10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican, 3rd Edition

head-scratcherI told everyone I was going to make this a once a month feature and here it is.  I’ve gotten decent feedback by people who’ve asked conservatives these questions, so I’m hoping most of you are enjoying the column.

If you haven’t seen the first two editions, here they are:

While some conservatives might try to answer the questions (most won’t) their answers are usually completely ridiculous.  Usually what you get is some kind of dismissive response or “answers” that don’t really have anything to do with the question.

Alright, let’s get started:

1) How many official reports debunking the numerous fake Republican Benghazi conspiracies will it take before conservatives let it go?

2) If universal background checks won’t slow down gun violence, then why do you think requiring an ID to vote will solve the almost non-existent cases of voter fraud?

3) If raising taxes on the rich equals dangerous socialism, how do you explain our very successful capitalism during the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s with much higher taxes?

4) If millions of people who work 40 hours a week still rely on government assistance to survive, due to employers paying ridiculously low wages, how exactly is that “them being lazy?”

5) Fox News has reported on fake Benghazi conspiracies for nearly a year and a half (and counting) which conservatives have had no problem with, so why is MSNBC covering the real scandals facing Chris Christie for just about three weeks “overkill?”

6) How many instances of gay marriage ruining heterosexual relationships can you cite?

7) The wealthy are richer than they’ve ever been before, while the poor and middle class fall further and further behind, so when exactly does “trickle-down” economics start to work?

8) If raising the debt ceiling is such a big deal, why did Republicans have no problem doing it seven times during G.W. Bush’s eight years?

9) How can the House of Representatives be “representing the American people” when Democrats won the popular vote in 2012 by 1.5 million votes, yet Republicans (thanks to gerrymandering) have power in the House?

10) If everything that’s still wrong with our economy is President Obama’s fault, why do most Republicans still keep a far distance from having anything to do with George W. Bush?

Alright, that’ll wrap up this month’s edition of “10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Conservative.”  I hope you enjoyed it, and be sure to share it around so more liberals can ask these questions to their conservative counterparts.

That is, if conservatives will even answer them.

Allen Clifton

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

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Commander SUPREME™

    They won’t answer any of them. They will just scream Obama is the devil, The ACA is destroying America, Four dead in Libya is worse than 5000 dead in Iraq and Afganistan and the rich are picked on. They won’t debate in good faith, because they would lose.

    • Jim Bean

      Oops.

    • dittoheadadt

      Are you aware we have more Afghanistan war dead under Obama than we had under Bush (and that’s with nearly 8 years under Bush and just 5 years under Obama)? Probably not, because you get your news from America’s mainstream media, aka, Democrat Party stenographers. Since Obama took office, the media suddenly forgot to publicize the body count. War dead no longer matter, when the blood is on a Democrat president’s hands.

      • Commander SUPREME™

        How about the dead in Iraq? I suppose they don’t count since they died under a Republican, who sent them to die for oil companies? Your racism shows through clearly when you hate the black man who ends wars but love the white man who starts them. You are nothing but a parrot for the mainstream conservative media. Do you think anything that Hannity and Rush doesn’t tell you to think? I have serious doubts.

      • ADTurnbull

        Let me walk you through it because you’re clearly not intelligent enough to get their on your own. My comment was about MEDIA BIAS, not about any particular war or war dead. That you could not, or would not, understand that is an indictment of your reading comprehension skills.

        As for your other brainless comments, I sported a Condi For President bumper sticker long before your choom-guy Obambi was even a glint in the Democrat Party’s eye. Oh, and speaking of real racists:

        “…a few years ago, this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags.” ~ Bill Clinton, Democrat

        “Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” ~ Harry Reid, Democrat

        “Hymietown” ~ Jesse Jackson, Democrat

        “Grand Kleagle of the KKK” ~ Robert Byrd, Democrat

        Now go back under your rock where your ignorance thrives.

      • Commander SUPREME™

        Oh, I didn’t realize that you had sported a Rice bumper sticker. I take back everything I have every said about conservative bias against our black president. I also didn’t realize that they G.O.P. had ever nominated a black woman for president, but I will chalk that up to my ignorance. Good luck to you and your delusions. You seem happy together.

      • ADTurnbull

        See, you’re just a brainless bump on a log, unable to admit when you’re wrong and unable to rebut anything. So you double-down on your ignorance. Pure Leftist, are you.

        It’s kinda sad, really, because you’re probably not a half-bad person. But because you willingly choose to wallow in ignorance and because you willingly choose not to educate yourself about what’s really happening in the world around you, and because you’re physically incapable of admitting error, you come off as a mind-numbed robot.

        It’s also kinda revealing how virtually ALL of the references to “race” in American political discourse come from the Left! You folks never pass up an opportunity to cite it, and it’s almost always when you have no other argument to make. So instead of saying something bright or insightful or thought-provoking, you cry “racist.”

        Well, you on the Left should know. See my examples above.

      • Commander SUPREME™

        I suppose hate must be a lot like love, in the sense that it blinds you so bad that you can’t even think straight. Now, I could cite all the different ways that the conservative have shown that they hate this president so bad that they will do anything to destroy him, but we both know that you will never listen. So, why bother? That fact is he got elected twice and we are very likely going to have another Democratic president in 2016, even though the conservative have done everything they can to slow down the economy and impede job growth. The conservatives are losing ground on almost all the other important issue’s with poor and middle-class citizens; gay marriage, marijuana legalization, immigration, contraception, income inequality, social security, evolution and climate change science, etc, etc. Say what you will, but in your heart you know that your side is losing.

      • ADTurnbull

        Change your story now, why don’t you? First, I hate Obama because he’s a “black man.” Now, I just hate him, period. Why the change? Because I proved you to be dead-wrong. But did that compel you to re-think your brainless opinions? Nope. You just keep charging forward, never self-aware enough to recognize your own intellectual bankruptcy, to moderate your foaming-at-the-mouth rantings.

        So keep getting your “news” from MSNBC and the like. You’re no more intelligent or informed than they are. And the sad thing is, that’s your choice. You’re not a victim of circumstance; you’re a victim of your own bad choices and stunted intellectual development.

