complete gun removal but a smarter outlook on guns like full background checks on private sales, restrictions on those with a mental illness with a history of violence, and a move away from a broad interpretation of the constitutional law. I don’t believe the term “arms” would cover the right to have a RPG.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      I have no problem with universal background checks. I can’t understand why some people do.

      • John L

        The only people that are against background checks are people that won’t pass the background check.

      • Jeff Adamson

        Not true..I am against “UBC” for the above mentioned reasons…and I can and have passed a background check numerous times.

      • Vince Cannava II

        so you’re a fan of whatever the opposite of common sense is. nice to know.

      • MTemplar

        The gun manufacturers and because of that the NRA.

        A sale is a sale to them and even better when sold to a criminal. When a criminal buys a gun and uses it, it makes law abiding citizens feel uneasy and gives them a desire to purchase a gun themselves. So one sale will turn into two. Then when more criminals buy guns then the police departments to keep up with the increase will buy more and heavier weapons. This will mean heavier and larger weapons bought by both sides.

        The truth is that guns will never go away. As long as there is violence in the world, guns will exist. You will always have those afraid that the government will take over if they are the only ones with guns so citizens will never turn over their guns. You will also always have those afraid that a universal background check will lead to a gun registration. We need a good middle ground that isn’t as extreme as a locked gun registration but something to ensure that should a gun be sold illegally to a criminal we have some way of knowing who sold it. It’s not perfect and won’t stop them from having guns but at least it will hold those responsible.

      • Jeff Adamson

        So, you believe that a law that required background checks on all sales would never be broken by those intent on criminal acts with a firearm? You are correct, it isnt perfect and will only lead to more government intrusion into our lives.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        are state “laws” which make it nearly impossible for women to get an abortion INTRUSION? how about state “laws” which attempt to prohibit non heterosexuals from marrying? is THAT big GOVT intrusion??
        ******************************************************
        lemme know

      • David Pacansky

        No that’s actually LOCAL government intrusion. You see if you want to marry your lesbian lover, get artificially inseminated, then have an abortion, there are plenty of states that allow those things to happen, and in a free country you are welcome to go live in any of those. A FEDERAL government mandate that ALL states have to follow is BIG government intrusion, so those out there who are AGAINST abortion or gay marriage aren’t being told that THEIR views are not allowed. It’s two sides of the same coin. You want to have abortion and gay marriage, then you have to respect the rights of the people who do not want those things as well, otherwise the next group in power might take away the things you want.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey crybaby— jeff’s statement was referring to ” government” intrusion ( please re read what he wrote b4 U cry more) and it seems u claim LOCAL GOVT intrusion is acceptable? REALLY DAVE??? that OK because some white trash aging religious stultified scum wants THEIR view of “rights” ( or NON rights) mandated by some bullshit useless mad magazine book ( BIBLE) to be THE template for how ALL americans are 2 live???
        OR– U want people to MOVE away from where they live just to do something they desire because the above ridiculed white trash religious SCUM has enough power to force them out ( or live under the atavistic guidelines restricting equality) thus keeping thomas jeffersons ” pursuit of happiness’ a DREAM only?
        wow!! im glad I wrote and read!!! after all; BIG govt ( see: federal) intrusion is womens sufferage; equal rights for blacks and minorities??? wow– that BIG BAD ol GOVT forcing equality upon all those white trash small dicked and small brained religious scum who don’t want equal rights for anyone NOT old and white and scurvy superstitious??( religion)
        ====================================
        those against gay marriage and abortion and equality for all americans are NOT losing any of their rights: they are quelling THOSE equal rights for other americans because THEY DONT LIKE THOSE AMERICANS based upon some sniveling version of THEIR VOODOO
        sounds to me that jes’ maybe u might be a redneck white trash Christian!!

      • David Pacansky

        It’s hard to argue with genius like that. Perhaps you should re-read YOUR original post, which I was responding to. Were those rhetorical questions you posed? If so the “lemme know” part at the bottom was contradictory. If you took the time to read my response, instead of instantly attacking like MOST liberals do to anyone who disagrees with them, I was trying to show that perspective is the only difference between your view and theirs. For the record, I’m an independent who voted for Barack Obama, I happen to agree with gay rights, including gay marriage, and I feel abortion as birth control is wrong, but do understand it should be safe and legal when accidents happen, or for rape victims, etc. I happen to be a Christian, but I’m intelligent enough to not to let a book, written by easily corruptable men run my life. Perhaps instead of instantly flaming someone you should open your mind up and try to understand the other person’s perspective. If more people in government would do that, we might be able to get a frigging decent law passed, instead of this partisan crapstorm we’re stuck in nowadays.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im well aware that U wrote it “middle of the road” which normally I would commend:
        you should clearly recognize that he wrote “govt intrusion” and U dissected that by comparing federal VS state as your barometer for size.
        I stand by my rant of INTRUSION IS INTRUSION: and in my oligophrenial(??) mind state is big govt as well as federal. BOTH can poorly force americans to do what they don’t want to do; ergo they are too big in that conveyance.
        as 4 laws getting passed I staunchly say that ANY religious marinade entering legislation is worthy of a big bloody fistfight– and im not violent but as this country is NOT a religious country that extrapolates into we should NEVER have any religions in our public eyes when it can trample the rights of others. religion? its akin to drugs: harmful and should be done privately behind closed doors to avoid harming others.
        I totally agree with 90% of what U write

      • David Pacansky

        Glad to hear you’re open to common sense, and I don’t necessarily disagree with your views on religion. My favorite saying is “Religion is like a penis, it’s great you’re proud of yours, but as soon as you try shoving it down my throat we’ve got a problem.” As for the original post, that is NOT what I replied to, and yes even state government is intrusive, but the way our Republic works, the states are the testing labs for the whole nation, and should guide the nation as such. For instance, 2 states have legalized marijuana, time will tell if it’ll guide the nation to do the same. Starting from the top down doesn’t work as well because you’re pissing off someone all the time. So if I want to live where there’s legalized marijuana I can go to Washington state or Colorado, if I don’t I can live anywhere else. No government is impractical if you want clean air and water and safe labor practices, but too much government is not great either.

      • Jim Muncy

        Uhhh…I think that your comments generate more heat than light. Name-calling is counterproductive, even if your points are correct.✋

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        sometimes I like to attack a toad with a nuclear weapon,,,,,
        besides; I feel that the “white trash regressive religious” scum of our nation is destroying it; so why sugar coat the verbose term?

