10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican, 8th Edition

bush-head-scratcherWelcome to the eighth edition of my series titled “10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican.” As always, the premise is straight forward and simple. Every few weeks I write this feature with 10 new questions I believe liberals should present to their conservative counterparts to have them answer.

Though sometimes the questions aren’t exactly “questions” as much as they are statements I’d like Republicans to try to explain.

Well, let’s get to it.

1) Can you please describe the difference between a “bad guy with a gun” and a “good guy with a gun” if every single American is walking around openly carrying guns?

2) How can someone have the freedom of religion if we pass laws that are based on a religion that they do not follow?

3) If Saddam Hussein was still in power, would ISIS exist?

4) If the economy has been so terrible under President Obama, why is a jobs report showing we created 142,000 jobs in a month considered bad news?

5) Do you realize the tea party has more in common on many social issues (abortion, women’s rights, sex, birth control, homosexuality) with the Westboro Baptist Church and Islamic radicals than they do the average American?

6) If Fox News is so “fair and balanced,” can you name five Democrats that are prominently featured on the network?

7) If millions of non-Christians marry all around the world, how exactly is marriage defined by Christianity?

8) What exactly does the freedom for Americans to say what they want without fear of prosecution (aka the First Amendment) have to do with donating money to political candidates?

9) If new restrictive anti-abortion laws are really all about “protecting women’s health,” then why do conservatives oppose easy and affordable access to contraceptives that women often use to maintain their health?

10) Why, if your party feels that the Second Amendment is meant to keep the government fearful of its citizens, do Republicans constantly push legislation that seeks to add billions to our defense budget? The same defense budget which funds the military that the “armed militia” would have to fight against if they were to ever “rise up” against the federal government.

Alright, that’ll wrap up this edition. As always, hit me up on Twitter and let me know what you think.

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

  • Jim Bean

    1). One is more likely to hurt you. The other is more likely to help you.

    2). Why would ‘we’ pass laws based on a religion they do not follow? Why would ‘they’ want us to? (This question needs tweaked. It is illogical)

    3). Probably not. Nor would they exist if Obama had not ignored the advice of all his advisors and Bush and Cheney.

    4). (A) Job growth isn’t keeping pace with growth in job demand. (B) Most of the jobs are part time and low paying. (C) Its parcel to the slowest economic recovery in history.

    5). Yes. But since they don’t advocate killing that group of people, they are within their rights that we have a duty to respect.

    6). Juan Williams, Christen Powers, Bob Beckell, Allen Colmes, Lanny Davis, Pat Codell, Susan Estrich.

    7). In many of those places around the world, it is not.

    8). Donating money to political candidates is a tool that enables the common man to have his voice heard in the affairs of government via an elected spokesperson.

    9). Conservatives (as presented generally in the question) do not oppose easy and affordable access to contraceptives.

    10). Citizens need not have the capacity to defeat the government’s military to keep said government fearful and respectful of the citizens power. They need only to have enough weaponry to be a bona fide danger to individual lawmakers and their families and friends. (ie, see ‘Mexico – drug cartels)

    • Guy

      1) there is no way of knowing one from the other visually and anyone with a gun can miss.

      2 We ( those in power) do pass laws that they (minorities/those not in power) don’t believe in. Frequently. Any law that has a Christian basis is heavily contested because the US is a multi religious nation.

      3 Many people at fault for this.

      4. What you said.

      5. I refuse to respect anyone who has a lack or respect for me and a such a severe lack of critical thinking skills. For the same reason people have the WBC.

      6. Just because someone registers as a Dem doesn’t mean they hold Dem views.

      7. And it should not be here either.

      8. You have the right to have an opinion but paying politicians to value your opinion over someone else’s is bribery plain and simple. Could use the word litterally too. This form of expressing your opinion is NOT speech and is NOT backed in the conatitution.

      What happens when that “common man” is a billionair or a corperation? The fact that he has much easier access to money means he has a much larger power in our government.

      9. Conservatives in the government do though.

      10. Huh?

  • Jim Valley

    Given the benighted state of today’s republican party and the tendency of its members to be wrong on every single issue, there are many more questions where those came from.

  • Sandy Greer

    1) Why are Dems worried about the Nov 2014 elections?

    2) Why can’t the Left realize even Dems can be neocons?

    3) Why can’t FP go pro-Left – Why does FP instead go anti-Right?

    4) Why (if Left believes in 1A) have I seen censorship of Opponents here on FP?

    5) Why does Clifton conflate Westboro Baptists and Islamic radicals with the average conservative?

    6) Why (if GOP has a War on Women) do I see female conservatives held up for ridicule daily on FP?

    7) When will we realize Dems/GOP are two sides of the same coin – and neither has our best interests at heart?

    8) Why (if we ‘support our troops’) have I seen no mention of Sgt Andrew
    Tahmooressi on FP?

    9) Why can’t FP recognize there are indeed ‘good guys with guns’ – but posits instead we are all ‘bad guys with guns’ and/or ‘gun nuts’?

    10) Why (if Left is pro-choice) can’t they respect Janay Palmer’s choice to marry Ray Rice, and her pleas for privacy – instead of hounding him out of a job he can blame her for?

    • robingee

      “Why (if Left is pro-choice) can’t they respect Janay Palmer’s choice to marry Ray Rice, and her pleas for privacy”

      Pro-Choice is about the right to abortion. Not the “right” to get beaten up if you are in an abusive relationship.

      Are you typing this from a mental institution? I am serious.

      • Sandy Greer

        I know you’re serious. A woman has to be crazy to choose for herself what somebody else would not, for her.

        But that is what ‘choice’ means.

        Either we believe people (not just women, but all people) have the right to choose for themselves – or we do not. If we are free to choose – we are free to choose even mistakes.

        Or should I just let you make my choices for me?

      • robingee

        When a woman is with a man who KNOCKS HER THIE FUCK OUT and drags her around like garbage, she has no choices. This is the kind of situation where the woman ends up dead and the reason she is saying, “Leave us alone” is because she is scared out of her mind.

        How often do women stay with abusers because they don’t mind being knocked around? And how often do they end up in the hospital or dead?

      • Sandy Greer

        So, her ‘choices’ have to meet with your approval – or she has no right to them? LMFAO

        What was lil’ ol’ me thinking?

        No wonder we worry about Nov 2014. We can’t even keep our own women in check.

      • mms

        FA Sandy, every woman that allows ANY man to beat and violate her has serious self respect problems. Personally, having dealt with “but I love him” dingbats I could not care less except; there are ALWAYS children involved. IT IS CHILD ABUSE TO FORCE A CHILD TO LIVE IN THIS SITUATION. Not to mention the police consistently being called in; this is a taxpayer issue.

        So if little miss, stay out of my gold digging business, wants to allow a professional athlete to beat her till she’s dead, which she will be eventually, my question to you is – who will raise their kid? And who will pay for the police, the judge and the jail that this abuser will occupy?

        And worry about the 2014 election? Well, how much more can the GOP criminals screw up this country? They are sitting around congress now doing absolutely nothing.

      • Sandy Greer

        I agree any women lets a man beat her down has self-respect issues.

        As does any woman who lets others make her choices for her. Serious self-respect ‘issues’.

        Gold-digger? With a ‘business’? What kind of woman do you think a man like that attracts? Again, her choice. Doesn’t have to be yours. Or mine.

        God forbid we say who gets to be with who based on ‘taxpayer issues’. You sound like the GOP – with your ‘taxpayer issues’.

        Seriously, stay out of my bedroom with your ‘taxpayer issues’.

      • mms

        Damn, you really are not very bright.

        I never made any comment indicating that I was interested in making anyone else’s choices for them.
        Why did you keep indicating I give a rats ass about some ding bat that is too stupid to leave an abusive relationship or latches on to an abusive man for her money and position. Business, yeah if you say so.

        Am I concerned about people misusing my money (taxpayer money) because they have a brain the size of a pecan, of course I am. I have worked too hard and made too many sacrifices not to. The courts are filled to capacity with “but I love him” brainless types that just keeping coming back for more. Police shouldn’t have to waste their time. They have more important work to do.

        And honey, I have NO desire whatsoever, under any sky, in any way of going NEAR your bedroom. What you do isn’t even close to my mind or in a passing thought. I cannot image why you would think it is.

        Like I said, you are not very bright.

      • Sandy Greer

        Damn, mms – If I’m ‘not very bright’ – Why waste your time on me? You opened this convo; created a little ‘grey guest’ just so you could do it.

        Where did I indicate you ‘give a rats ass’ about anything at all – other than insults? You opened this convo, remember? I wouldn’t have even known you existed – little ‘grey guest’ – had you not Replied to me. LMFAO at your ‘rats ass’.

        I’m not your ‘honey’, and don’t aspire to be. So we agree there. Your ‘taxpayer issues’ belong in nobody’s bedroom.

        But how’s all that scorn and contempt you exhibit for ‘stupid ding bats’ you don’t ‘give a rats ass about’ (with ‘brains the size of pecans’) working for you – IRL, I mean? Any better than here?

        Rage on, mms. It’s so much rejectamenta to me.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        MMS “wastes his/her time on you” because you opened your big mouth. You say something here, expect to get called on it, especially when it makes no sense.

      • NAVORD

        Domestic abuse happens on both sides, but I think men who let women control their lives have self-respect issues.