        I’ll give you a chance to partially redeem yourself. You wrote “…even though the conservative have done everything they can to slow down the economy and impede job growth.”

        The Democrat Party held huge majorities in the House and the Senate, and Obama was in the White House, for nearly 2 years. They had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. The GOP couldn’t stop anything.

        What did they accomplish for the economy and for job growth? Please be specific, without going to Google.

      • Retrodude

        As if getting your “news” from FOX is any better? LMAO!!!!!!!1

      • Green_Devil

        Why would the teatards talk about racism when they’re quite happy with laws that allow the police to stop anyone who is Hispanic and asking them for their “papers” proving they have a right to be in this country or else they’re arrested, and laws that allow blacks to be shot and the shooter not even be charged, or voting restrictions enacted that serve to disenfranchise minority voters? If you’re a white teatard, why would you even talk about that because you’re happy the laws leave your stupid inbred white ass alone. After all, in between her sessions slamming “her” meat between Hannity’s buttcheaks, Ann Coulter assures us that racism is dead and who would know better than a privileged white establishment mouthpiece?

      • dittoheadadt

        Your loved ones must be so proud that you harbor such moronic thoughts. That rant is the manifestation of someone whose intellectual development ceased around the 5th grade. You couldn’t win an argument with a rock, because the rock knows more than you do. What a joke.

      • Green_Devil

        So you deny racism exists, that this “papers on demand” law wasn’t passed in Arizona, that blacks are not shot and the shooter not charged in FL under the “stand your ground” law, or that laws have been passed whose intent is to disenfranchise minority voters?

        Tell me, dittohead, what country do you live in, because clearly you know nothing about what’s been happening here in the US. Although if your moniker is any indication, you’re a fan of a fat womanizing pill-popping nazi who knows what side his viagra and oxy are buttered on and is only too happy to ape the role of an angry white man so that he’ll keep getting paid.

      • ADTurnbull

        Reading comprehension’s not your strong suit, is it? I responded only about the quality of your moronic, juvenile rant. And I could say the exact same things about your most recent display of sophomoric idiocy, too. You’re a real good example of Leftist “thought.” No surprise there.

      • Green_Devil

        So you have no factual rebuttals to my points, only insults, and pretty weak ones at that. Typical teatard. It’s why your movement will go down as one of clueless morons with no ideas or principles beyond “we hate the black man whhhhaaaaaaaa”.

      • ADTurnbull

        When you actually make a mature, adult argument in support of your (likely boneheaded) point, I’ll take it apart, I mean, I’ll respond to your argument. In the meantime, pointing out your juvenile rants is sufficient to discredit whatever you have to say.

      • Retrodude

        I don’t understand the right’s claim that racism no longer exists.

      • Retrodude

        Oh FOR GOD’S SAKES- there are stupid people on both political sides! There are plenty of backwoods, RACIST, conservatives out there, so get a fucking clue already.

      • dittoheadadt

        Well, you’re apparently as brainless as Commander SUPREME. Please point me to where I argued that there aren’t “backwoods, RACIST, conservatives” out there, that there aren’t “stupid people on both political sides.” You can’t, because I never argued those points. Your argument is simply a straw man, because that’s the only kind of argument you’re capable of winning.

        If anyone needs to get a clue already, clearly it’s you, because you cannot follow the written word.

      • Retrodude

        You call the President “brainless”, and your party is being represented by the likes of a washed-up, faded rockstar who shit his pants to avoid serving in the military and wrote a song about having sex with underage girls, a has-been governor of Alaska who didn’t finish her term and became a REALITY TV STAR, a senile old actor who used to be cool but gave an imaginary debate onstage with an EMPTY CHAIR, a mogul who’s filed bankrupt countless times who also became a REALITY TV STAR, and demonic Ann Coulter……. wow. Whatever.

      • dittoheadadt

        So we’re agreed – you CAN’T rebut what I wrote, so instead you have diarrhea of the keyboard, ranting and raving about things, none of which I argued.

        YOU are a typical Leftist, incapable of reading, understanding, and responding to the written word…but shameless enough to carry on like fifth-grader. (With apologies to fifth-graders.)

      • Retrodude

        You said Obama is “brainless”, and I said the “brainless” ones can be found on any given day, spouting their verbal diarrhea on FAUX news. That is pretty much on topic, if you ask me, dearest darling.

        As for being on the “left”, if you SERIOUSLY think liberals, most of whom are immersed in the arts, college-educated, etc. are BRAINLESS, then you are more of a fucking moron than I thought. Every single one of my liberal friends have traveled the world, are very much into science and the arts, and are FAR more open-minded than, say, my conservative family members, who live in fear that big bad Obama is comin’ for yer guns, he’s either a ruthless dictator or a bumbling idiot- WHICH IS IT?- and get every single talking point from FOX.

        They are uneducated, have never left the small town they live in, have been on government assistance as long as I can remember, think Christianity should be the law of the land, think the media is part of some liberal agenda, dismisses science and education, hate gays and blacks with a passion, and are generally pretty fucking stupid. Funny, as all the RED states have generally higher teen pregnancies, lower iq levels, and much higher welfare recipients. Yet, Barack Obama is “BRAINLESS”, as you say. Please elaborate on the infinite wisdom of a Bill O’Reilly, a Michelle Bachmann, a Rick Santorum (who said conservative Christians will NEVER HAVE THE SMART PEOPLE ON HIS SIDE- right he was), an Ann Coulter, an Elizabeth Hassleback, a Ted Cruz. This shit I cannot WAIT to hear.

      • dittoheadadt

        I’ll use as few words as possible, to increase the chance that you’ll understand that you STILL are arguing things that I never said.

        You wrote: “You said Obama is “brainless”, and I said the “brainless” ones can be found on any given day…”
        But I didn’t say ONLY Obama is brainless, I didn’t say the brainless are ONLY on the Left side of the aisle, so your ensuing comment is totally off-topic, pure straw man. Which is what you need it to be in order to win an argument.
        So too is the rest of your unhinged diatribe. Straw men extraordinaire.