      • Jim Muncy

        Isn’t government intrusion better than burying your loved ones? It’s our choice.✌

      • Jeff Adamson

        Id have no problem with “universal background checks” IF the NICS was made available to everyday folks for free, and the records were immediately destroyed, AND, the make/model/serial# wasnt required. This cry for “UBC” is just another backdoor approach to registration. If not, then why keep records and require info about the firearm?
        I put “universal background checks” in quotes because the criminals wouldnt do this, so it really wouldnt be universal. Just another hurdle for good guys/gals to jump in order to exercise a civil right. Perhaps we can require checks for other rights too? A grammar test for the 1st Amendment?

      • MTemplar

        Why is it that gun “rights” activists use the extremes as examples. Look, we have more rights today with guns then we did 5, 10, 15 years ago. Someone can go down today and buy a handgun in 5 minutes where before they had a 3 day waiting period. There are people walking down the street with guns on their hips and backs. In the past that would have warranted having it taken away from you. Even in the wild west you turned in your gun when you entered a town and got a ticket to get it back out when you leave. Don’t give me that BS that they are trying to take away rights for law abiding citizens. The truth is that if the NRA had their way every single criminal and citizen would be armed. That way their company buddies would get rich and in turn they would get rich. So if you are law abiding, keep your guns, I don’t think those should be taken away, but we shouldn’t be allowing people to sell them to anyone that has the money because you don’t know who that person you are selling to is.

        Example is the Las Vegas shooting. They were asking for guns from people because they themselves couldn’t buy one legally. If there were stricter laws it’s likely they wouldn’t have managed to get a gun as soon or maybe even at all.

        Also what about the Seattle shooting, he bough that gun legally from a store even after he had a documented mental issue and problems with the law. Why was he allowed to buy that gun? Because laws have been put down in such a way that they can not report those mental issues to the background checkers.

        So again, I don’t believe in taking guns away and I don’t believe that we should have a full registration of every gun we own and buy blah blah blah. I don’t think we should take rights away from the legally abiding citizens. However I believe we need to stop blatant straw man purchases, private sales to those we don’t know, and the keeping of clear mental issues from the background check services.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So what is wrong with registration? You register your car, do you not? And I’m more in favor of a psychiatric test along with a weapons handling test than a grammar test. With rights come responsibility. You don’t want to take responsibility, don’t expect to have the rights.

    • SonOfLiberty

      People without the proper training almost never have the correct response in such a situation, armed or not.

    • Doy Bowers

      Yep. Open Carry equals “OPEN TARGET” in my books. The CONS whining about background checks are just CHUMPS!!! They whine that the “Evil Leeebssss” are taking their guns. Well I got news for you Cletus, If the Goobermunt wants your gun they’ll take your Gun and all of the Fascist Propaganda about how they can can have “My Guns when they pry it from My Cold Dead Hands” is B.S.!!! SO!!! Do you really think that’s going to slow them down??? If you don’t believe me just ask the Goobers at “WACKO TX.” Oh wait, You can’t because they’re all DEAD. My Bad!!!

      • MTemplar

        So to touch on what you said.

        First again, the open carry jackholes that believe if they carry an AR-15 around (mind you most are unloaded because laws dictate it) are saying that they are a prime target. Again, most of the open carry people actually do not have rounds in their magazines or if they do it may not be attached to their gun. Some states allow loaded guns while many do not. What good is that gun if it’s not even loaded? Personally I will take my loaded and ready to use Glock concealed over an AR-15 on a sling without rounds.

        A responsible person would realize that the criminal won’t come running at them with guns pulled and screaming. A smart criminal would sneak up behind the open carry group and then start shooting one at a time. After which that person is now much better armed than they were when they first engaged.

        As for the “you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.” Well yah, they will. If it came down to a true military/government take over where the military were to forget they are human beings (won’t happen and they won’t follow an order that’s not reasonable) then there is little that can be done should they come. AKs, ARs, Shotguns, and handguns will do nothing against an Apache, Abrams, APC, or a drone sitting a mile up.

        However, like I touched on there, unless there is a major fundemental shift from the thinking decent human beings that we currently have in our military to a piece of shit like the Nazis, well we won’t be having them try to take your guns. In the end, even if the admin tried to take the guns from law abiding citizens without due process and a reasonable purpose they literally wouldn’t have a military standing behind them.

      • Doy Bowers

        THANK YOU!!! It’s nice to see somebody with a little common sense.
        So the O.C.D. (Open Carry Delusional’s) are carrying around unloaded weapons. Well that proves what I’ve thought all along. They are just doing it to be Dicks and for the “FEAR FACTOR” of scaring civilized people. Which makes them a far greater threat to my 2nd. Amendment Rights than any so called “Liberal” will ever be. Because they fuel the fire and give them media something to focus on.
        Now if anybody ever does go on a “Gun Grabbing Spree” it’ll be the same ones that are now claiming to protect your rights. The first one that gets in a position of power and tells them they are on a “Mission from God” to rid the world of “Evil Firearms”. They’ll be good little Lemmings and follow them right over the cliff.
        To hear the Open Carry Nuts tell it their gun “Protects them from a Tyrannical Government”. LOL!!! As you stated our little Pea Shooters are no match for military muscle. However somebody needs to explain that to the Delusional Militia Clowns.
        As you say I’ll keep my .380 in my pocket until it’s absolutely necessary to pull it out in an attempt to defend me and mine.
        As for the Government needed a “Reasonable Excuse” to go after our guns I’ve only got one thing to say about that. Since when has the Government ever needed a “Reasonable Excuse” for anything they do???

      • MTemplar

        I will agree that the government doesn’t always need a reason to do things. However, there is a fine line that they walk currently. A push like taking all guns away from the civilian public would be an undertaking that only the military could achieve. At that point, the military would lawfully stand up against the government and their higher ups.

      • Doy Bowers

        Really??? From what I’ve always been told part of the “Military Code of Honor” is to “Follow Orders without Question”.
        Now it’s not like I’m in any way delusional enough to believe the Government is “Taking Our Guns Away”. That’s just propaganda for the “RUBES”. My whole thing is if they want to take the guns away they’ll do it and all of the flag waving and propaganda from the Squawk Radio Talking Heads won’t slow them down. Just my honest opinion. For whatever it’s worth. (That and $2.00 will get you a cup of cheap coffee.) 😉

      • MTemplar

        An officer would first go back to his oath of office.