      • Sandy Greer

        Yes, both sexes are capable of abusing the other – mentally, physically, emotionally. You’re right about the self-respect, as well.

        I consider that emotional abuse – for a woman to do that. Especially damaging because when a woman loses respect for her man – Their relationship is dead in the water. Just a matter of time.

        So we agree, absolutely. Both your points.

        Thank you for posting here. Nice avatar.

      • Sue Roediger

        I think – yes she has a choice. I wonder, though if her decision to stay with him was made freely. He has the money and influence and the brutality to intimidate her. I pray she doesn’t end up like Nicole Brown Simpson.

      • Sandy Greer

        I think you give the lady too little credit. JMO, tho, FWIW

      • Sue Roediger

        I was a social worker in Upstate New York for 7 years. I worked with women whose kids were in foster care. So many times they were involved with men who abused them psychologically as well as physically. They stuck with these men even though the men were often the reason their kids were taken from them. I think you give too little credence to the impact of such abuse on a woman’s ability to make healthy decisions.
        When I could get a woman to take the step to live apart from her abuser she began to see things more clearly. The next step was telling him to get lost, often enforced with a restraining order.

      • NAVORD

        He knocked her out after she was lunging to attack him, it’s funny how you haters of Ray Rice forget she was also arrested for hitting him and spitting on him and she also admitted her role.
        If your response is “never hit woman” my response is “never pick a fight you can’t win”
        But like the other commenter said how the hell is it your business or concern. They forgave each other and Ray Rice is being punished for it, I can only hope one day you screw up and no one gives you a second chance.

      • NAVORD

        Oh I forgot to add where was your righteous indignation when Hope Solo beat up a minor and her sister? Is it that you only hate black males?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “PRO-CHOICE” refers to abortion. ANd if Janay Palmer wants to marry Ray Rice, fine, but don’t expect “privacy” for domestic abuse. Would you expect “privacy” for murder, incest, rape, etc???

      • Charles Vincent

        Poisoning the well again I see. I now know our creator has a vibrant sense of humor, you realize sandy is on the left. The irony here is the intolerance you show for anyone that doesn’t share your view and march in lock step with you, even to the point of viciously attacking your own team way to go robin way to go.

      • robingee

        I don’t see Sandy being on the left at all. She/He asked dumb questions and I answered them. What is not correct about what I said?

      • Sandy Greer

        Sandy already answered what is not correct about what you said. And now you’ve got Cognitive Dissonance.

        Because Sandy doesn’t do as she is told. Like a good little girl.

        LMFAO at people who try to put women into convenient little boxes – and think we’re going to stay there.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who exactly is telling Sandy what to do? How does questioning Sandy’s erroneous equation of “pro-choice” and Janay whatshername telling Sandy “what to do???”

      • Charles Vincent

        first there is this quaint little feature in disqus that let’s you see all a persons posts. Second extrapolating a persons poltical leaning based on one post is ignorant at best. Third her points were valid. But by all means keep wallowing in ignorance

    • robingee

      “Why (if GOP has a War on Women) do I see female conservatives held up for ridicule daily on FP?”

      The women who are ridiculed are not being ridiculed for wanting to be equal, and have choices.

      Palin, Coulter, Sharron Angle, Michell Bachmann… just because they are female doesn’t mean they aren’t nuts.

      The War on Women isn’t “Women Can Say Any Dumb Thing And Not Get Called Out On It”; the War on Women is; You can’t get an abortion, you can’t paid the same as a man, you shouldn’t have taken those nude pics, catcalling is a compliment, you got yourself raped. And the women that are ridiculed agree with these things.

      • Sandy Greer

        The War on Women is what women say it is. Conservative women are presented as ‘objects’ of derision. It’s not OK
        to do that. Even somebody I disagree with – it’s not OK to degrade, and denigrate. Ever.

        What’s worse – It’s expected Lefty women won’t have a problem with it.

        It’s assumed Lefty women will go along to get along – Assumed we don’t have a brain in our head, and follow Group Think blindly – Assumed we lack the Courage to ‘just say no’ to the
        ridicule we daily heap on our Opponents.

        Here’s one doesn’t join that parade. Deal with it.

      • robingee

        If someone says, “We have to have God in our schools so there will be no more school shootings” they are an idiot. I don’t care if they have a vulva or a penis.

      • Sandy Greer

        Did I say that? No.

        But you still think me in a mental institution. Think I ask dumb questions – which you read, and respond to. An irony, that.

        And all because I don’t toe your line of what is a proper Lefty. As if there is only one way – your way – to be a Lefty.

        ‘Cause God forbid any of us – male or female – should think for ourselves, outside Group Think.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Why do you persist in thinking “Lefty” expect everyone to think the same. That is more a conservative trait.

      • mms

        Sandy, you are so seriously bent and demented – to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy – YOU MUST BE A REPUBLICAN! Why don’t you give sugarlips palin a call and go shot somes wolves out of a helicopter! Have fun with your gun!

      • Sandy Greer

        ‘Bent and demented’? LMFAO Says the ‘grey guest’.

        Who wants to toe the straight and narrow? You? Give me ‘bent and demented’ any day of the week.

      • Yodz

        For the most part I see you as making a lot more sense than your adversary, even though I disagree with much of the points you are making. Your adversary is just not doing a good job of rebutting you. However, the fact that GOP/Conservative women are being made objects of derision has nothing to do with the fact they are Conservative or women. I know and respect many Conservative women (though I disagree with their ideology), and don’t see them being made an object of derision (Olympia Snowe anyone?). It has to do with the fact that these particular conservative women are ill-informed, incapable of supporting their positions with logic and clarity, incapable of understanding the hypocrisy of those positions, incapable of accepting that the right to freedom of religion means the right to have freedom from religion, and otherwise understanding that their belief that the majority of Americans agree with them is based upon them speaking in an echo chamber. They just happen to be women who are conservative. I would hold liberal men who act in the same manner as objects of derision just as much. Perhaps its not done on this website, but this website does not pretend to be unbiased…like a certain news network we all know.

        Where you really lost me was when you stated that the “War on women is what women say it is.” No, the war on women is whatever the facts support it as being. It only takes a person willing to look for those facts with an open mind and sense of objectivity to figure it out. What you said would be the exact same thing as saying that the War on Iraq can only be defined by Iraqi’s. That’s ludicrous.

      • Sandy Greer

        Well, ludicrous or not. That’s the way I see it. I decide when I feel ‘warred’ upon.

        I admit to bias, being a woman.

        Thank you for thinking I make sense. Even though we disagree. That, to me, shows respect. You honor me with that, and I would be remiss not to acknowledge how much I appreciate your saying that.

        We agree on Olympia Snowe. I’ve long admired her.

        Nonetheless, I think none should be ‘objects’ of derision. Mail or female. We are free to disagree.

        Thanks again.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So who is “warring on you” Sandy? Who here has proposed limiting any of your rights?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        It is OK to present conservative women as “object of derision” when they are in positions to influence policy, the same way men are derided for the same reasons. You don’t get to talk shit about people and expect not to be called out for it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        That is painfully obvious to anyone except Sandy.

    • Nancy B

      Tahmooressi was an off duty dumb s#i!! who was caught breaking the law of the country he was in. His case has nothing to do with progressive beliefs. If we support our troops, how come the GOP nixed funds for additional veterans benefits that could have been paid for by ditching a military plane that doesn’t work, or tightening corporate tax loopholes?

      • Sandy Greer

        If we ‘support our troops’ we support them even when they don’t expound our views. Same with 1A. We don’t just ‘support’ what we agree with. Unless we pay lip service only.

        Nobody – Right or Left – should ‘nix’ funds for VA. We should all ‘support’ our VA. There are ample opportunities there for volunteers, and the need is great. For those who wish to do more than pay lip service only to the idea of ‘supporting our troops’.

        You, maybe?

      • Nancy B

        Tahmooressi’s plight has nothing to do anyone’s conflicting political or philosophical views. It has everything to do with a sovereign nation’s right to enforce its laws when something happens within its borders. As for the snarky misdirection into my personal support of our VA, you’re pointing a finger in the dark. You have no idea how far out of line that comment was. I agree with the other poster. Your meds (or lack thereof) are clouding your brain.

      • Sandy Greer

        Oh my. Borders. See, I didn’t grab that bait when you first threw it out there. Why’d you have to go there?

        You a ‘border’ issue kinda person, Nancy B? Enforcing our laws – and all that?

        Don’t take it personal, somebody disagrees with you. Meds or not – People are a lot happier when they don’t see ‘snark’ where there is disagreement.

      • Nancy B

        LOL! Bait? What bait? Was just pointing out the legal side of this problem, which so many people can’t seem to grasp. And yes, it may be your opinion, but it was delivered in a snarky manner. Look it up. You seem to be the sort of person who likes to put people into specific assumptive boxes to make your point, as well as using a myriad of red herrings. I don’t deal with either. Have a good day.

      • Sandy Greer

        >it may be your opinion, but it was delivered in a snarky manner.

        Oh, so it’s my ‘delivery’ you don’t like. Well, let me just rush out and change my ‘delivery’ to suit you. Not gonna happen.

        You don’t like my ‘delivery’? You are free to pass me by. I didn’t ask you to stop here. You Replied to me – Your choice. Not mine. Now you blame me ’cause you don’t like my ‘delivery’? LOL

        Always the other guy’s fault. Right, Nancy B? Just SMH

        Reading ‘tone’ (snark/delivery) into posts – with no voice inflection, no body language, no knowledge of person beyond what is said – will cause you no end of trouble. ‘Tone’ is your ASSumption. And yours alone.