      • Charles Vincent

        What about a leftist telling you that Obama is a status quo toadie to his corporate masters? Or that he recycles bush policies?

        http://m DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=K3XK2xxR1lA

        http://m DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=63HNuL2tfNc

      • Retrodude

        The headlines started coming out on some major right wing political websites and blogs:

        “LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling is a Racist Democrat”- The Tea Party News Network

        “Report: Clippers Owner Caught In Racist Rant Is A Democratic Donor” – Fox Nation

        “Donald Sterling made donations to Dems” – Politico

        “Media Ignoring Dem Donations of LA Clippers’ Owner, Allegedly Caught on Tape in Race-Based Rant” – NewsBusters

        “NBA Sterling is a Democrat…” – The Drudge Report

        “Race Hate Spewing Clippers Owner Is Democratic Donor” – The Daily Caller

        Rush Limbaugh went off on a tirade about it on Monday saying, “This guy is a big Democrat… The only reason he is in trouble right now is that he did not give enough money to Obama.” He then went on to rant about Sterling being “a typical Hollywood Democrat” and a litany of other textbook Limbaugh hyperbole.

        So NOW they have my attention. Apparently it’s very important that these websites point out a Democratic racist to help soothe the burning of the wound caused by their frantic embrace of Cliven Bundy. The world must know that this Democrat is a racist too!

        Except they got one thing wrong… Donald Sterling is a registered Republican in Los Angeles County and has been for over 18 years.

        On Sunday, Michael Hiltzik, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, tweeted that local voter records show Sterling to be a registered Republican since 1998. Mother Jones followed up and did a search of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s website for Sterling’s name, date of birth, and address confirmed that he’s registered as a Republican.

      • Retrodude

        You should probably learn a little history. The democrats who started the KKK were conservatives at the time. When civil rights finally happened, guess who then switched sides and became republicans; the racists. If Lincoln were running for office today, he would be doing it as a democrat. There has been nothing that conservatives have accomplished that bettered this country or moved it forward.

        Explainer: How Democrats and Republicans ‘switched sides’ on civil rights

        I just about lost my damn mind this morning after coming across this piece from the National Review about how Barry Goldwater totally wasn’t all that racist or anything.

        As a history nerd, this weird thing the Republicans are doing now where they are trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the civil rights movement is starting to drive me up the wall. Like, f’reals, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King would not freaking be conservative Republicans today. For that matter, neither would Susan B. Anthony. It’s absolutely absurd. It doesn’t even sort of make sense because at all times throughout all history, all civil rights issues are progressive issues regardless of party alignment.

        The fact of the matter is, both parties have undergone major changes throughout the past 150 years or so. Hell, within the last 40 years. In certain aspects, Richard Nixon would be way the hell to the left of today’s Democratic Party.

        You can’t really look at the history of American politics through the lens of the Republican Party meaning one immutable thing and the Democratic Party meaning another. Because also, like, 100 years ago, both parties had conservative and progressive wings, which is no longer the case. It would also be difficult to place most people from 100 years ago into either of today’s parties. It makes more sense to look at it through the lens of North and South, conservative and progressive.

        Take, for instance, William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner. Dude was a Democrat and super far to the left on most issues in his day. He was opposed to the Gold Standard, in favor of civil rights and labor rights, anti-war … but then was also in favor of prohibition and notoriously opposed to Darwin and teaching evolution. Where would he fit today? Pretty much nowhere. Then, you know, you had the crazy-ass southern Democrats who were super conservative on social issues and more progressive economically, because they benefited from farm subsidies. It was the same with the Republicans, many of whom were more socially liberal and economically conservative.

        Here’s the thing: the Republicans were the “Party of Lincoln,” — who, by the way, wasn’t exactly like, not racist– in 1860. But basically from 1860 on, they were pretty concerned with backing away from the whole “rights for black people” thing because they didn’t want to “alienate” racist white people. Basically, during the last half of the 1800s, everyone was racist and no one was the party of civil rights. However, by and large, black people tended to vote Republican, because Lincoln.

        The first major thing that happened after the Civil War as far as the division of parties goes, is TEDDY ROOSEVELT. TR was President William McKinley’s veep, and a progressive Republican. Like, super progressive. Can you even imagine a Republican today establishing National Parks and breaking up trusts? Hell no.

        After McKinley was assassinated, establishment Republicans were super-pissed because they hated his guts. Still, he was pretty popular with the people, so he won a second term. After leaving office, he promoted his buddy, the more conservative Taft as the Republican Presidential nominee, and he won.

        Now, Roosevelt had vowed not to run again, but when he saw what Taft was doing with the place (with trusts and things, not just with the bathtub), he was like “AW HELL NO” and decided he’d run for another term in 1912. However, he couldn’t secure the nomination from the Republican Party, so he started his own party, “The Progressive Party” a.k.a. “The Bull Moose Party” and ran against Taft, Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Socialist Eugene V. Debs.

        Now, Woodrow Wilson kicked everyone’s ass, and what ended up happening is that the progressive Republicans start inching on over to the Democratic Party.

        THEN COMES HERBERT HOOVER. Ok, so we all know about Nixon’s Southern Strategy, right? Well, he was not the first to pull that trick. Herbie was really the OG Southern Strategist. See, he happened to be running against a northern Democratic Catholic in 1928. You know who old timey Southerners hated almost as much as they hated black people? Catholics. So, Hoover woos himself some KKK members and they get everyone in the South freaked out about the possibility of a Catholic in the oval office. He then ends up being the first Republican to win Texas and also ended up winning some other ex-Confederate states.

        Although people usually site Goldwater’s rejection of the Civil Rights Act as the point where Republicans began losing black voters, this is really where everything started. Because after this, most of the civil rights leaders of the day ended up switching over.