        “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

        “Defend the Constitution” which would be the 2nd, that a lawful person has a right to.

        “Defend against enemies, foreign and domestic” which would mean even against an unlawful order.

        Article 90 “2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

      • Doy Bowers

        Well Brother for all of our sake’s I pray you’re right. Now if you’ll allow me to say so,
        “Sir, You are a Gentleman and a a Scholar. A credit to the human race as a whole and it’s been an absolute pleasure to deal with you. Young men of your caliber give me hope for the future of man kind. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK”!!!
        Me on the other hand, I’m a sarcastic thorn in the paw of mankind. ;-). THANX AGAIN!!!

      • MTemplar

        I do hope I am right as well. In the end of the day, a military is a group of men that have been trained for a specific reason. However, all that training will not change them being a person. If they were evil or bad to begin with or they leaned that way then they will likely continue that. If they were good and tried to help in every way they could, they will likely continue that. Just because someone becomes President and he is Progressive/Conservative doesn’t automatically change every person under their command.

        Everyone needs to remember this, just because Obama is President doesn’t mean he can now do an Order 66 and take over the country. Doesn’t work that way.

        We will continue to be a nation of people, we will continue to be a nation that has differing opinions and thoughts, we will continue to be a nation of growth in both directions, and we will continue in the end to be one nation. We are all in this together so don’t go trying to shoot your neighbor just because he has a different opinion of guns rights/control.

        Thanks everyone and lets try to be as good to one another as we can be. 🙂

      • Doy Bowers

        I second that motion my man.

    • Charles Vincent

      Actually it does read the federalist papers it covers this. It basically says every weapon a professional soldier would use is what civilians should train in the use of.

      • MTemplar

        I believe you speak of 46. I could be wrong of course. However if I recall it specifically talks about requiring that the civilians must be formed into militias and that they must be a standing army of over 500 thousand civilians and be armed. The constitution further reinforces this with the well regulated militia wording which would mean that a militia that’s been regulated and is controlled by officers appointed my the men shall have arms. However, the truth is you often time will have a few hundred guys, not regulated, not maintained, and usually will have a dictator style person in charge who wasn’t really elected but usually is the one who formed it and never stepped down.

        So no, it doesn’t address the ability for the people to have at that time cannons but does address they need to be armed that they could stand up against the government regulars should the government ever try to take control by gun point.

      • Charles Vincent

        There are several that discuss differing topics in the federalist papers both pertaining to the militia and to individuals and owning private arms. 46 discusses both I believe.

      • Charles Vincent

        “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States…”
        Tench Coxe

      • Charles Vincent

        “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right…. T he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
        Tench Coxe

      • Nemisis

        Open carry of swords are banned….just saying….

      • Charles Vincent

        Not really swords are arms according to the second amendment.

        Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

        Justice Scalia
        United States Supreme Court
        District of Columbia v. Heller – 07-290 (2008)

      • Charles Vincent

        List of federalist papers discussing both the militia and arms of the individual.
        The Militia
        #8 A. Hamilton
        #24 A. Hamilton
        #25 A. Hamilton
        #28 A. Hamilton
        #29 A. Hamilton
        #46 J. Madison

        Arms
        #29 A. Hamilton
        #43 J. Madison
        #46 J. Madison

    • Joanne3905

      We would have to extend the background checks to anyone having access to the home of the potential gun owner (as in the mentally unhealthy Sandy Hook shooter).

  • John Bottomley

    #10. The latest war on solar is based upon a net metering lie on two fronts and shows the spectacular gullibility of the red state voter.

    First that since checks are traded between the utility and the home producer that the check from the utility is the one to concentrate on… it means (somehow, in conservative crazy-think) that the homeowner is not ‘paying their fair share’.

    Secondly that utilities want to charge retail and pay wholesale so they can turn around and sell electrons they did not produce at a profit. This is being painted as unfair profiteering (really?) by the homeowner.

    Then these same conservatives will argue until they are red in the face like the good little blades of astroturf that they are that the utilities position is the only one that is valid.

  • Notevenconservativebuthatelibs

    #1 question you should ask every liberal: Why do you think killing babies before they’re born is any better than anything mentioned above? Idiots.

    • FD Brian

      You want to raise them?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, (s)he wants to punish their parents for having sex outside of wedlock or for having kids they are too poor to care for. It’s largely retribution.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        tinged with jealousy as nearly all aging white trash
        regressives didn’t get enough sex; ergo they are UPSET!!!

    • Kpeters

      Why is it any of your, or the governments business if a woman has to make this difficult choice? Why don’t you try showing as much compassion for the babies & children that are currently living in dire circumstances? I assume your prolife stance means you are against the death penalty?

    • sfwm.son

      Because they know with people like the GOP in charge their kids don’t stand a chance.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      And WHY, when those saved babies are born, does the republican party then wash their hands of them and take away the hope of them having a decent life meaning food and clothing and caring by the people who say they care? They only care that they get born—not what happens to them afterward!!

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Here’s a better question? Why don’t you do whatever you can to prevent unwanted pregnancies, like comprehensive sex education and affordable contraception?

      Secondary question: Why do conservatives fall all over themselves to protect the unborn, but once the kid is on the outside, they really don’t give a shit anymore? You know, gutting food stamps, education, not caring if they have homes, taking away their lunches because their parents (or parent) has an unpaid tab at school. Throwing them in jail for minor offenses.

      Tertiary question. Do you support the death penalty? I’ll wait while you look up the definition of “tertiary.”

      • J.D.

        Why, because it is the best way to buy the votes of the religious base. You are correct, you cannot be so PRO life then turn your backs on the poor, sick, and less fortunate every chance you get.

      • rbjinx

        They are not and have never been pro-life, they are pro-BIRTH. As you eloquently stated, after birth they could care less. They ALL believe in the death penalty and wish it was televised!

    • Kevin Pickle

      Loaded language. Hardly justifies comments because you aren’t interested in dialogue or open to other points of view. When is a person a person? The Hellenistic view, which held sway at the time of Jesus was that the soul entered the body with the first breath, the first “inspiration” if you will. Which may explain why Jesus never mentioned it. It may also go a long way to explain why Christians didn’t realize that abortion was a sin until very recently.