        But I will have a good day, ThankYouVeryMuch. I always do.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You open your mouth, you get called on it. There is nothing that says we can’t comment when you say stupid shit.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What points are you trying to make, if any?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Please start volunteering.

    • Nancy B

      Please cite where FP indicates that all gun owners are “gun nuts”.

      • Charles Vincent

        look up pretty much any article written on guns by jasdye, manny, or allen and its a good chance the term is either in the title or used. In the article. You are either willfully ignorant, disingenuous or both.

      • Moses

        In point of fact, they generally point out that not all gun owners are gun nuts… so evidently your reading comprehension goes only so far as what you already want to perceive.

      • Charles Vincent

        Moving the goal posts are we moses? I guess cliftons article that called people cun nuts and that people who want guns have mental defects mean something totally different than what I read… or perhaps his articla claiming firearms were responsible for $omething like 16-20k homicides yet when I clicked on the links in his article it turned out that allen had used a statistic that included suicide in the total suicide is not homicide.but then again that must be my poor reading comprehension. And they convieniently carve out a condition that they are gunowners but not gun nuts which is a strawman arguement.

      • thesystemforce

        In several Clifton articles, he also makes reference to the people he considers to be gun nuts. Some examples include: Folks that claim that gun violence will be stopped by increasing the accessibility of guns, people that claim Obama is coming to take all the guns, people that want to be able to take assault weapons into grocery stores/restaurants/etc.

        Just because he uses the term ‘gun nut’ does not mean he is referencing every, single person that owns a firearm. Same goes for the other authors you referenced. There’s an issue of context here. No one thinks that someone who wants to have a rifle to hunt deer is a crazy person. But if someone wants a machine gun so they can wave it at kids in Wal-Mart, they’re a gun nut.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is the condition that makes your argument a straw-man;
        ” No one thinks that someone who wants to have a rifle to hunt deer is a crazy person.”

        ” But if someone wants a machine gun so they can wave it at kids in Wal-Mart, they’re a gun nut.”

        Never seen a person with a machine-gun in a Wal-mart ever.

      • Moses

        Then you haven’t been paying attention to the pics of the open-carry community.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes I have and none of them are carrying Machine-guns like i told thesystemforce learn the difference between firearms before you post.

      • thesystemforce

        We cannot all be gun experts. From here on out I’ll use the appropriate term: assault rifle. No one needs to take an assault rifle into Sonic’s, Chili’s, Target, Wal-Mart, or similar businesses. Even the NRA themselves has stated the individuals doing so for the purpose of drawing attention to themselves are, quote, ‘scary’. They say scary, some liberals say gun nut.

      • Charles Vincent

        An assault rifle is a machine gun by definition.

        “We cannot all be gun experts”
        It doesn’t take any special expertise to know the difference.

      • thesystemforce

        I told you above how to see images and videos of attempts to take assault rifles into the aforementioned businesses (or in the case of Target, instances of people shopping with said weapons). Also, I was taking my definition from wikipedia- a true machine gun is essentially a fully automatic rifle, and often the primary criterion for a machine gun as opposed to an automatic rifle is the presence of a quick-change barrel or other cooling system. Automatic rifles and (more commonly) assault rifle may be capable of fully automatic fire, but are not designed for sustained fire.

        As for ‘gun expertise’, the nearest I’ve been to a gun in 20+ years was being in a car that got pulled over. I’ll readily admit I know very little about guns. That said, I do know that assault rifles are common military weapons and have seen the pictures and videos of open carry advocates taking them into restaurants and stores. I also know that no one needs that sort of weapon to go to Chili’s. I’ve been to Chili’s; their sliders are great. The experience would not have been improved by the presence of an assault rifle.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you know that those assault rifles have been limited to civilians since 1934 with the passage of the National firearms act. You also should know that a machine gun(assault rifle) cost in the neighborhood of 15-50k dollars. the civilains in the picture you are lamenting about are semi-auto rifles not fully automatic machine guns.

      • thesystemforce

        You’re aware of what pics I’m referencing, at which point it’s semantics. I don’t care if you call the gun a ‘banana’, it doesn’t need to be in a Chili’s or a Target. They don’t need to be being waved about, scaring people in public. Even the folks at the NRA agree with that.

        Problem is, you allow open carry and you allow for this sort of behavior. I have ZERO problem with the idea of someone open carrying a handgun for protection. I have no issue whatsoever with someone owning a couple dozen guns for hunting, protection, sport, etc; I’m from Wisconsin and I know I’m in the minority when it comes to not owning guns. My little brothers own guns. My sisters hunt. My grandmothers were decent shots. I loved watching the guys put cans up on a fence and shoot at them. I just have no interest in using guns myself.

        That said, when someone does what the open carry Texas folks were doing at and around these businesses, they’re gun nuts. When someone pushes for anyone, be they a priest or a serial murderer (because you don’t know), to be able to go into a gun show and purchase a semi-auto rifle without an ID or a background check, that, to me, is nutty. When someone argues that their 2nd Amendment Rights should allow them to take a gun wherever they want and pushes, as they did in Wisconsin, to be allowed to bring their weaponry with them to the bar, I think that’s crazy. I know the people arguing they should be allowed to do that here in small town Wisconsin. They shouldn’t. They can’t be trusted with their own feet after they’ve had a few. And when you bring up the idea of being allowed to bring the gun in as long as they don’t drink, trust me, they will laugh in your face.

        I think there’s a HUGE difference between a responsible gun owner and a gun nut. Most liberals know the difference between the two. Someone can responsibly own a semi-automatic rifle. Go. Do. Lock it in a case when you’re not using it. But the moment you decide it’s a good idea to take it grocery shopping with you, with you to church or down to the bar, you’re wandering into gun nut territory.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Most liberals know the difference between the two.”

        Most liberals seem to have issues with anything related to guns and how the operate. there is a cafe near where I live and all the servers Open carry as do the guests I fail to see you logic on what liberals think is appropriate. Especially considering the liberals on this site have seen fit to censor my posts.

        Two your whole post is an appeal to the middle.

      • thesystemforce

        That’s the thing, what you call ‘the middle’ tends to be the common, Liberal stance. When’s the last time there was a serious, liberal contender who wanted to take people’s guns? Honestly? Even after Sandy Hook, Liberals were prefacing their gun control arguments with talk of the difference between responsible gun owners and crazy people.

        Also, the censorship of your posts, or this site in general, has very little to do with what ‘most liberals’ think. Most liberals are not internet commenters on FP.

        As for the cafe, that’s nice. People are welcome to open carry at that cafe and that’s great. I support them being allowed to do so. That said, I don’t think they NEED the guns in that cafe. Were they to not carry the guns into that cafe, I do not think it would result in problems. However, were someone to start claiming they NEEDED their gun in order to go get coffee, or a burger, or whatever’s served at your cafe, I’d be comfortable in labeling that person a gun nut. It’s a slight distinction but one that needs to exist because, when you allow open carry, you don’t get to legislate the carrier’s intentions.

      • Sandy Greer

        This site does represent liberals. There is not an article here representing the conservative view.

        Forward Progressives.

        ^^^They have a responsibility – on the ‘front’ – to present Dems/Lefties/Progressives/Liberals in ways that enhance. Show the best we can be. Otherwise – one wonders just whose side they’re on.

        Censorship reflects poorly on the Cause. Aside from it being Wrong – it reflects poorly on the Cause.

      • Charles Vincent

        Liberals blame inanimate objects as being the cause of violence. there are several markers that are root causes of violence and all of them lay with the human condition and as long as ignorant liberals blame something other than the root cause I do not and will not support ignorant people like them that cannot see the real root causes of violent behavior that is part of the human condition, not the weapon they choose to perpetrate the violent act. Also liberals aren’t in the middle sorry to burst your bubble and neither are the neocons.

        You nor anyone gets to tell anyone what they need and they do not have to justify their right to carry under the second amendment DC v Heller settled this as did the most recent palmer case. they are constitutionally able to carry where its legal and lawfully done.

      • Moses

        So… what do you call an Uzi? A FN P90? What’s that classification again? A sub-… Well, if you know guns, you’ll get it.They’re machineguns, just like what the NRA try to call “modern sporting rifles” descend from the first ASSAULT rifle, the German Sturmgewehr 44, and are thus assault rifles.

      • Charles Vincent

        An uzi and an FN p90 are sub machine guns both are fully automatic and are called sub machine guns because they use pistol caliber ammunition. The Uzi being 9mm, and the FN P90 5.7x28mm ammunition. they are still fully-automatic which is different than the Semi-automatics you were referring to.
        Machine gun; a small arm operated by a mechanism, able to deliver a rapid and continuous fire of bullets as long as the trigger is pressed.
        semi automatic rifle/modern sporting rifle; The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the
        company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”

        AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

        An AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle.

        German Sturmgewehr 44
        The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, “assault rifle 44”) is a German assault rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.


        It is you that doesn’t know anything about firearms.

      • thesystemforce

        I don’t know if you’re not allowed to post links or something, but do a Google search for ‘open carry restaurant’. Articles will come up detailing instances of open carry advocates attempting to enter Sonics, Chilis, and shopping at Target with machine guns. If you search youtube for Open Carry Walk Walmart, you’ll get video of a similar advocate attempting to take an assault rifle into Wal-Mart.