        ESPECIALLY ONCE FDR TOOK OFFICE. Because FDR was pretty liberal on everything, and by this time most black people were voting Democrat because of Hoover’s shit. He ends up pushing through Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which was like, the most important thing as far as Civil Rights went in between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act. Pretty much the only thing. Plus you also had the fact that Eleanor was all kinds of bad ass as far as that shit went. Not to say that dude wasn’t gross about Japanese-Americans and internment, because he was.

        OK SO GOLDWATER. Back to where we started! So, at this point, Southern Democrats were super pissed at their Northern counterpoints, and were way the hell not cool with dudes like Kennedy and Johnson. Goldwater, being way more conservative than Rockefeller (who was a progressive, pro-civil rights Republican), started catching their eye. They became especially enamored with him when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Strom Thurmond even switched parties. However, black Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans were pretty grossed out by this and went Democratic. And have not turned back since.

        Meanwhile, the Democratic Party took on all the pro-civil rights folks, and most of the progressive wing of the Republican Party.

        NIXON CONTINUES THE SEDUCTION. With the infamous Southern Strategy. Basically, he used the fear of hippies and commies and radical black people to woo the southern states again. He uses dog-whistle terms like “bussing” and “states rights” to surreptitiously convince racist southern whites that he is down for the cause. It wasn’t too hard, because they were already grumpy about Johnson being too progressive.

        REAGAN SEALS THE DEAL. Now, here’s the thing. At the point when Reagan was elected, the Deep South was still kind of a Democratic stronghold. Because of tradition, and also because left-leaning economic policies benefited Southern farmers and workers and poor whites. So, one thing Reagan did to woo them was to embrace the Religious Right, which worked for them because they loved Jesus. Then, he busts out all that crap about supposed “Welfare Queens”– another dog-whistle term– who turned out to be entirely made up. So then they love Reagan and hate black people and poor people, even though like, a lot of them also happen to be poor people.

        And it just continues to this day. Republicans who had previously backed some progressive causes here and there (i.e. George Bush Sr. had been pro-choice, Bob Dole was pro-food stamps) switched it all around and went entirely conservative on all of the things. Which is why, as desperately as they may want to ally themselves with progressive causes of the past, they really can’t.

        The way things stand now? Well, of course not all Republicans are racist. However, if you do happen to be a super crazy racist, you’re probably not voting Democrat these days.

      • dittoheadadt

        Tell me why Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. DON’T LOOK IT UP. Tell me why, based upon what you think you know to be facts.

      • Retrodude

        Didn’t he think it was unconstitutional? That is irrelevant. You were trying to paint modern Democrats as racist, which is absurd. The parties have switched ideals over the years.

      • Retrodude

        “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” Rush Limbaugh

        “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” Rush Limbaugh

        [To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” Rush Limbaugh

        “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?” Rush Limbaugh

        BUT YA KNOW, REPUBLICANS AREN’T RACIST!!!!!!!!! What a fucking TOOL.

    • surfjac

      Much like the debt ceiling votes the right holds up to the detriment of the nation, the debt ceiling was raised 7 times during the bush years. Benghazi happened 13 times (13 embassies were attacked) while bush was in office and you never hear anybody say “shit” about that.

    • Retrodude

      Don’t forget the old chestnut, “He hates America”! And then there’s always the “He’s so uppity”!

  • Pipercat

    … and they have 10 coming back this direction. Doesn’t really matter, there are counters on both sides. I stick to the stuff that affects me because I have the arguments to support my position. I do take the gloves off the nano second a condescending tone is used towards my position.

    • Charles Vincent

      Random post how many things in this video can you spot that would get an American school kid expelled/ suspended;

      http://tvnz DOT co DOT nz/national-news/school-ditches-rules-and-loses-bullies-5807957

  • Drew2u

    Eh, nice, but I’d ask of you to provide sources for the rhetoric.

  • Eric H Givler

    These for the most part are easy to respond to. The problem isn’t the response to these, it is your response to our addition to the discussion.

    The three responses I receive:
    You’re a racist
    You watch Fox News
    I am not going to argue about this; because there is no real room for argument in a Liberal mind because for you it is a belief, not knowledge.

    • surfjac

      What is your addition to the discussion?
      We haven’t heard any answers from you yet. You don’t have to argue; just answer. I find that conservatives, republican’ts and right wingers in general merely have talking points but never solutions.

    • Raylusk

      Sorry Eric it is much more typical that conservatives are married to their ideology over facts. We’ve seen this over and over. Conservatives continue to claim that the IRS target conservatives as political retribution despite the FACT that proof has been provided that shows that the IRS targeted both liberal and conservative groups in order try and manage an unusual increase in workload. Conservatives continue to claim that a stand down order was given during Benghazi despite testimony from the CIA, the DOD, and the State Department that they received no such order. Conservatives continue to claim that there was a military force nearby that could have helped and wasn’t used despite testimony from the military that is simply false.

      Yet despite all this you accuse liberals of not dealing with facts. Sorry you are living in denial.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Uh, I think you only listed two responses.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is his third;
        “I am not going to argue about this; because there is no real room for
        argument in a Liberal mind because for you it is a belief, not
        knowledge.”

    • Jenny

      Well, wait a minute; You watch Fox News. Do you ‘Believe’ them? I had someone tell me that if you want the ‘truth’ watch Fox. And, no, I will not discuss anything with that person, because, they, in fact, are the ones that watch it for confirmation bias – not facts. It’s been proven time and time again that Fox does not report facts.

  • Jim Bean

    Ten Arguments the Conservative Might Offer: (two installments)

    6) The women’s rights movements have caused a dramatic decline in marriages and an equally dramatic increase in childbearing outside of marriage. As a result millions more women and children are living in
    poverty or near poverty conditions. There is the fear that as gay marriage
    further degrades the significance of marriage as an institution, even fewer
    childbearing people will marry and more children will suffer. If you’re including the children as part of the ‘heterosexual relationships’ in question, the answer is ‘millions will be.’

    7) It never stopped working. All wealth is produced in the private sector. Some trickles down but less now than before. Conservatives think we’re better off to stick with policies that compete for private investment dollars in a global economy rather than doing shortsighted things that will further shrink the private sector by encouraging capitalists to go offshore.