      • Morgan O’Brien-Bledsoe

        Or maybe they didn’t realize it’s a sin because it’s not. If Jesus, the man your religion is biased on, didn’t believe life started until the first breath then why do you or anyone else born in the last 2,014 years get to change that? Christianity is biased on the life and beliefs of Jesus. Are you Jesus? Are the people who decided, as you said, very recently that abortion is a sin Jesus? No. Because if you or they were then that would be the second coming and the apocalypse would be upon us. It’s not, your not and their not. So abortion IS NOT A SIN.

      • Kevin Pickle

        Just to be clear, you realize that I’m not Christian, right? This was a comment on historical context, not a statement of belief.

      • Sherri G

        And God counted the Israelites not from conception but from the age of 1 month!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        which “GOD”????
        the voodoo one in that old book?

    • John L

      I thought the idea of less government meant not letting government tell you what you can an can not do!

      • J.D.

        Unless it is for something they believe in, like religious beliefs, guns, or war, then they are all for supporting the government, and if you do not support the government in these situations, you are a traitor and Anit-American.

    • bigovernmentsocialconservative

      There are no babies before birth. Babies are born through the EVENT called birth.

      Can you try again in English, please?

    • Morgan O’Brien-Bledsoe

      Because theres no such thing as a baby before it’s born. At that point it’s a fetus. Or a zygote.

    • Nick Wride

      A fetus is not a baby. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Better yet, make birth control cheap and easy to get.

      • G Blackshear

        It’s the crippling cognitive dissonance of a platform that supports “pro-life” measures and claims to care about the unborn but demonizes honest sex ed that would prevent unwanted pregnancy, despisese the idea of affordable/free contraception, supports the death penalty, and defunds social programs and education at every turn.

    • TheDaleks

      It’s part of the public record that liberal policies — like family planning, access to contraception and sex education — reduce the need and incidence of abortion. It’s also public information that under President Obama, teen pregnancy is at an all-time low, and it also decreased under President Clinton. Teen pregnancy increased under President Bush Jr.

      And if right-wingers really wanted to reduce abortion, they would also stop opposing pre-natal and pediatric healthcare, childhood nutrition assistance, and programs that curb domestic violence.

    • David Wagner

      then why not simply remove the babies and give them to someone else? oh wait, because they cannot live outside the womb because they are still technically part of the “host”. and of course you are opposed to the death penalty, give generously to food banks, support public assistance for unmarried pregnant women correct?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        “there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”
        —————————————– annoying a regressive with facts!

    • Erik

      HATE?

    • SonOfLiberty

      Methinks nobody in this thread understands what a troll is.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      babies are born,,,,,,,,,fetuses are not yet born
      ===========================================
      welcome 2 reality

  • Rick

    For every point there is a valid counter point. Liberals tend to dismiss as “idiots” or ” stupid” any person or idea that is not liberal. All Americans have to admit that our freedoms are being curtailed and government is growing in size and power expotentially. I don’t think I need the government to run my everyday life and make life decisions for me.

    • Kevin Pickle

      You can’t attack science and education and then claim intellectual equality. You can’t deny scientific realities like global warming and evolution and then get offended when we look down our noses at you. The old Republican party believed in education and science. The old Republican party would be debating with Democrats on the right policy responses(free market ones I’m sure), not sabotaging the effort to deal with our nations multifarious problem by denying empirical reality.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Funny but I don’t understand why the new Republicans run for government when they HATE government.

      • Kevin Pickle

        The republican line, “Government is always bad, elect me to it! Please!” is a similar cognitive dissonance to the libertarian notion that one can be individualistic and still have any kind of influence on policy. They miss the context that individual liberty and privacy IS a communitarian value that we have to actively protect through participation in government. I believe that’s what they used to call civics.

      • strayaway

        “Individual liberty” and privacy IS a (constitutional) value that we have to actively protect through participation in government.” It isn’t as if libertarians don’t vote. “Individual liberty and privacy” hasn’t been either a neocon Republican or a progressive priority for awhile.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        what is your educated opinion upon EQUALITY/EQUAL RIGHTS for all AMERICANS?

      • v2787

        They run because they want money and power. They DON’T run to help the country or make a positive difference–all they care about is consolidating their power and making as much money as they can.

      • Enough is Enough

        What I find to be quite funny is that almost all of the progressives posting about conservatives being anti-science have no scientific background themselves….I hold multiple engineering degrees and certifications and I am conservative. I am by no stretch of the imagination anti-science….I have simply reviewed the information regarding so called man made global warming and find that the data doesn’t support the conclusions being drawn. Is the climate changing? Yes. It always has and always will. Is it caused by man? The data does not support that conclusion….despite what non-scientifically trained progressives want to be true…..

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        SO why is it that 97% of the climate change SCIENTISTS agree with global climate change and than humans are the primary culprits.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        perhaps————-and your writing is delightfully extrapolative
        shall we also include how the DATA shows that GOD is not able to be ( correctly and logically) defined by a finite creature such as humans?
        and CERTAINLY religion— all religion(s) are man made and thus worthy of looking at and nothing else?

      • BobJThompson

        I work for a company that manufactures RV satellite antennas, doing customer service. Mostly my job is telling people how to get these antennas working. One time I helped a NASA rocket scientist from the Apollo missions get his satellite TV working. This coming from a guy with just an Associates Degree. The point of this story is, if you’re not trained in the field and looking over data (especially cherry picked data you’ll find on conservative sites) you have no legs to stand on.

        I defer to experts when I have no indepth knowledge of issues. And if they are demonstrably wrong *cough Reganomics* I know what “experts” to avoid in the future. With something as complex as the whole planets climate you’re bound to get some odd data. It doesn’t take an engineer to see that smoking a carton a day will lead to massive health issues and yet when all of western society does that with CO2 and methane pollution it’s somehow sunspots or procession of the equinox or gods will. No. You’re gambling with the habitability of our planet.

        The Mississippi river is approaching it’s 3rd highest ever crest in my area since records have been kept. The 2 higher crests were in 1993 and 2008. What was some of the warnings about climate change again? flooding? Also last year this community (the oldest in iowa) had it’s first June, July, and August without rain ever. But the temps were mild at least. But droughts aren’t a part of shifting weather patterns right?