        The logical fallacy isn’t in my argument. It’s in your belief that because you’ve never seen a person with a machine gun at Wal-Mart, it doesn’t exist.

        Mind you, in the defense of some gun owners, the NRA did release a statement after several of these instances calling them ‘scary’ and saying that you shouldn’t open carry a weapon ‘just to draw attention to yourself’. But if you push for open carry, you can’t legislate the mind. If guy A is allowed to carry his gun for protection, guy B gets to carry his because he thinks it looks cool. To people on the left, guy A is sane and rational. Guy B is a bit of a gun nut.

      • Charles Vincent

        This isnt about belief The NFA severly limited ownership of Machine guns in 1934. the fact that you dont know that and that you dont know the difference between a semi-automatic firearm and an automatic one speaks volumes.

      • Nancy B

        You see to have misread my post. I have seen the term “gun nuts” used on FP, and where used, it’s appropriate. However, there is no indication that FP refers to “all” owners as gun nuts. If I’m not mistaken, one of the bloggers has stated he is a gun owner. OP made an accusation using sweeping generality. Those never pan out.

      • Charles Vincent

        In point of fact his article was a straw-man and an appeal to the middle.

    • thesystemforce

      1) Why are Dems worried about the Nov 2014 elections?

      Because statistics show that a mass amount of left-leaning voters still don’t see the importance of voting in mid-term elections. They also have shown that this, consistently, has proven to be a factor in electing Republicans that, in turn, obstruct solid, Democratic policy.

      2) Why can’t the Left realize even Dems can be neo-cons?

      Actually, be definition, they cannot. Neo-conservatism specifically references the individuals who’ve taken up the far right stance common in modern, American conservativism.

      Now, if you mean that both sides have people that can be extremists, I’ve yet to see a denial of that anywhere.

      3) Why can’t FP go pro-Left – Why does FP instead go anti-Right?

      Because our modern, political discourse is adversarial. This adversarial attitude began on the right. It’s like the quote says- you cannot negotiate with someone who says ‘what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable’. That’s the approach of much of the modern conservative power block. They’re not people who are going to listen to ‘look how great these people on the left are’. Independents that lean right are not going to be convinced by showing how awesome the left is. Why? Because they’re, at least on some level, willing to listen to the adversarial right-wing.

      Look at how they attacked John Kerry when he ran for President. He’s a flip-flopper. No matter how many times it was explained, rationally, that situations and views can change over time, they just scream flip-flopper over and over and that’s what sticks in right-wing/right-leaning voters’ ears. They attacked his military experience. No matter how much proof was shown that they were full of it, the right just kept screaming out the conspiracy theory and it stuck. If people are only going to be swayed by the adversarial then that’s how you have to deal with them (at least in part). Hopefully, over time, more rational discourse can find its place in our political media. But until then, you use what works.

      4) Why (if Left believes in 1A) have I seen censorship of Opponents here on FP?
      What censorship have you seen. Provided examples.

      5) Why does Clifton conflate Westboro Baptists and Islamic radicals with the average conservative?

      He’s not comparing the average conservative to these radicals. He’s comparing tea party conservatives to the radicals. Furthermore, he’s not saying that they’re like them in all regards, but rather that they share stances on several social issues. For one, most conservatives aren’t members of the Tea Party. Secondly, this is a statement of fact. Thirdly, it’s meant to show the level of hypocrisy in Tea Party Conservatives talking about the horribleness of Westboro and Islamic radicals, while advocating similar social viewpoints.

      6) Why (if GOP has a War on Women) do I see female conservatives held up for ridicule daily on FP?

      They aren’t being ridiculed for being women. They’re ridiculed, like any other ridicule on FP, because they did/said something stupid. All in all it’s rather equal opportunity. Secondly, you lose some credibility here. I understand the lack of a immediate, physical threat to their well-being, but I’ve seen other comments where you talk about women needing to get out of abusive situations. Shouldn’t women also get out of the political party that voted against the Violence Against Women Act? That routinely downplays the seriousness of domestic violence? Who’s media said the message of the Ray Rice video was ‘take the stairs’? Drawing attention to the fact that women vote with this party when, both in its domestic violence and its health policy, it clearly doesn’t have their best interest at heart, is important. Pointing out the cognitive dissonance when a women votes staunchly conservative but then advocates women’s rights is necessary. And, just like with male politicians and/or pundits, pointing out when a female conservative does something foolish is just par for the course. That last bit’s simply equal treatment.

      7) When will we realize Dems/GOP are two sides of the same coin – and neither has our best interests at heart?

      This is where you lose all credibility. This tired, baseless nonsense argument didn’t hold water 10 years ago and it doesn’t now. Are the Democrats perfect? No way. But the Republicans are, or cater to people who are, racist, homophobic, anti-women, anti-poor, anti-intellectual/anti-education/anti-science, anti-environment, anti-government transparency… I could go on. They want the government just small enough to fit into your bedroom and your doctor’s office. They’re pushing a Christian nation while claiming they’re pro-Constitution. They’re fighting for money to be free speech. They refuse to change failed policies even when every neutral source of proof shows they don’t work. They’re given proof that trickle-down doesn’t work? They give more tax cuts to the rich. They’re shown we don’t need more defense spending? They make cuts to other programs, giving money to defense even when the Pentagon flat out tells them much of it will go to waste. They’re shown programs that aid the poor stimulate the economy? They cut them. They’re shown proof that a min. wage increase would greatly benefit the economy? They fight against raising it. Again, I could go on.

      Since the 1980s with the rise of the evangelical movement in politics and the associated power gains for neo-conservativism, the Republican Party has not been a representation of conservative views and values. They’ve been catering to big business and to the fringe of their party because they know, with cuts to education and adversarial politicking, they can keep other people scared and ignorant enough to vote for them.

      8) Why (if we ‘support our troops’) have I seen no mention of Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi on FP?

      Because they’re talking primarily about the upcoming election and related issues? Not talking about one, specific story about one, specific marine in no way suggests that FP/Democrats don’t support our troops. That idea that it would is utter nonsense.

      9) Why can’t FP recognize there are indeed ‘good guys with guns’ – but posits instead we are ‘bad guys with guns’ and/or ‘gun nuts’?

      They acknowledge there are good guys with guns. The question points out that it is impossible to tell the difference simply by looking at the people holding the guns. As for ‘gun nuts’: Just because FP doesn’t talk about the people with guns who aren’t gun nuts doesn’t mean they don’t believe in them. It means that a person who keeps their gun at home to be used for hunting, or who quietly and peacefully carries their open carry handgun at their side doesn’t make for much of a news story. What’s a news story? Someone who wants to be able to wave a machine gun around in Target. What are they? A gun nut.

      10) Why (if Left is pro-choice) can’t they respect Janay Palmer’s choice to marry Ray Rice, and her pleas for privacy – instead of hounding him out of a job he can blame her for?

      It wasn’t purely the left that hounded Ray Rice. People on both sides of the aisle agreed what he did was awful. People on both sides of the aisle agreed that a 2 game suspension wasn’t a sufficient penalty for assault- a crime that often lands other individuals in prison. As for Janay Palmer- people on both sides of the aisle have talked about her decision to stay with Rice. It has nothing to do with whether or not you’re pro-choice and everything to do with people simply having and expressing opinions about an issue that went viral. There’s nothing wrong with that. Personally, I think most people on the left will tell you what I’d tell you- don’t think any women should stay with a guy who pushes her in the face, but the decision is ultimately hers. It’s that simple. That said, her decision doesn’t change the fact that any rational, thinking person can safely agree that not being allowed to play football for a couple of games is not a suitable penalty for physically assaulting someone. Ray Rice’s actions, like anyone else’s, should have consequences.

      • Sandy Greer

        1) We agree
        2) Hillary Clinton is a Hawk. Liberal interventionists (hawks) are neocons by any other name.
        3) So both sides throw stones. Each says “He started it” “NO he did” “She’s the one” Ad nauseum. Until the middle turns away from both, in disgust. Somebody always goes first, in making Peace. Generally, it’s the ‘bigger’ party.
        Why not the Left?
        4) William Fite. First, his posts were Deleted, one by one. Until finally – he was never seen again. Poof! Gone. Stephen Barlow recently bragged he will flag every post of Charles Vincent – until he, too, is banned. Urged others to do the same. Israeli articles – Posts disappear, when they dare speak for Palestinians. I have seen some authors (not Clifton) try to ‘bully’ posters out of their articles. Jim Bean, most recently. But others, as well.
        5) A Straw Man, and an ad hominem
        6) They shouldn’t be ridiculed at all. Nobody should. We are better than that. Or we should be.
        7) Dems/GOP both cater to the Business Party. Stay out
        of our bedrooms? I had to tell mms that very thing (this is a taxpayer issue)
        8) Could be. Or could be Political Expediency. That he is not a cause célèbre. Either way – we don’t pick and choose which we ‘support’ and which we do not.
        9) Really? Who acknowledges that? And why must they be denigrated at all? This issue, especially, is where the Left loses out. Because Dems are armed, too. But, when we see articles written – they are all ‘gun nuts’. Or worse.
        10) You are the first person here to say it’s her ‘choice’ and hers alone. Kudos to you for seeing it that way. Go read
        robingee (she has no choices) and mms (above)

      • thesystemforce

        1) First, what have Dems done to alienate their own? Keeping in mind that Republicans obstructing the Democrats from accomplishing their established goals is not the fault of Democrats.
        Secondly, it’s not a matter of alienation. There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans. If all the Dems and all the Repubs turned out to a single election, the Dems would win it. However, during midterms, a much larger percentage of Republicans come to the polls than Democrats. It’s not that the number of existent voters has changed. The Democrats simply don’t show up.
        Now with Independents there’s the issue of alienation. That said, I repeat, what have the Democrats done to alienate Independents. They haven’t been perfect that’s for sure. That said, I would argue that the Independents shifting from Left to Right currently are less an issue of reality and more an issue of perception. Talk to the average, small-town independent. They don’t care about the discourse we’re having right now, on this page. Nothing wrong with that: they have immediate concerns and that’s their focus. They often vote based off of the direction their life has taken under whoever’s currently in charge. Thing is, ‘who’s in charge’ rarely ever equates to ‘who’s making your life harder’. You can’t blame Obama for Republican obstructionism. And you can’t tell me that Democrats haven’t worked hard to make it very clear that Republicans are making it impossible to get things done. Thing is, no matter how clear they make that, for a lot of voters, that isn’t the deciding factor come election day. If their life sucks more than it did when they voted for one party, the next time around they vote for the other guys.