    8) Its complicated but it has to do with the dramatic differences between the Debt to GDP ratios during the Bush years and the Obama years. In simple terms, it’s harder to justify borrowing $500,000 on an annual income of $100,000 (Obama years) than it is to justify borrowing $300,000 on an annual income of $150,000 (Bush years).

    9) The Father of Gerrymandering is Democrat John Murtha. In total, the American people have elected 277 Republicans and 254 Democrats to run the Federal Government. The Dems need to stop obstructing the will of the people.

    10) Conservatives don’t blame Obama for all the economic problems. They just accept that Obama is clueless when it comes to making repairs. Thus, they blame him for the fact that they persist. Bush is retired and can’t help.

    • Andy Kinnard

      #6 is a train wreck of false assumptions and unsupported conclusions: When and how was it determined that women’s rights movements CAUSED a dramatic decline in marriages or child bearing out of wedlock? In what way does equal marriage rights degrade the value of marriage? I think it EXTENDS it (by allowing everyone to participate) and encourages formation of stable bonds and homes in the gay community which, in turn, allows a greater number of stable, two-parent homes in which kids can be raised. Some of the best parents I’ve EVER seen were gay people. I cannot decipher the intended meaning of the last sentence in point #6.

      #7: I’m curious as to when you view trickle-down economics as having EVER worked.

      #8: Arguments about fiscal policy and priorities aside, the debt ceiling isn’t about making choices about whether or not to incur new debt. It’s about our national willingness to honor our OLD debt. I agree that we should trim spending, just probably not where you might choose.

      #9: Whaaaaat??? Please look up the origins of gerrymandering. Dems captured the popular vote and were re-elected to POTUS in an election whose defining issue was the agenda being blocked by the GOP.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Shhh. You’ll just confuse him with facts.

      • Jim Bean

        #7 – The government produces no revenue. It only collects and spends what ‘trickles down’. Without the private sector, all our incomes would cease within a few months. The supply-side concept has not stopped or failed simply because it hasn’t produced the level of reward each individual thinks he’s entitled to. #8 we agree. #9 there are 535 elected law makers. the President makes one more. I called Murtha the father of gerrymandering because he was doing it wholesale in the 70’s. Both parties engage it. Each party says its wrong when they think the other party did it better. #6 requires absolute somber objectivity and putting aside all emotion, sentiments, desires, agendas and insecurities to discuss in any meaningful way. We’re not going to find common ground on that one.

      • Raylusk

        You are completely wrong. The only legal revenue is OWNED by the government. Get that clear. The government decides how much to print, how much to release, and has many ways to set the value of that money. Businesses wouldn’t be able to compete internationally with out the government backed revenue.

        The supply side concept has never been proven to succeed. Even what conservatives claim happened during Reagan can and is explained by how a typical recovery works.

      • Jim Bean

        Well, if you’re right, that’s totally excellent news. No need to raise taxes ever again. Uncle Obie can just print up however much wealth he wants and dictate how much purchasing power it has.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You’re right that we’ll likely NOT find common ground on #6, but I see no harm in your providing the underlying justification for your assert that women’s lib CAUSED the social phenomenon for which you’re blaming it.

      • Jim Bean

        Women’s Lib advanced an agenda running the spectrum from “you don’t need a man’ to ‘men are evil.’ They also promoted single parenthood as noble, wise, and ‘liberating’. (Brings to mind the old canard, ‘be careful what you wish for.’) Now liberals lament the epidemic of single mothers and children living below the poverty level and they blame WalMart (anyone not paying middle class wages to entry level/menial task workers) for not providing a remedy.

      • Andy Kinnard

        There was no quest to increase numbers of single mothers. Yours is a fundamentally dishonest piece of revisionist history.

      • Jim Bean

        Did I say women’s lib sought to increase the number? Or did I say women’s lib facilitated the increase by trying to normalize it? Maybe you’d care to tell me what women’s lib to discourage single mother hood? Most likely though, you’ll just twist a rational comment/question into some ‘fundamentally dishonest’ distortion so that you can deal with it.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Yes, your reframing the quest to destigmatize being a divorced or single mother was fundamentally dishonest.

      • Jim Bean

        Why do I feel like I’m in the middle of a Saturday Night Live skit? You’re taking exception to the way I went about trying to destimatize being a divorced or single mother?

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, I’m saying that your whole cloth revision of history to frame the women’s rights movement’s attempts to destigmatize single motherhood as some sort of promotion of same is fundamentally dishonest.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Supply side failed per measures that indicate middle and working class income has FALLEN (in real purchasing power) since the 70s. It has had ZERO positive outcome for anyone but the investment class (and you cannot deny that).

      • Charles Vincent

        Investment drives the demand for labor when people (investors) invest capital it creates a demand for labor Adam Smith talked about this in the wealth of nations.

      • Andy Kinnard

        That IS the theory; reality doesn’t work that way absent demand for product. Also, we have no shortage of investment capital right now AND a market that both sides agree is highly over-valued. None of those things leads to the conclusion that the currently restricting factor is lack of investment capital.

      • Charles Vincent

        No we have a shortage of labor demand. Which it seems to me stems from a lack of actual investment in to capital ventures not that there are a lack of investment funds.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Look, manufacturers and service providers don’t hire because they have or get money to invest in expanding their business UNLESS there is existing, excess demand for their products or services. That’s basic economics. Demand drives supply, not the other way around, Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        I agree but I wasn’t trying to make that point.
        I was saying that even though we have excess capital that banks/business are setting on they are failing to invest that capital into new markets. Why I dont know, perhaps because of uncertainty of the market and I think that regulations that bar entry to new business might be part of it as well.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I agree: the TBTF Banks have failed at their most basic social purpose, providing liquidity to entrepreneurs. So, when will supply side economics work, do you think? It’s been 30 years. Should we expect improvements in, say, 2044?

        What, exactly, does “uncertainty” in the market mean anyway? That always sounds like encoding of “we don’t like current leadership and are holding all the marbles until that changes” to me. “The market” looks pretty damn good right now with corporate profits at historic highs and the stock market way up. How good does it need to get for the very top before it improves or the average Joe?