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      I feel my freedoms are assaulted far more by Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives than liberals and Democrats. I think conservatives’ idea of “losing our freedoms” means “we can’t openly persecute people we don’t like when liberals are looking over our shoulders.”

      • J.D.

        Well that is unless you are a conservative bible thumping gun nut, then you feel protected.

      • Jeff Adamson

        ah…insults always win people over, dont they?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “bible thumping gun nut” is a valid observation.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        valid????
        it is biblical!!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        j.d.’s post was colloquially expressed,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and essentially correct
        ======================================
        would writing ” superstitious ( see: religion) regressive rightwing firearm-toting aging Caucasian” make U feel better?

      • J.D.

        It was not an insult directed at anyone. It was a generalized statement in agreement with the person I was responding too. If it offends someone then it may be true for that person.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      What freedoms have been taken away from you so far? And as for the government growing in power—-what about the rights of voters to vote no matter if they are old and and not republican? Why all of a sudden is it mandatory that these people that are old and poor and the least likely to have access to a acceptable id card, are kept from voting? Why is it that women’s rights have been taken away as far as having control over their own bodies when that was a law that was made many years ago? Talk about big government—that seems to me to be the epitome of big government–and it’s being voted for by republicans not democrats!!

      • Enough is Enough

        Women do have control over their own bodies. What they are asking for is a “do over”. Regarding voter ID laws, I am required to provide photo ID for many, many things, however, I don’t need to provide an ID in order to perform one of the most important rights that I have. Only on the liberal world would that make sense.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      No, we dismiss you as being stupid or an idiot when you can’t argue using logic and fact.

      • Jeff Adamson

        so, you result to insults? Very nice….

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Read what I wrote and then tell me if you qualify. If you can’t argue with fact or logic, calling you stupid or an idiot isn’t an insult; it’s an observation.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        he wont as rick is akin to jeffs hatred of anything which is NOT white and aging and Christian and regressive,,,,,,,

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Good to know.

    • Kovah88

      “For every point there is a valid counter point.” Then how about presenting some specific counter points to these rather than making broad, general statements?

    • J.D.

      And the Patriot Act, the most intrusive government policy on our rights that was passed by the Bush administration, has NOTHING to do with that….right. Also, in typical fashion you claim counter points, but never really offer any counter points up for debate.

      • strayaway

        Counter points: Senator Feingold (D) was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. It was a very bi-partisan bill. It has come up for renewal and been renewed in both 2006 and 2011. That means it was renewed by a Democratic Senator and President and a Republican House in 2011. Going forward, Senator Clinton voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and for its renewal in 2006.

      • J.D.

        You are obviously missing my point so let me simplify it for you. Republican supporters and politicians are always crying about “big government”, and that we need to shrink government, however they all voted for the most INTRUSIVE piece of legislation ever. I do not care WHO voted for it, my point is that the right side plays the small government card, but practices the exact opposite. Example number two of GOP hypocrisy: they have been beating up the current president since the day he took over deficit spending and the outrageous debt, even though they were none concerned about it when their Republican president spent over a trillion dollars on a war that was based on lies WITHOUT ANYTHING to offset the spending. I am sick and tired of the GOP’s smoke and mirrors games and lack of ability to take responsibility for the policies they have implemented that have destroyed this country from within. Everything from failed trickle down economics and war mongering to endless attacks on the poor and less fortunate. They have destroyed this country with in and our reputation in the international community. Now these bastards want to attack Obama for the mess THEY created in the Middle East. As an educated and active American citizen, it is a down right insult that they think we are too ignorant to know the truth. They will feel the TRUTH when many of them lose their congressional seats this November.

      • strayaway

        You are missing my point that the Patriot Act was very much a bipartisan effort. I provided counter points for debate. I agree that the Iraq War was a big waste of money but it also was only possible because of bipartisan votes. Senator Clinton, for one, was an enthusiastic supporter. The war, and the lack of extra taxes or, alternatively, spending cuts to support that war, were continued under Obama even when he had a Democratic Senate and House. I think that it is difficult to say, with a straight face, that it was solely Bush’s or Republican’s fault.

        I’m on record here as being ok with President Obama not committing our troops to the situation evolving in Iraq and opposing bellicose Republicans who are pushing for military action. You should be delighted, however, with the growing liberty faction in the Republican Party which opposed Iraq, staying in Afghanistan, Libya, drone attacks, and aiding the Syrian Sunni rebels aligned with Isis. I’m guessing that some of Isis’ weapons were donated to the Syrian rebels by the US. This is sort of like distributing automatic rifles to Mexican drug dealers and acting surprised when they are used to gun down US Border Patrol agents only much bigger.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The patriot act was bipartisan only because the Democrats lacked the spine to stand up to the Bush administration.

    • Morgan O’Brien-Bledsoe

      For every one reading: Those counter points are…???

    • Nick Wride

      Rick, where were you when the Bush/Cheney REGIME was curtailing our freedoms and growing government? Cheerleading?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        sewing the new tea party jerseys which became popular on jan 2009

    • Walter_Wellstone

      Not really. We call idiots those who believe idiotic things. Here’s an idiotic position: “The Earth was created 6,000 years ago. The Bible says so.” That’s stupid and whoever repeats it deserves to be called stupid because the evidence shows that statement is false.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Actually, Obama had NO choice in Iraq. Maliki tossed us out.

    • J.D.

      It was a catch 22 for him, stay there and rack of billions to support the country and lose more American lives, or get out and let it collapse. There is NO way yanyone can gloss over the fact that we SHOULD NOT have been there in the first place, and any resultiong consequence of being there is SOLELY the responsibility of the people who put us there

      • jchastn

        Actually, The U.S. wanted to keep a “permanent” base there with a somewhat small presence to shore up the Iraqi military and discourage the radicals from trying to take over. The Iraqi Government rejected that, and we honored that rejection. You can not keep a small presence in a country that doesn’t want you there. You can only occupy it with a large presence, and the American public would have rejected that. I think that a rule going forward should be “Don’t invade countries that you don’t want to occupy forever.” This is Bush’s legacy whether Fox News likes it or not.

    • SonOfLiberty

      You say that as though the US couldn’t have stayed if it wanted. What Maliki wanted was pretty much meaningless.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We couldn’t have stayed…

      • Walter_Wellstone

        What would have been the point of staying in Iraq? If Halliburton wants protection they should hire Xe and have them do their bidding.