        2. Neo-con is a term that was coined with an emphasis on social issues. You want to call them war hawks, sure. But until Hilary takes up the anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-woman banner, she doesn’t deserve to get called a neo-con. That said, I can safely agree that she, and Obama for that matter, can be a bit hawkish on defense. That said, in order to be a successful Democrat in modern day Washington DC, you have to be. One of the biggest right wing, go-to, talking points is that Dems are soft on defense. They tout it day and night, no matter the truth. In order to convince every day swing voters you’re not, you have to show you’re willing to bring the hammer down in regards to war.

        Personally, I’d love a more peaceful Democratic Party. I understand some Democrats do get upset when Obama, Hilary, etc. decide to drop bombs. But until we find a way to prove to voters that someone can be pacifistic AND strong on defense, it’s not going to happen at the Senate/Presidential level.

        3) Because enough voters in this country to swing an election still see the government as ‘the enemy’. If only one side is painting the other side as the big, bad evil, the side doing the vilifying is the one that’s going to get listened to. Perhaps not by the informed electorate, but by a lot of folks. You said yourself, both parties are bad. That’s the view of many, many Americans. Out of the people who don’t already have their minds made up by election day, the question really becomes ‘they’re both bad… but which is worse’. Until people stop thinking that way and start focusing on which is ‘better’, we’re going to have this negative, adversarial mud-slinging. Quite simply, it happens because it’s what works.

        Again, look at John Kerry. He tried to be the guy that didn’t get into the mud-slinging fight and tried to let the facts speak for themselves. He tried to be the bigger man. How did that work out for him?

        It’s unfortunate but until people are willing to view politics, and politicians, in a more positive manner, both sides are just going to keep throwing stones. If someone already assumes that you’re an ***hole, trying to win them over by saying how much your NOT one isn’t going to get the job done. You’re forced to prove that the other guy is worse.

        4. I’ll look at that but, to be entirely honest, I don’t have an answer for you. I’m not that involved in the minutia on here. Now that I have examples, I’ll be looking for that sort of thing.

        5. It can’t be an ad hominem when the topic in question of the individual/groups behavior. An ad hominem is if you try to attack the person rather than the issue. There’s no issue here; we’re talking about the beliefs/actions of the group. It’s simply stating that groups a, b, and c share similarities/those similarities are not in line with the views of a majority of Americans. The author is not saying Westboro = Islamic Radicals = Tea Party. It’s not a direct correlation. The author is saying ‘despite being anti-radical Muslim (for instance), the Tea Party and radical Islamists believe several of the same things; things that a majority of non-Tea Party Americans disagree with. Again, that is a statement of fact. How it applies to other issues has zero bearing on whether or not that is fact.

        6. See, I don’t think we are better than that. Should we be? I think it depends on the level of ridicule and, for that matter, the definition of ridicule.

        You’re operating on two assumptions: The first, that when a person’s foolish behavior is highlighted on FP (or similar sites) the purpose is ridicule. Secondly, that the individuals gender is a driving factor in the choice to ‘ridicule’ them.

        Personally, I don’t see acknowledgement of fact as ridicule. Especially if the fact is about someone who chooses to be a representative of the people, or a representative of an ideology (political or otherwise) in public. If we elect someone to go to DC and represent us and that person does something stupid, it should be talked about. It’s not purely a matter of wanting to point and laugh at them. It’s the fact that they are failing at the job we elected them to do. If your state chooses someone to go on television and speak on behalf of it’s people, if they go out and look like a buffoon, they have failed at their job. The people, informed voters or otherwise, have a right to be made aware of that failure.

        As for conservative women, they are ridiculed no more than conservative men. There’s no article going up to point and laugh at conservative ladies just for being conservative ladies. But just like their male counterparts, when they say/do something foolish, offensive, etc, we talk about it. And with conservative women, there is that issue of cognitive dissonance. I personally think there needs to be discussion of how modern women can vote for Republicans given their stances on women’s issues. That’s not ridiculing those women, it’s asking why. If it’s not because of ignorance, apathy, or whatever else, then conservative women should come out and say as much. Offer up a well-reasoned explanation for voting Republican from a female point of view. There will always be some people who ridicule it, but there are others who’d truly like to see the thought process.

        Personally, I would love to live in a society where no one gets ridiculed. Unfortunately that one is trumped by human nature.

        7. They do both cater to business; you’ll get no argument from me. That said, even if someone has to vote for Democrats as the ‘lesser of two evils’ they are significantly less ‘evil’ than the modern Republican Party.

        We can advocate for getting either or both sides to stop catering to business until we’re blue in the face. It’s a cause I’d gladly support. But only one side is advocating to business while being racist, homophobic, vilifying the poor, vilifying the educated, and allowing an obscene amount of destruction to be done to our environment. Only one side is catering to the fringe of their party by attempting to force Christianity on the country at a legislative level.

        I’m willing to accept that until there’s a fundamental change in how business and politics interact, both sides can be found catering to the desires of big business. But that does not make the two parties ‘two sides of the same coin’. To me, catering to businesses is a miniscule issue compared to gutting our schools, trying to deny any Americans their rights, and making drastic cuts to the programs that help feed/clothe the least fortunate among us.

        8. Agreed. Thing is, I see no indication that FP (or other Democrats) do not support our troops. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen every indication to the contrary. For whatever reason, this one guy isn’t being talked about. Perhaps he should be talked about more. But to act as if the decision to/not to talk about him is somehow a reflection upon whether or not someone supports our troops is a pretty hefty logical fallacy.

        9. In preparation for the ‘they’re coming to get our guns’ crowd, many articles on FP and similar, Liberal sites preface the core of their articles by assuring folks that they’re not looking to take guns away from the average person. FP and, again, similar sites, regularly share memes that emphasize that Obama (and other liberals) is not coming to take away all your guns. Most of these sites repeat it so often that having to see it typed out at all gets to be rather tiring.

        Again we come back to denigration and I’m going to say something similar to what I said before- if you’re stating a fact, it’s not denigration. Personally, I do think there’s a certain amount of being crazy involved in saying people shouldn’t have to show ID and get background checked to acquire an assault weapon at a gun show. My first thought in response to that is ‘are you crazy’? Not because the people saying that sort of thing are Republicans. Not because Democrats are any more/less armed. But because without background checking these people, we don’t know whether or not we’re handing the gun to a dangerous schizophrenic or career criminal.

        I have no issue with people with guns. I don’t own any, but I do have several rather dangerous swords. Does that make me a sword nut? I don’t think so. But if I took my sword to Wal-Mart and waved it around at people, I think people would be well within their rights to acknowledge that that’s the sort of thing crazy people do.

        There’s no article on FP talking about ‘Republican goes on hunting trip’ or ‘Republican passes hunter’s safety’. You’re not going to find that anywhere. When the articles crop up it’s because someone did/said something crazy dealing with guns and now it’s being acknowledged.

        10. Are you basing the views of Democrats off of the knee-jerk replies on an internet forum? I assure you, not everyone who posts on FP represents the voice of the Democratic Party. :p

        In all seriousness, it’s unfortunate that other people aren’t pointing out that this is, indeed, her choice. But domestic violence tends to be an issue that gets people up in arms. They have strong feelings about it and feel the need to air those feelings in their posts. You would see the same thing on a more conservative site, or on those that have absolutely nothing to do with politics. It’s a hot-button topic that, in a lot of cases, people have had to deal with first-hand. Don’t take such responses as the over-arching views of ‘the Left’ (as you put it above). They were posts by individuals with their individual perspectives on domestic abuse.