        I’ll agree that regulation needs an overhaul with an eye toward facilitating compliance; I will never agree that we need “less regulation”.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t thing supply side trickle down economics works. If any one should get a bail out is people like you or I they did it in Iceland and it worked there is TYT video of Cenk spelling it out while making fun of the people who voted for tarp and TBTF.

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=64eI831eKY8

        This is what I mean by market uncertainty, is when business hold capital in reserve because of uncertainty on how regulations may change or if new regulations will make a market unprofitable top move into via capital investment.

        ” “The market” looks pretty damn good right now with corporate profits at historic highs and the stock market way up.”

        Corporate profits are up because of protectionist legislation passed by government in exchange for financial support during election campaigns. The market is up because of QE and it was up at record levels before the DOT com bubble burst and it was up before the 07-08 housing and financial bubbles burst, and historically it was up at a record high before black Friday in 1929. corporate profits are also up because of them paying less capital gains taxes while the taxes on personal incomes are going up. This is easily checks at the CBO site I have a copy of it somewhere.

        I am not saying regulation should go away but I am saying that regulations that create a barrier to entry such as the taxi industry should go away and also that regulations in general should be at a minimum and be focused on structure that business needs to operate inside ethically and with civic responsibility as well as fiscal responsibility.

        “How good does it need to get for the very top before it improves or the average Joe?.”
        Well I think that corporate heads should be tied to their workers by a 10-20% income gap i.e. they can’t make more than 10-20% more than the lowest paid worker in their company.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I actually agree with most everything you wrote in this most recent comment with two exceptions:
        1. You definition of “uncertainty” is circular, seeing as how it’s defined BY the very behavior said to be caused by said uncertainty, the hording of liquidity/capital/wealth in hopes of a more amenable set of leaders being elected in the (not so near) future. It amounts to “fear of new [insert onerous legislation/regulation/policy here] makes me unwilling to bet on the future”. That essentially makes the “uncertainty” argument nothing more than sour grapes over election outcomes.
        2. I do not agree that less regulation should be the pre-determined first response to current regulation presenting as a barrier to entry. I DO think that, where such cases exist, regulation needs to be retooled to encourage compliance. In other words, entrepreneurs who are motivated to comply should find that process to be both easily discoverable and plausible; I know that neither are currently true for many businesses, especially small ones. Regulation should NOT create new cottage industries of regulatory compliance specialists: All of that guidance; public, searchable, organized issuance of said guidance and regulatory information; and the government agencies trusted with oversight and admin of said regulation needs to be adequately funded to respond appropriately to business.

        I’m on the same pages as you about QE, distorting markets to please the 1%, bubbles bursting, etc. I also agree that salary “restraints” are appropriate but would argue that 10-20% is probably too low…something like 200-400% allows companies flexibility in hiring talent while discouraging runaway C-level compensation growth (and the corporate board room mutual admiration society’s manipulating the system to serve themselves only).

        Good Lord, Charles, how did we EVER get to a place where we agree on nearly everything? Is there hope yet for the US? 😉

      • Charles Vincent

        The uncertainty i see is in the ambiguous nature of regulations, specifically in the the case of the ACA there are some 40,000 pages of regulations and companies have to hire teams of lawyers to dig through that regulations just to find out how to be in compliance.
        http://www DOT ij DOT org/challenging-denvers-taxicab-monopoly-background
        The other barrier is was trying to get at is when big corporations get congress to pass protectionist legislation to protect themselves from competition entering the market. there is a video on the taxi cab monopolyu somewhere that illustrates what Iam trying to convey here.

        As far as wage gap I dont know what the gap really is in companies but I suspect that its in to 2000% range in some cases.

        “Good Lord, Charles, how did we EVER get to a place where we agree on nearly everything? Is there hope yet for the US? ;-)”

        It’s probably no secret that I am a fiscally conservative person but what is probably shocking is that I am socially a liberal person, and I think is you look at the classical definition of liberal you would find that is where I would fall on the spectrum, or if you wish a true libertarian. I am also a very stubborn person and I will fight tooth and nail when I believe I am right. You should check out this group I made two regular posters(waiting for one to ask for an invite) from here are in it we currently discussing currency and new models since the dollar isn’t backed by anything and a way to bridge the gap from fossil fuel s to green energy.

        Also please expound on this;
        “Regulation should NOT create new cottage industries of regulatory compliance specialists:”

      • Andy Kinnard

        Yes, Charles, the taxicab oligopoly is a good example of what I generally call graft and is fashionable to call corporatism or crony capitalism. Where that exists, including rigging of the tax code and business law, it should be eliminated. I do not, at all, see how that applies to the ACA. While extensive legislation, both Congress and the Insurance industry were intimately involved in crafting that law. It and its resulting impacts on business were well known at passage, and insurance agencies and large business have had PLENTY of time to sort out what it means for them in exact terms. It MAY present an issue for that tiny fraction of businesses that are both quite small (and cannot afford legal teams) AND self-insured (such that they have to sort our regulation for themselves).

        I agree that salary disparity is FAR too great (there’s no way to justify 20-40x [or more] the average employee salary] and that it coincides with the financialization of our economy. I think 10x is at the extreme high end of what’s rational and sustainable.

        Cottage industries of regulatory specialists and consultants sometime form around regulatory regimes in particular business sectors (e.g., over the road transportation). These consultants are often former regulation inspectors, management, etc. who gained their knowledge of the regs via government employment (at taxpayer expense). Then, almost entirely due to the intractability of typical regulatory legislation, they create lucrative private-sector businesses that do nothing but help hapless businesses owners make a best-effort attempt at compliance. Countless anecdotes suggest that, even with that type of extraordinary effort, compliance is very hard to ensure.