      • Mark

        Well actually we the US didn’t have choice as Bush signed a treaty that had us pulling all of our people out by the end of 2011. So what could we do?

  • Nick Wride

    Their heads would explode before they could formulate honest answers.

  • Doy Bowers

    Well these questions are like everything else the Fascist Reich Wingers do. They’ll have “No Answers”. Only finger pointing and propaganda. I can hear them now, “It’s the Commie Socialist Kenyan Obama’s Fault”!!!

    • Jeff Adamson

      why do liberals always go straight to insults?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        only when the insultive is deserving

  • Ed

    Question 1) I’m not exactly sure what the question was that the economic professor was asked, but you can’t let democrats or republican either one off the hook when it comes to economic issues since neither one even knows lawfully or constitutionally what a “dollar” actually is and that Bills of Credit are illegal yet this is the basis of our currency today which was caused by a democrat.

    Question 2) I agree 100% on this one

    Question 3) This is kinda of a silly question. It’s like asking if 30 fat people walked into an all you can eat buffet, would the manager get nervous about his profits for the day.

    Question 4) This is another silly question. If someone is intent on robbing a store, then that is their intent. Makes no difference if anyone is open carrying or not. You could also argue the point that if the store has a policy that everyone is required to have a firearm upon entering the premises of the store, do you really think the place would be a target for a criminal.

    Question 5) What kind of question is this? ummm cops have guns to stop bad guys with guns. Some cops get killed in the line of duty more bad guys get killed than cops…. shit happens.

    Question 6) Not sure if this is a question or a statement, but again it’s a silly question. No matter who is elected president that person will bring with them their own psycosis regardless of who it is. Including Obama.

    Question 7) Ronald Reagan was and is a piece of shit in my book.

    Question 8) Don’t know enough about it to give an intelligent response

    Question 9) What business do we have in establishing democracy anywhere. That war was illegal and there is no excuse for keeping troops there. Congress isn’t even constitutionally permitted to finance any military operations in Iraq or Afghanastan. So the way I see it, is the President’s only option was to follow the law and bring the troops home immediately. The fall out one can be more easily assessed and dealt with later.

    10) Solar and wind are good options. I would like to see all the suppressed technology that has been kept from us for years.

  • tmf354

    In #9, part 1, the wording is all wrong. It should read “Occupy Iraq, against the will of their own people and government…” not, “Keep troops in Iraq indefinitely…”

  • Matthew Reece

    10. None of the above. The sun has a finite output and will only last for a finite time. Both of these also pollute, as solar panels contain toxic chemicals and windmills kill thousands of birds and bats.

    • Kevin Pickle

      Did you really just argue that the sun has a finite output? You do realize that one hundred percent of the energy in the ecosystem, the food you eat, the air you breathe, not to mention all of the non renewable oil, coal and natural gas is a product of solar radiation. And a finite time? Tell you what, I don’t normally favor putting off problems but why don’t you get back to me in 4 billion years, we’ll still have plenty of time worry about.

      • Matthew Reece

        Are you saying that the Sun’s output or the amount of energy in the ecosystem is infinite? You would be wrong. Also, the Sun may last another 5 billion years, but it will increase its output over time, making Earth uninhabitable in 1-2 billion years.

      • Kevin Pickle

        What I am saying is that all of the energy that can be derived from the ecosystem is originally from the sun. It’s driving every ecological process. Which makes it necessarily the nearest to an infinite power source available to humankind. The amount of energy that hits the earth in one hour is around a years worth of global power. Your implication that the fact that solar output has an upper limit makes it somehow unsuitable as a power source is a little silly. Though you would technically be correct, the Sun is not an infinite power source. Neither is anything else.

      • Matthew Reece

        I do not mean to imply that stars are an unsuitable power source. In fact, they may be the only power source going forward unless someone figures out how to do something exotic, like making use of dark energy.

        I care more about being technically correct and consistent than anything else because if I fail at that, everything following the incorrect or inconsistent may be legitimately dismissed.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        matt- being technically correct ad nauseum might prohibit U from enjoying all the sensualist things we occasionally illogical– and “technically’ incorrect humans enjoy
        ———————————————————————
        translation:
        true jazz ( not Kenny G crap) and spontaneity in life are just two examples of how NOT having “technical” perfection ( pu–leeeez) makes our life as superior beings superior
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, try it!!

      • Kevin Pickle

        Ahh, Jazz.

      • Kevin Pickle

        Technically correct is good. But a point that’s technically correct, that the sun is a finite power source, but is also largely irrelevant to the issue. It kind of turns into something like this, a discussion that illuminates nothing.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        matt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i wanna have U teach me how 2 be here— in great shape and with all my faculties– in a billion years. will becoming an anarchist help me do that?

      • J.D.

        You are correct, everything in the solar system is finite to some extent.So yes the earth will be uninhabitable in a few billions years. Anything is better than relying on oil and coal, all of which is far more damaging to the earth than solar or wind. Also, windmills kill thousands of birds and bats?????? Counterpoint. How many millions of wildlife have been killed due to oil spillage, motor vehicles, airplanes, human intrusion, pollution…………………, get my point. I would rather have a bunch of windmills powering our cities with a risk to birds, than to continue to destroy our entire planet because of an addiction to fossil fuels that NEEDS to be broken. Our addiction to fossil fuels developed out of a lack of technology. Technology has more than caught up, but the ability to make the kind of money in fossil fuels does not yet exist, there for the oil and coal giants still have a stranglehold on the world.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        funny how matt didn’t reply to U here

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      matt- ya know I luv ya but saying the sun in NOT infinite is akin 2 saying GOD and religion are the same.
      ————————————————————————————–
      sun finite??? hell yes!!
      will you or any of the next 100 generations see the end of that star?
      c’mon matt baybeeeeee!!
      birds and bats?? Im in the camp that OUR existence and OUR ( mine especially) comfort is a wee bit more important than some animals who cannot avoid a machine which is easily seen.
      ********************************************************************************
      now; if the kill my precious reptiles,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      I will scream for mankinds HEAD!!!

  • Matthew Reece

    5. A good person with a gun is not the only way to stop a bad person with a gun, but it is the most effective way. Perhaps if more people had been armed in that setting, it could have happened.