      • Sandy Greer

        1) Guns. Free Speech. PC. What you got to rebel against? Say it’s not ‘alienation’ if you want. Fact is we’d vote if we wanted to.
        2) Semantics. No big deal.
        3) Our policies are good enough we can Be the Change and go pro-Left all the way. Doesn’t matter what the ‘other’ guy does.
        4) Thank you. That’s fair enough.
        5) No need to conflate and generalize. Fallacies start with comparisons. Let each stand on its own.
        6) We’ll have to agree to disagree. I do think we’re
        better than that. Aim high, always.
        7) Agree. But I won’t hold my nose and vote lesser of two evils (see #1) Plenty of alternatives out there.
        8) Maybe so. We’ll agree to disagree again.
        9) Maybe so. But those articles stir up ‘anti-gun’ rhetoric. I’ve seen calls for repeal of 2A. Dems are losing the middle, here. We need to get better.
        10) Let us hope so. I wonder, sometimes. I don’t post conservative sites. Only here – where I am exposed, mostly – to the Left. Why I take issue so with the censorship. And value the few conservatives and Independents who brave our midst.
        11) Might I ask for shorter Replies without giving offense? You are not the only one I read, and Reply to, here. 😉

      • thesystemforce

        I’ll make my replies shorter. At the same time, that kind of plays into my point. :p People want what they’re reading, replying to, etc. short/sweet. Our policies are better, but when many voters don’t want to listen to the policies unless they’ve been simplified to the point of fitting on a bumper sticker (Drill Baby, Drill!), you run into a problem. Some of our policies are supported by 80+% of Americans. However, come election day many of those folks turn up and vote for the other guy. Either they don’t care about those issues enough for it to sway their vote, or despite the sheer volume of articles out there from FP, AATP, and numerous other sites, they’re unaware of what the Democrat’s policies are.

        I’m willing to vote for the lesser of two evils because the ‘evil’ of being associated with big business doesn’t ruin the party for me. Any candidate is going to be flawed. The Dem guy caters to business? Ick. The Repub guy caters to business and is a sexist, racist, homophobe that wants to get rid of government assistance for the poor? I’ll vote for the first guy if only to help (hopefully) insure that the second guy doesn’t get into office.

        Mind you, I appreciate your willingness to simply not to go out and vote. But I also have to say that willingness amongst left-leaning independents (whether you are one or not) is a huge problem for Democrats

        The right doesn’t have as large of a block in their party willing to simply not show up. The largest group they do have that acts that way is far-right ‘value voters’ (See: GWB’s re-election in which thousands of ‘new’ value voters came to the polls). Their base and right-leaning independents tend to show up and vote no matter what. So the right can get away with pandering to the far-right and increase turnout. The left, in order to bring in the left-leaning independents, end up having to move to the right. At that point those ‘better policies’ that you mentioned tend to start falling apart.

      • Sandy Greer

        Oh, I vote. Every single time. And no – I’m not a left-leaning Independent. Though folks who seem to think there is only one way (their way) to be a Lefty and/or Dem – make me wonder if I shouldn’t rectify that.

        Sometimes I wonder if the Big Tent party is as big as it used to be.

        Dems can bewail lack of voter turnout all they want. Fact is the only thing we’ve got is our vote. We the People – vote, or we do not.

        I’ve offered suggestions for how, and why – Dems lose ground, with ordinary people. FWIW (not much, in some quarters) So I guess we’ll see, come Nov 2014.

        Either way, I vote.

      • thesystemforce

        Oh I know there’s more than one way to be a Dem. I tend to come across as very liberal, but actually lean to the right on several issues some hardcore Dems hold close to their hearts.

        These days, I think of myself not as a lefty or dem, but as an anti-Republican. I don’t mean that in an adversarial sense. if the Republican party stood for actual, conservative, Republican values- small government, pro-business (for employers and employees), low taxes, constitutional rights, and a government that makes sense to the people that’d be great. But you’re not small government when you push voter ID or restrict. You’re not pro-business when you push trickle-down after every neutral study has proven that it helps neither businesses, nor employees. You’re not for low taxes when you give all the breaks to the rich, and offset any relief for poor people by cutting their assistance. You’re not for Constitutional Rights when you try to force God into government and applaud cops assaulting protestors. You’re not for a government that makes sense if you deny widely accepted science and fight against government transparency.

        Not only do modern Republicans do the above, they then have Fox News go out and act like they’re the everyday, working class heroes and anyone who believes differently has been taken in by some left-wing conspiracy. As I’ve mentioned before, they go out and seek to make people afraid and ignorant. Scared, ignorant people tend to vote Republican.

        The modern Republican Party, the Conservative Media included, is incredibly damaging to the nation. The Democrats aren’t the perfect answer, but they’re leaps and bounds better than the alternative.

      • Sandy Greer

        Remember the censorship we spoke of? Charles Vincent has just posted an OP. Second time. His first OP disappeared.

        Catch it quick – or catch it not.

        He also posted you three times. But only two show. Your Disqus (if that’s what you’re using) might show the third.

        It’s creepy here, sometimes.

      • thesystemforce

        I replied to Charles Vincent already, posting links to articles, pictures and videos of open carry action at Wal-Mart, Sonics, Chili’s, and Target. Hopefully they don’t take his replies down because it would make mine seem awfully random. :p

      • Sandy Greer

        They posted his original OP (lengthy) again.

        Meanwhile, he broke it into three parts. So now all four show.

        God, this place cracks me up, sometimes. Just SMH

      • thesystemforce

        If I see censorship, I’ll speak up. That indeed doesn’t fly. That said, the idea that the left is as bad as the right is ridiculous. Been over why already but I’ll paraphrase- while the left is by no means great, the modern right has shown a penchant for racism and homophobia. They’re anti-poor, anti-workers, anti-education, etc. They deny facts put right in front of them be they scientific fact or the numerous, non-partisan studies showing the failings in their economics policies. They don’t even represent the ideals that, at one point, made Republicans great: personal freedoms, sensible/minimalist government, actually trying to Conserve things, and that every American citizen is entitled to the rights granted by the Constitution.

      • Sandy Greer

        Censorship is here. See it or not. It’s here.

      • strayaway

        Sandy, Once, long ago in high school, I was invited to a Young Americans for Freedom meeting, When someone there claimed that the Methodist Church was a Communist Front, I laughed. I must have been the only person in the room to think that funny. I was asked to leave and escorted to the door. At least they were kind enough to give me a free paperback, “None Dare Call it Treason”. They didn’t call me any names. We’ve got it easy. Imagine if we had been born into a society in which the inquisitors had noticed a wobble in our orthodoxy and had the power to do something about it.

      • Charles Vincent

        You mean like the Spanish inquisition…

      • strayaway

        That’s what I was thinking.

      • Sandy Greer

        If you go see the Palin Family Brawl – you will find people Replying to Bine – whose comments have been Deleted.

        Pretty sure Bine just got banned.

        Watch your back, strayaway. I suspect FP is going to purge anyone who can mount a credible opposing argument.

      • Sandy Greer

        Oh, my old friend strayaway.

        Another favorite Opponent – admired as much for his sly humor and ability to post without insult – as his ability to make me nuts. 😉

        Seriously. It’s good to see you again, strayaway.

        And just when I was about to call it a night, too.

        But you’re right. As usual. Point taken. We still have our votes.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well lets cure that notion of left being all on high then

        Sandy Greer

        upvoted you


        10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican, 8th Edition

        35 minutes ago

        Charles Vincent

        36 minutes ago

        Marked as spam

        What exactly does the freedom for Americans to say what they w

      • thesystemforce

        I’ve been right there saying the left isn’t all high and mighty. I’ve freely admitted they’re the lesser of two evils. However, I think the difference between the two is rather vast. I have a huge problem with racism, homophobia, vilifying the poor, and attempts to keep people ignorant. As long as the right continues to do those things, the modern left’s screw-ups pale in comparison.

      • Charles Vincent

        Did you know that the democratic party opposed civil rights and tried to filibuster the civil rights act? and did you know that the NRA was started to help slaves?

        WRT “I’ve freely admitted they’re the lesser of two evils”
        Um they are to sides to the same coin Chief.

      • thesystemforce

        For what I lack in gun knowledge, I make up for in history (and other topics).

        That was then, this is now. As I’ve made mention of above, the Republican Party, years ago, was great. Heck, I may’ve been a Republican prior to the 1980s. As for the Democrats, I think an essential part of being good for the nation is acknowledging the screw-ups of the past, and those occurring in the present.

        But the problem is that the modern Republican Party has been taken over by the fringe right, while Democrats have moved closer to the center in an attempt to win over left-leaning independents. Seriously, during the Reagan era a majority of Republicans admitted to accepting evolution as fact. The idea of science-denying was a fringe element. Not anymore.

        The Republican Party was, at one point, about governing in a way that made sense to the people. The people wanted low taxes: the Republicans gave them low taxes. The people wanted economics that made sense: the Republicans gave them sensible legislation. The people wanted their constitutional rights: that’s what conservatives gave them. Again, that’s no longer the case.

        My opinion of the political parties of decades ago has minimal bearing on my opinion of them today. Modern Republicans and modern Democrats are vastly different from what they once were. Heck, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. His opposition: rich, white business owners from southern states These days, do you know a lot rich, white ‘job creators’ from the south that aren’t Republicans?

        The modern Republican Party is not only bad for America in general, it’s bad for the Republican Party brand name. The electorate is becoming younger, the number of minorities are increasing, and more people are identifying as Liberal. If Republicans want to stay relevant they need to make some major changes. And until they do, I’ll staunchly support their opposition.