        This leads to negative effects: 1) The business ownership never feels safe in their protection from non-compliance penalties. The standards of compliance seem capricious and lead to corruption via the only other route to ensuring compliance, building a “relationship” with enforcement (i.e., the prerequisites for corruption in enforcement).
        2) These (cottage industries of) regulatory compliance consultants are in the business of completely non-productive work, and I would argue that they add no wealth to our economy. They certainly don’t make us more internationally competitive.

        Now, does that mean the answer is automatically to eliminate regulation? No, history proves without doubt that unregulated capitalism leads to massive human suffering and social collapse. Even with our current level of what many consider to be “high” regulation, we still struggle with wholesale, reckless pollution of our critical natural resources (think Appalachian waterways). What we need is a massive retooling of regulation that includes equal parts “protection of the commons” and structuring that naturally leads to compliance (i.e., transparency, clarity, organization, guidance).

        Back to “uncertainty”: It still seems poorly defined or a dog whistle representing “regulation I wouldn’t like but which I believe the current admin is likely to support” because, if uncertainty is regulatory opaqueness or ambiguousness, it certainly shouldn’t ascribed to any particular political party’s efforts (as is “uncertainty”). In other words, I see that term as little more than a rhetorical cludgel with which to basely bash Democratic public servants (and their platforms). In other words, at its base “uncertainty” = “any likelihood of increased regulation” which is an argument against ANY regulatory improvements (aside from elimination) which hamstrings government from effectively protecting the People. It’s disingenuous and anti-government at its core.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I do not, at all, see how that applies to the ACA”

        Here is how this applies just last year they released the first 20,000 pages of regulations for the ACA there are still another ~20,000 pages that are being written how are companies suppose to comply with regulations that haven’t even been written and the half that has been released have been out for only 4-6 months. Keep in mind I am not referring to the law that congress drafted I am talking specifically about the regulations that accompany the law that not many of the legislators actually read not the law itself.

        http://www DOT washingtonpost DOT com/blogs/fact-checker/post/how-many-pages-of-regulations-for-obamacare/2013/05/14/61eec914-bcf9-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_blog DOT html

        My other point here would be how Reagan deregulated the traffic control industry which seems to have been at least a neutral effect and some of the reading I have done is that it had a positive effect.

        Last, if there is this “cottage” industry that seems to be an indicator that there is over regulation and it needs to be trimmed down.

      • Andy Kinnard

        re: the burden of ACA-related regulation, I would respond with this quote from your referenced article, “Regular readers know that we frown on such page-counting exercises, since we’re not sure what it really tells you. In the case of the health-care law, businesses actually have been seeking detailed regulations so they know exactly what to expect. And using the same methods used by the McConnell team, we found tens of thousands of pages of regulations for Medicare Advantage and the prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D), which were pushed by Republicans.” They go on to qualify that paragraph as well, but, there again, the ACA is a much more comprehensive reform than either of the other two programs (to which the article compared it).

        So, Reagan’s busting the Air Traffic Controller’s Union was worth what you can only justify characterizing as a “neutral” effect? Wow.

        …and my “Wow” goes all the way to WTF with your last response. It’s almost as if you didn’t read my carefully worded argument about the “cottage industry” effect: I have complete arguments in there about how your conclusion should not be the “go to” response. Good Lord!

      • Charles Vincent

        I read your response and I wasn’t dismissing it just trying to get a feel for what you’re saying. Unions are bad business they are nothing more than a cottage industry in my opinion and have protectionist policies for them and everyone else is out in the cold both employee and employer alike.

        Apologies I referenced Reagan wrongly this is what I was referring to;
        “Deregulation
        The Airline Deregulation Act, signed on October 24, 1978, created a highly competitive airline industry. Deregulation increased FAA workload exponentially. FAA had to certify every new airline and there were hundreds of applications after deregulation that the FAA had to review and approve or disapprove. In the immediate years after the deregulation act, FAA flight standards and other offices focused primarily on the new applicants.
        By the time airline deregulation became law, FAA had achieved a semi-automated air traffic control system based on a marriage of radar and computer technology. Despite its effectiveness, however, the air traffic control system required enhancement to keep pace with the increased volumes of traffic that resulted from the new, deregulated environment.”

        Found here;

        http://www DOT faa DOT gov/about/history/brief_history/

        As to your argument about “cottage” industries the fact the the industry exists tells me there is far to much regulation. I should also probably call it removal of unnecessary regulation as apposed to deregulation. Other than that I agree with what you laid out in that portion

      • Andy Kinnard

        Why do you refuse to engage on discussing alternative responses to burdensome regulation aside from “eliminate regulation”? I have spelled out very cogent potential responses, but you persist in your unsupported assertion that the ONLY appropriate response (at least your “go to” response) is total elimination.

        Let’s try this from a different perspective: What, in an imperfect world, would you consider to be the perfect state of government regulation?

        I’ll have to read up on what constituted “deregulation” in that (Carter admin era, btw) instance to offer cogent debate on it.

        You have offered no evidence to support your opinion that “…unions are bad business…”. You don’t approve of weekends, child labor laws, overtime pay, workplace safety, worker’s compensation, etc?

      • Charles Vincent

        I think were are talking about the same thing concerning regulation you call it “graft and is fashionable to call corporatism or crony capitalism.”
        and I call it regulation what ever we call it it needs eliminated. I do not support total elimination of regulatory agencies or regulation in general I do however support elimination of what you call “graft and is fashionable to call corporatism or crony capitalism” which I call regulation,

        “Let’s try this from a different perspective: What, in an imperfect world, would you consider to be the perfect state of government regulation?”

        I am not saying regulation should go away but I am saying that regulations that create a barrier to entry such as the taxi industry should go away and also that regulations in general should be at a
        minimum and be focused on structure that business needs to operate inside ethically and with civic responsibility as well as fiscal responsibility.

        “You have offered no evidence to support your opinion that “…unions are bad business…”. You don’t approve of weekends, child labor laws,
        overtime pay, workplace safety, worker’s compensation, etc?”