  • Matthew Reece

    4. Yes, and that is why it is important to be proficient with one’s weapon. It is also a reason to thank such people for being willing to assume that responsibility and risk rather than condemning them, as many leftists do.

  • Matthew Reece

    3. If 30 “rural looking” White Americans strolled into a predominantly African-American lower-middle class neighborhood with AR-15′s and AK-47′s strapped to their backs, do you think the people living there would feel safe? No to this question and the original, because racism in particular and collectivism in general are not dead yet.

    • J.D.

      How are you defining “collectivism”. There are two basic types of societies based on individualism and collectivism. America is based on an individualistic society where society views the value of the individual as being greater than that of the community. Collectivist societies view the community as a whole as being more important than the individual. Most Asian countries like Japan are collectivist societies. I do not believe that I would use collectivism in the same sentence as racism, they are different. So collectivism will never be dead because it is the societal backbone of many societies and is not to be confused with racism.

      • Matthew Reece

        Society does not view value as being anything because there is no such thing as society. Each individual person exists, thinks, and acts. A collective does not do these things apart from the existence, thought, and action of each individual considered to be part of the collective.

  • Joe American

    1. So he has something in common with her current president. Was there another point you were trying to make?

    2. Historically, our position as a nation has been that we do not negotiate with terrorist. There are many possible implications. The first one that comes to mind is the allies of someone we’re holding getting the idea that this works, making American citizens targets for future trades.

    3. Unlike you dimwits, I don’t speak for others who are capable of forming and voicing their own opinions. I would not feel particularly safe regardless of the race of the thirty people or the predominant race of the neighborhood I was in. The scenario you describe is very telling of your thoughts though.

    4. Do you really think the actions of those people represent everyone in the party? This is the very root of the problem with your ideology. You see an individual or small group with a problem and you want to prescribe that same solution for a nation full of people. Whether they have the problem or want your solution doesn’t matter. Don’t worry boys and girls your ole Uncle Sam knows what’s best and will take care of it for you.

    5. How exactly is that you draw the conclusion that the third person would “probably be alive?” Do you have some insight suggesting the shooter had a two cap limit. Also very telling that you suggest this person should not have tried to help his fellow man in times of need and yet from the safety of your home you want to pass legislation to control everyone and everything (by means of providing everything a person could possibly need, in exchange for no Moore than their freedoms).

    6. Which crystal ball did you get that assertion from. Can you tell me what it’ll be like under our next president?

    7. To wrongs don’t make a right. Are you stupid, ignorant or both? you really just tried to justify one illegal act with another.

    8. I’m slightly more concerned about the poisoning of our water supply by Fracking right now. We need water to survive. We have a drought going on in our own nation.

    9. So you framed up that question to suggest that the Iraq war is the reason that Obama ran up the deficit the way he has, when in fact it (Iraq) is a small percentage of where he blew all of your grandchildren’s future taxes?

    10. And exactly how much less energy created from oil are we using now versus prior to the Obama Presidency due to the expansion of solar and wind that can be tied to his actions?

    If you are going to ask some questions, why not not actually make them thought provoking rather than just using the opportunity to try and create a false sense if self worth and superiority?

  • Jr0123

    Glad you dorks have a place to feel so smart and enlightened. Reality will set in one day when you grow up.

  • Bulletbob22

    3) If 30 “urban looking” African-Americans strolled into a predominantly white upper-middle class neighborhood with AR-15′s and AK-47′s strapped to their backs, do you think the people living there would feel safe?

    Answer this:
    Why do store owners in urban cities pull down gates in front of their stores when they are closed? Isn’t that racism?

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      crybaby bob answering a question with a question.
      im gonna have fun with white trash regressive religious scumbag bob above

  • Bulletbob22

    Here’s ten questions to ask democrats.
    You have 10 mayors and the same question for each one of them.
    TOP 10 POOREST CITIES
    What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
    Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
    Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1954;
    Cincinnati, OH (3rd) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1984;
    Cleveland, OH (4th) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
    Miami, FL. (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
    St. Louis, MO (6th) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1949;
    El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
    Milwaukee, WI (8th) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1908;
    Philadelphia, PA (9th) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1952;
    Newark, NJ (10th) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1907.

    Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    It is the disadvantaged (define that however you will ) who habitually elect Democrats —

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      hey white trash regressive bob,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,lets play!
      ( a) I notice U would not DARE answer any of the authors questions.
      (b) u crystalized the typical regressive scumbag “thinking” by cherrypicking: so allow me to also
      (c) which STATES ( much more economic impact than a CITY) are poorest; and which are run by republican governors?
      (d) can U explain the HUGe economy of California ( crushing state debt/deficit) now showing a SURPLUS with that COMMIE democrat governor??
      (e) tell me which policies ( federally) have had a BETTER impact upon ALL OF AMERICA ( and all americans) over past 25 yrs: republican or democrat
      (f) I will give U 20 to 14 “odds” here—— who created more jobs: 20 yrs of REAGAN/BUSH1/BUSH 2 or 14 yrs of CLINTON /OBAMA???
      (g) did more American soldiers die and get maimed under republican or democratic administrations in the past 40 yrs?????
      (h) in claiming the democrats ( specifically OBAMA) is wanting a socialist “nanny” state,,,,, do U regressive crybabies realize that 74% of ALL FOOD STAMPS feed kids 13 and under and seniors 65 and OLDER? ,,,,and: 71% of all of those food stamp recipients are CAUCASIAN?????
      (I) why do white trash RELIGIOUS ( see: VOODOO) regressives CLAIM they want constitutional ( equal) rights yet they are the ones KEEPING many many many americans *( gays/blacks/latinos/women) from TRULY getting EQUALITY by crying that a dead jewsih fella and a totally OUTDATED book full of falsehoods is HOW WE SHOULD RUN OUR GOVERNMENT legislation???
      (j) if regressive republican are the party of financial prudence,,,,,,,,why O why O why do they always outspend everyone else????????
      —————————————————————————————-
      wasnt that fun????

      • Jeff Adamson

        I see that liberals still wish to attack the person prior to attacking the opinion.