      • Charles Vincent

        “That was then, this is now. As I’ve made mention of above, the
        Republican Party, years ago, was great. Heck, I may’ve been a Republican
        prior to the 1980s. As for the Democrats, I think an essential part of
        being good for the nation is acknowledging the screw-ups of the past,
        and those occurring in the present.”
        So let me get this straight you voted republican until they did more bad stuff than democrats and when the democrats do more bad things than the republicans you’ll again vote republican?

        Do you not see the problem here? can you not understand that when you vote for the lesser of two evils you still get evil just not as much? And can you not see the insanity of what you do?

        Insanity; doing the same thing over and over and then expecting different results.

      • thesystemforce

        I’m not expecting a different result. You’re making a faulty assumption. I don’t expect Democratic politicians to be perfect. I expect them to be less racist, less homophobic and more willing to accept science than Republicans. I accept them to put money into education and into services that assist the poor. I expect them to only take military action after they’ve exhausted diplomatic options (or when there aren’t diplomatic options). I expect them to treat healthcare as a right rather than a privilege. I expect them to advocate for free speech, even for the folks that disagree with them.

        I don’t sugar coat the liberals. Both parties have their issues, and lots of them. I’m aware that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But there’s the evil of ‘Democrats are in bed with big business’ and there’s the evil of ‘Republicans are in bed with big business and anti-gay rights, slashing assistance for the poor, denying people access to health care, cutting education, trying to destroy unions, etc. etc. etc.’ One side is -significantly- worse than the other.

        I never said I voted Republican. Keep in mind, I reached voting age during the GW Bush Administration. I disapprove of Republican policy from the 1980s on and I was born in 1983.

        What I’m saying is, at this point, I vote Democrat because their policies on tolerance, education, war, and their general approach to the economy are better than what is offered up by modern Republicans.

        I DON’T vote Republican because I won’t vote for people who are, or who speak in support of, bigots, homophobes, science-deniers, and the people who vilify the poor, educators, workers/unions, etc.

        Also, that line on insanity, despite being a popular quote, is a fallacy. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over in expectation of a result outside of the rational outcomes. When someone flips a coin over and over, they can expect either heads or tails. Expecting either, different result is perfectly sane. Expecting the coin to turn purple then disappear is insane. Voting for different representatives within the same political party can yield varying results. No one can say with any seriousness that Barack Obama made identical policy decisions to Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. There have been numerous articles, memes, etc. on the massive differences between GWB and Ronald Reagan. Heck, Richard Nixon proposed the EPA when modern Republicans rev up their base by suggesting we abolish it all together.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I DON’T vote Republican because I won’t vote for people who are, or who
        speak in support of, bigots, homophobes, science-deniers, and the people
        who vilify the poor, educators, workers/unions, etc.”

        And I wont vote for democrats that consistently try to piss all over peoples constitutional rights.

        “I never said I voted Republican.”

        Your previous statement says other wise.

        “Heck, I may’ve been a Republican prior to the 1980s.”

        “No one can say with any seriousness that Barack Obama made identical policy decisions to Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter.”

        Maybe so but he sure has recycled some of GWB’s policies.

        “Heck, Richard Nixon proposed the EPA when modern Republicans rev up their base by suggesting we abolish it all together.”

        I am apposed to any bureaucracy wherein those running it are not duly elected by we the people.

      • Sandy Greer

        So does Charles have a problem with racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc. And ignorance.

        Why they try to shut him up, methinks. The last. I’ve never seen him post what he couldn’t back up.

        He and I differ on guns, somewhat. Like you – I don’t care for them with my burgers. Though I don’t vilify any as ‘nut/fanatics’ (whatever) And understand it’s more about 2A than anything else – for most gun owners.

        But he’s my favorite Opponent – whom I respect enormously – and from whom I learn much. Without our Opponents – this would be a very dull place, indeed.

        So the censorship is simply and utterly appalling, to me.

      • Charles Vincent

        There is that censorship and it most definitely makes the left just as bad as they claim the right is Chief.

      • Charles Vincent

        I havent seen them but my guess is the ones you linked are of AR 15’s and those are not machineguns learn the difference before you post.

      • Sandy Greer

        Could be his links. See how Charles does his links.
        You have to disguise them somehow.

      • Sandy Greer

        These are OPs of his. Not Replies to you. But his own OP.

        There is only one now. He is being heavily censored.

        My guess – soon we will not see him again.

        Every single person should care about this. It’s not The Right Thing to do.

        FP can censor if they like. The danger is they wake up in Nov 2014, wondering what the hell happened, that they didn’t see it coming – because they couldn’t be bothered to hear the Opposition.

        BTW – Charles is not even Republican. He’s an Independent. Somebody Dems should hope would vote their way.

        Censorship – ain’t gonna cut it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Let them censor me I don care it only confirm what I have been saying, that the left is just as bad as the right. remember that censorship of opponents is the first sign of tyranny.

      • Julie Wickstrom

        His stuff is usually strawman antics but shouldn’t be removed. Sandy, at least you can give rebuttal and can be on topic.

      • Charles Vincent

        People would be setting fire to them if they really were strawmen antics Julie. The fact is they are not and that’s why they censor my posts. They cant rebut so the censor them.

      • Sandy Greer

        Thank you for the compliment, Julie (rebuttal and on topic) I try to focus.

        I’d like your post, were it not for the ‘strawman’ – with which I disagree, of course.

        But thanks again. Especially when scattered amongst insults – compliments mean much.

    • Sue Roediger

      Re Janay Palmer Rice ……. it won’t be long she will be beaten again. I hope she can get away before she ends up like Nicole Brown Simpson.

    • freethinker57

      Working backwards:
      1. Rice’s wife has the choice to stay with him if she chooses, sure. But this whole issue didn’t come up because she complained. (She actually has the classic affect of an abused beaten woman, her defense of him is not unexpected). Rice is in the s–t he is in because a video happened to catch him doing it. She might choose to stay, the public doesn’t have to choose to continue to support his glorified career. Rice is merely facing consequences for his actions, like we all do.
      2. . Tahmooressi committed a crime in another country. Period. He is not some innocent, some hero needing rescue. If you commit a crime in ANY other country, then dont be surprised if you pay a serious price.

      3. Just because there are conservative women doesn’t mean there is not a sustained conservative legislative assault on the rights of women in this country. Conservative women that I have seen lampooned are made fun of because they consistently demonstrate ignorance of issues, an almost incoherent use of the English language, and sadly, don’t seem to mind when their conservative male counterparts openly deride them to their faces. THAT’S why we make fun of them. And we don’t make fun of all of them, just these types.

      4. When the ‘average’ conservative stands up to the extremists in their party/movement, then they may continue to be conflated with the likes of WBC & ISIS. WHen you are silent on issues like this, your silence speaks volumes.

      5. Most of these other things you mention are such simple, childishly put questions, there is NO answer. Nor are they in the same vein as the original 10 questions.

      • Sandy Greer

        >When the ‘average’ conservative stands up to the extremists in their party/movement, then they may continue to be conflated with the likes of WBC & ISIS. WHen you are silent on issues like this, your silence speaks volumes.

        ^^^Well, this ‘average’ Lefty is having all she can do to stand up to the extremists in her own party/movement – who use censorship as a weapon to purge FP of opposition voices – that they may be left with Confirmation Bias only posting.

        That’s right. Another one banned today.

        And I agree – the silence is deafening.

        But no worries. We’ll see how it all shakes out in Nov 2014.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, again, what purge?

    • Kenneth Browning

      I agree with number three. This site, especially Clifton, is mostly no different than the right wing dingbats they complain about(O’Reilly, Palin, Hannity etc.) They just attack the other side while rarely, if ever, offering up any solutions or ideas. But that’s the typical liberal way. To latch on to ideas or movements then claim them as their own. Like many tried with Occupy. Or how the liberal pages like to pass around the picture claiming liberals were responsible for the 8 hour work day, womens suffrage etc.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      1. Because the last time the Republicans were in charge, they wrecked the economy. My retirement plan took two massive hits in 2002 and 2007 and I’d like to be able to retire and not have to live in a refrigerator box, eating cat food.
      2. Because most dems are not neocons
      3. Because the right is dangerous.
      4. Who has censored opponents? Another right-wing delusion?
      5. Define “average conservative” and I’ll answer your question.
      6.. Because female CONSERVATIVES are still CONSERVATIVE and are also engaged on the war on women. Start with Phyllis Schlafly
      7. They are not. Republicans are the party of the rich. Republicans voted against raising the minimum wage; the Democrats voted for it. The Republicans voted 50 times to repeal ACA. The Democrats didn’t. The Republicans took us to war in Iraq based on lies (and don’t start trying to cover your ass with “well, the Democrats voted for it.” No, SOME democrats voted for it after Bush accused any objectors of “being with the terrorists.”
      8. IS Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi fighting in Afghanistan? And why was he caught in Mexico with guns?
      9. There are no “good guys with guns.” That is an NRA fantasy. John Wayne does not ride to the rescue. If you feel the need to open carry, whine about your “second amendment rights” and complain that “Obama is coming to take my guns” you are indeed a gun nut.
      10. Are you really THAT stupid?

    • Jeff Johnson

      Why can’t you answer the questions posed by the author? I’ll answer yours for you, but I really think you should address his questions, rather than attempting to distract from and avoid them. Is there something scary about facing them?

      Here you go:

      1) ALL Americans should be DEEPLY concerned about this election, because we’ve seen just how extreme and out of touch with mainstream America the GOP has become, and we must NOT allow them to gain control of the senate.