      • Doy Bowers

        I see that Reich Wingers still want to change the subject and refuse to answer any and all questions about their failed policies!!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ” there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”
        ———— annoying a regressive with facts 🙂

      • Doy Bowers

        Yep, Facts to the CONS is like sunlight to a vampire they literally melt when you expose them to it!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ahhhh,,,,,,,,but delightfully they don’t die instantly– we get to see them wither and cry….cry….cry—-OHSO SLOWLY
        (NOTE) I do wish they died faster

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        no sweat jeff !!!
        why don’t YOU step in and answer my above questionnaire???
        I only attack imbeciles—— there are many on these threads who I disagree with yet I– and they– remain civil; even exchanging light hearted abuse of each other
        ======================================
        unlike the stultified regressive white trash crybaby Christians who have NO HUMOR

  • This guy isn’t particularly smart or is it that he lives in a liberal bubble. He obviously doesn’t know or listen to any mainstream republicans, or republicans in general…

  • My Opinion

    To point 2/ Obama is also killing people without a process. The war on terror is not a war because if it’s a war then even the enemy is granted some rights. A real democracy is holding up his true values even in the event of a real tragedy.

  • Joe

    This is great stuff. You should write for The Onion with so much satirical misunderstanding, re-framing, and assumption.

  • Roger Cotton

    Why should I trust Progressives who lie, obfuscate, and mislead in order to enact their agenda?

    Why should I trust Progressives who do not trust Americans to lead their own lives and make their own decisions?

    Why do Progressives pass laws that criminalize our everyday lives, and which legislate away our constitutionally-guaranteed rights?

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      how about asking WHY should we trust white trash scumbag religious regressives who lie/obfuscate/objurgate/obstruct and do it because THEIR disgusting useless BOOk of lies and anti women atavistic falsehoods are the template which they ( white trash ) can keep all other americans from enjoying the freedoms and EQUALITY which founding fathers wanted>??
      if U wanna follow a religion? great….if U hate abortion? great….if U hate gay and hate them ‘ marrying’…..great,,,,,,,,,,,,, if U hate Africans and Asians and latinos….great.
      U can hate all U want!! its America!!! U cannot legislate YOUR small dicked hatred into MY laws because your version of YOUR VOODOO( see: religion) is controlling U so much atht u nedd to tell others how to live based upon YOUr non sexual loser views.
      we don’t want U to have to trust progressives,,,,,,,,,,,
      we want U to shut up and let all americans — not just white trash scum religious losers– have EQUALITY
      ************************************************************************
      write back soon

  • Molest liberals up the ass

    Liberals A.K.A, Dumb-asses United!

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      praise jeeeeeeeeeesus!!

  • Andreas Egeland

    Now I’m definitely a liberal, but some of these, perhaps even most, don’t make any sense. If these really are questions to ask republicans it might be a good idea to actually try to appeal to republicans, although I do suspect that this is more meant to be a “haha, look at us liberals how clever we are”-type of article.

    Let us go through some silly questions shall we?

    Number 2 sticks out like a sore thumb. On what planet do you have to be to believe that support for constitutional rights means that the support is either absolute or nonexistant?

    Number 3 is counterproductive. The possibility of others entering their community with guns is EXACTLY why many republicans endorse less gun restriction, because they (erroneously) believe that higher gun restrictions will not largely reduce the risk of gun violence towards themselves, but rather that it might inhibit them from owning guns they see as necessary to protect themselves. Indeed this question is so stupid to ask in light of ¨
    question number 5, whicch explicitly recognizes that republicans believe that guns increase their own safety.

    Number 6 is just wild speculation based on the pressures McCain applied during each of these conflicts. As you all should be aware, it is often the case that politicians endorse certain actions for political reasons; not because they actually believe it is the best course of action.

    Finally let’s look at number 7. The logic does ot even follow the premise. It is the belief of many republicans, and indeed many people regardless of political affiliation, that the free market can at least partially regulate and tend to the needs of society. To claim otherwise is to fatally undermine your own argument in any discussion with a conservative, partially because it leaves one wide open to accusations of rampant Communism.

    Perhaps having actual questions for republicans was not the aim of the article, but we should all remember that to have productive conversations with people of differing opinions it is necessary to understand and seriously contemplate their beliefs.

  • Mr. Creazil

    Obama didn’t really have the choice to stay in Iraq, and McCain couldn’t have without it counting as another invasion if he had been elected. The 2008 Status of Forces Agreement required that all our troops leave by the end of 2011.

  • hbk72777

    Was this written by a 3rd grader.

    There are many questions to ask on both sides, but the way this article is worded, simply embarrassing

  • B Thomas Cooper

    Did you know gun owners are two thousand times more likely to be shot than non gun owners?

  • Examining Life…

    10. Nuclear/ fusion and Hydro/ electric

  • Examining Life…

    8. Market increase of the oil supply, brings down the multi-tiered cost of living for all the poor

  • Examining Life…

    4. Maybe he is the first target, philosophically he dies on his feet, not his knees; the next armed citizen gets the miscreant.

  • Examining Life…

    3. Wearing ACUs, yes; ‘urban wear’, not around Chicago to the Gaza Strip.

  • Examining Life…

    2. We believe/ support to leave none behind (despite the cost). We believe/ support one to argue/ defend their position (despite the consequences of one’s actions). We believe/support the penalty for desertion.

  • Examining Life…

    1. In economics there are no fair justifications for the minimum wage nor for rent/ price controls. An answer dignifies ingenuousness.

  • Examining Life…

    5. An interesting question for follow-up would be how many incidents/close calls, were prevented from occurring?

  • Examining Life…

    7. The President defends this Constitution from all threats foreign…
    RWR reduced the threats, by supporting the reduction of Soviet influences in their client states; Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Cuba, Central America, the captive Baltic Nations. BHO has enabled the reversal at these areas plus the increased Russian supports of Iran’s offensive nuclear capabilities, the annexation of Crimea, the Ukrainian dissolution, Poland’s and eastern Europe’s missile defenseless. 5 terrorist leaders to a stateless organization… Defenseless

  • Examining Life…

    6. The healthy / influential societies with US bases, after conflict with the US, have been Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea.
    Imagine if Iraq was to have proceeded with that support?

  • Examining Life…

    9. Answer contains the general thoughts from the other postings and a simple critique common to question lists from this similar direction: organize the questions on the basic principles of the issues and address them, not on the opinions of non to mal- informed groups.

  • Examining Life…

    Thank you for the warmup. Keep at it.

  • Examining Life…

    Nice graphic.