      2) The term “neocon” was initially used to lable “Neo liberalism.” However, it is not to be confused with liberalism, as it is an extremist form of right wing beliefs.

      3) The majority of America is squarely in line with democrats on virtually every issue of the day. You may have a point, in that most people aren’t aware of this fact, thanks to the “liberal media” failing to mention it. However, it’s also important to recognize just how over the cliff today’s republican party has become, and one way of doing that is to point out some of the ridiculous, extremist positions that they hold.

      4) Hard to say. I’m not a fan at all of censorship in any way, but some people get offended at vulgarity and such, so it’s entirely possible that vulgar posts are deleted. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.

      5) He didn’t. He conflated extremist tea party members, which is merely 20% of the GOP, with other extremists, and he’s 100% correct. Perhaps, that’s why you chose to ignore his question, huh?

      6) Because, it’s always humorous to see someone back an agenda that’s directly targeting and attacking them. Same with gay republicans and black republicans, female republicans are a freak anomaly that simply make no sense. There’s something not right with these people, that causes them to vote directly against their own best interests.

      7) Pretending that both parties are the same is a flat out absurdity at this point. There was a day, long ago, when there were respectable republicans who actually carried out the bidding of their constituents, but that’s no longer the case. The entire GOP is 100% owned by the oligarchy, and have corrupted the government to the point that we’re basically living under fascist oligarch governance now. How do we know this? Pick an issue and look where the public opinion lies vs. where republicans vote. They are absolutely IGNORING the will of the people.

      And, while democrats certainly have gotten their feet wet with corrupt corporate cash, thanks to Bill Clinton among others, there are still a handful of excellent democrats who’re doing their job to fight for the will of the people in this country. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Sherrod Brown, Keith Ellison, etc. There is not one single republican who can be heralded in the same manner. Sorry.

      8) After seeing and hearing how republicans viciously attacked Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, they no longer have the moral authority to criticize anyone for merely not mentioning another soldier in a different scenario. Sorry. I actually heard a prominent Fox newscaster smear Bergdahl with the libelous claim that he was a deserter. No, he is most definitely NOT a deserter. In order for a soldier to be called a deserter, he first must have gone AWOL, which he apparently had, and then the military must conduct an investigation to determine whether or not a trial for desertion is appropriate. Then, the soldier must be found guilty in that trial and convicted of desertion. Then, and ONLY then can a soldier be labeled as a deserter. Currently, the military is conducting an investigation to determine whether or not Sgt. Bergdahl actually deserted, although, given the standards that the military holds for that charge, it seems extremely unlikely that we’ll see that. They have to be able to prove that he either left with the intention of never returning or that he left in order to avoid service. He was in a combat zone, so the latter is unattainable, and it’s going to be virtually impossible to prove that he left with the intention of never returning, when he’d gone AWOL twice before.

      9) His question regarding guns had nothing to do with an attack on responsible gun owners. He merely asked how we’re supposed to identify them, when everybody, including bad guys, are armed?

      10) What Rice did to that woman has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose, nor is it even marginally acceptable, by any definition. He could’ve killed her with that blow. Are you suggesting that if he HAD killed her, he should still be playing football? Your logic is mangled by your twisted ideological beliefs, which appear to be founded in nothing but partisan ideology.

  • Rick Cole

    Sorry, but #4 may not be as insightful as you might like: a symptom of a terrible economy might be the fact that we are not creating enough jobs and can do better than 140K; an argument could be made that any jobs report under 200K is bad news. While the preceding questions are excellent, I’m not going to ask that one.

  • Charles Vincent

    “Can you please describe the difference between a “bad guy with a gun” and a “good guy with a gun” if every single American is walking around openly carrying guns?”

    Easy answer you’ll never see the bad guys gun until he uses it because A) he hides it and B) it’s illegal for felons to own a firearm.

    How can someone have the freedom of religion if we pass laws that are based on a religion that they do not follow?

    UM its freedom from a State sponsored religion, i.e. a state cannot
    stop people from putting up a monument on state property and neither can they discriminate based on religion or lack thereof. Counter question; Who passed a law regarding religious freedom?

    “If Saddam Hussein was still in power, would ISIS exist?”

    Probably so in some form or another and probably sponsored by the Hussein regime.

    “If the economy has been so terrible under President Obama, why is a jobs report showing we created 142,000 jobs in a month considered bad news?”

    Because they changed how unemployment is calculated and that number is meaningless it doesn’t say what the hourly rate is and most likely the majority of those jobs are probably part time and or minimum wage jobs that do little or nothing to replace the middle income jobs lost.

    • Nick Wride

      Wrong on Saddam/ISIS. Saddam ran a secular government and he kept the religious crazies in line, rather brutally, but he kept them in line.

      • Charles Vincent

        You assume that they would be religiously motivated terrorists, this isn’t the only terrorist breeding ground(religion that is). Saddam himself was a form of terrorist, he ordered the Chemical weapons attacks on the Kurdish people and killed or terrorized political opponents.

  • Sandy Greer

    OPs of Charles Vincent are disappearing before my eyes. Three of them so far. He is being heavily censored – not The Right Thing at all. Three of his OPs – and one Reply so far that I saw. Poof! Gone. Just like that.

    Every single person should care about this.

    FP has the right to censor and even ban who they please. Danger is waking up in Nov 2014 wondering what the Hell happened – that you never saw it coming – because you couldn’t be bothered to hear what an Opponent had to say.

    Charles isn’t even GOP. Not that it makes a difference. But he’s an Independent – somebody Dems should hope would vote his way.

    Censorship ain’t gonna cut it, folks. Not by a long shot.

    • Charles Vincent

      Thanks for the bump sandy but I wouldn’t vote democrat considering how this here thread is playing out.

      • Sandy Greer

        I understand. Sadly, I have to wonder about my own vote, now.

        This is intolerable.

        Somebody asked earlier how Dems antagonize their own?

        Censorship. Plain and simple.

  • Nick Wride

    5) Do you realize the tea party has more in common on many social issues (abortion, women’s rights, sex, birth control, homosexuality) with the Westboro Baptist Church and Islamic radicals than they do the average American? >>>>
    Absolute fact.

    • Charles Vincent

      You apparently only believe what the liberal left MSM spoon feeds you, what a lopsided bubble you live in.

      • Nick Wride

        Get your head out of your ass and get some fresh air. The teabag trash are a part of the American Taliban.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ohh and the liberal progressive left are the fascist commies….

        C WUT I DID THAR??????????

  • Charles Vincent

    What exactly does the freedom for Americans to say what they want without fear of prosecution (aka the First Amendment) have to do with donating money to political candidates?

    Courtesy of Dissenter13a “As for Citizens’ United, it was full-on judicial activism; prior to about 1950, corporate involvement in politics was cause for the revocation of that corporation’s charter.”

  • Joseph Puglia

    ISIS: Islamic State in Syria……it was created in Syria. Saddam was the ruler of Iraq. So yes. Perhaps ISIL (Islamic State in Levant) would not have but I think it still would have.

  • Joseph Puglia

    Honestly, these were so poorly contrived. More than half of these can be easily refuted.


    1.) plenty of stories of CWL stopping the bad guy. You may not like people open carrying or having a CWL, but guns exist and people who do want to do bad couldn’t care less about the laws you want passed. If you don’t want to own or carry a gun to defend yourself then have at it, i couldn’t care less, but I’ll be damned if you are going to take that right from me. Lastly if you don’t think being armed isn’t a form of protection then do you advocate disarming beat cops and getting rid of armed security for politicians?

    2.) That’s stupid. You do realize they have people who do adhere and those who don’t but you want to punish the ones who do simply because of your hatred of religion.

    3.) Probably not. I was no fan of Bush or the invasion which Democrats also supported

    4.) quantity vs quality

    5.) I think you’re delusional. if those issues were that settled then they wouldn’t be hot topic subjects.

    6.) I don’t care about FOX, but you think your site is fair and balanced?? Why not call out MSNBC?

    7.) never seen that said by anyone, but all the same if the State is going to be the one to define marriage and the people vote to define it as one man one woman then that is all that matters.

    8.) You guys target(i.e. harass and try to get fired)people who donate to canidates you don’t like, next

    9.) So then why don’t you want to make it where anyone can do an abortion if you think it’s so easy and safe. I oppose paying for someone else’s sex life.

    10) You’re assuming if things got that bad that all the National Guards, State Defense Forces and law enforcement wouldn’t side with the people of that State. The conflicts in the middle east shows how people can fight against a government with some being ex-soldiers/cops of that government

    • Kenneth Jordan

      You sir are an asshole, PROVE your talking points.

  • Matthew Reece

    1. A “bad guy with a gun” initiates the use of force. A “good guy with a gun” uses the gun defensively.

  • Matthew Reece

    3. Probably, but ISIS would be much less of a problem, having to deal with an effective Iraqi military in addition to its other opponents.

  • Matthew Reece

    4. Because the jobs growth is not keeping up with population growth, wages are stagnant, and the labor force participation rate is at lows not seen since the Carter administration.

  • Matthew Reece

    9. Not all do. Some want birth control to be available over-the-counter.

  • Matthew Reece

    10. Because there is a disconnect between different factions of the Republican Party, namely the establishment wing and the limited-government wing.

  • FD Brian

    I like number 10.

  • Arthur C. Hurwitz

    Islamic radicals do not consider the banning of Birth Control an important issue….