        When unions started out they were good things but overtime they have become more destructive to workers. For instance if you look at the statistics from the BLS web site on unions you can clearly see that the Blue-collar unions membership (because of the loss of manufacturing jobs IMHO) is declining and white-collar unions are increasing ,whats more a large part of those white collar unions are in the government sector(a clear move to the power of regulatory/law/legislation policy making, the heart of the bureaucracy that’s part of the regulatory problem.

        You don’t approve of weekends, child labor laws, overtime pay, workplace safety, worker’s compensation, etc?
        Theses are irrelevant to me because we don’t need regulatory agencies to provide those services. The best example I can offer is Henry Ford back before minimum wage and Health and safety etcetera were bureaucracies Mr. Ford paid his workers $5/day(double the the wage of other businesses of the day) he instituted a 40/hour work week all before they became the topic of regulatory or legislative debate to become those bureaucracies we now are saddled with. I also am inclined to see the BBB as an excellent tool to compliment regulatory frameworks that push corporations to act responsibly.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Nice dance you did around the core question: All regulations present SOME barrier to entry. The question is, how do we balance the needs of the People and the commons without unduly creating barriers to business. “Unduly” is absolutely crucial.

        Meanwhile, you’re hopelessly conflating graft that grows out of a broken regulatory system with the regulation itself. If you treat regulation as necessary and NOT necessarily leading to graft, it allows for a more realistic debate where we find the balance to which I allude above.

        I disagree with everything you wrote about unions. You correctly note that blue collar union participation is down and that white collar and public sector participation is up, then criticize public sector unions without offering any rationale except a general appeal to distrust of government.

        Also, unions were absolutely required to bring us all those benefits mentioned. They didn’t spring from the marketplace (quite the contrary). In a perfect world, agencies like the BBB would be instrumental in making the “invisible hand” work, but the reality is that people are far too busy to research every product and business from whom they need to purchase goods and services. We NEED watch dog agencies and basic guaranties of product/service safety and fitness as well as corporate responsibility to society (which our legal system has all but eliminated from occurring naturally — see corporate responsibility [being ONLY to the investor]).

      • Charles Vincent

        “Nice dance you did around the core question: All regulations present SOME barrier to entry. The question is, how do we balance the needs of the People and the commons without unduly creating barriers to business. “Unduly” is absolutely crucial.”

        This is what I was talking about the whole time apparently I failed to communicate it correctly

        “Meanwhile, you’re hopelessly conflating graft that grows out of a broken regulatory system with the regulation itself. If you treat regulation as necessary and NOT necessarily leading to graft, it allows for a more realistic debate where we find the balance to which I allude above.”

        This graft you’re talking about is still regulation and it is detrimental regulation, and it came from a regulatory bureaucracy. And this is the regulation that needs to go.

        “I disagree with everything you wrote about unions. You correctly note that blue collar union participation is down and that white collar and
        public sector participation is up, then criticize public sector unions without offering any rationale except a general appeal to distrust of government.”

        We should rightly distrust government. But the fact that as government sector unions have grown so have the amount of ICC regulations(you mentioned this here “Where that exists, including rigging of the tax code and business law, it should be eliminated.”) and the fact is those unions do not represent common people they moved to where the power is and currently the power lays where laws and regulations are made. Unions were originally grass roots movements in the marketplace if government initiated them then why did the big corporations use government to squash union strikes in the early part of the union movements?

        “We NEED watch dog agencies and basic guaranties of product/service
        safety and fitness as well as corporate responsibility to society (which
        our legal system has all but eliminated from occurring naturally — see
        corporate responsibility [being ONLY to the investor]).”

        I agree with the portion about needing watchdog groups. I think that the power of the consumer is underestimated by you. I also think you have maybe not considered the bad things that the FDA has done. Consider all the drug the authorize for sale from big pharma that have later had to be pulled due to a plethora of problems.

        As you stated this isnt a perfect world and we cannot protect everyone form harm just like we cannot keep every man for the gallows, all we can do is mitigate the problems as best we can.

  • Jim Bean

    Ten Arguments the Conservative Might Offer: (two installments)

    1) Transcripts of the Armed Services Committee report prove Obama, within an hour of the attack, had every reason to believe it was an organized terrorist attack and had no reason to believe it was due to any video or any demonstration and that all later statements pointing to videos/demonstrations were blatant lies.Conservatives suspicions have been proven so they should be able to let it go.

    2) There are unlimited sources of obtaining guns outside the establishments in the business of selling guns and positioned to perform background checks. You can only vote at a sanctioned tolling booth.

    3) In the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s the USA was a booming industrializing nation with a closed economy and the only lucrative option for capital investors. Today the USA economy is over-the-hill, leaks like sieve, and the competition for capital investment is global. Higher taxes encourage
    investors to seek green pastures.

    4) I’m not aware of any consensus among conservatives that people working 40 hours per week are lazy. There may be a belief that people who think stocking shelves for 40 hours should yield enough money to support middle class lifestyle for a family of five for a lifetime might be too lazy to embrace the unavoidable challenge of working their way up if they want that lifestyle. (This conservative believes they are more discouraged and demoralized rather than lazy.)

    5) Because MSNBC was NOT covering the Blagojevich, Benghazi, IRS/Tea Party, F & F controversies with equal balance, enthusiasm, objectivity, or commitment. (Also, see answer #1)

    • surfjac

      MSNBC did cover the 13 embassy attacks during the bush years as much as fox did…which is to say, not much at all if any. Must be something to that doncha’ think?
      Your answer to #4 is interesting. Where does a person go to find a better paying job these days? Where does a person go to find a job, period? Why aren’t businesses creating jobs with higher paying salaries? Why does a ceo have to be paid, on average, 350 times what their average employee makes?
      And everyone everywhere in this country has exactly the same opportunities you had, they are your skin color, they had your parents, they had your household and support growing up, everybody had everything you have so they should be just like you, right? Maybe you had a crappy life growing up, maybe it was in the lap of luxury, whatever, you can’t project your life into the other
      300,000,000+ citizens of this country and expect to see the same results.

      • Jim Bean

        Thanks for having the patience to read all that. With regards to your legitimate question to #4. There ARE no better paying jobs to go and get. And as I’ve said many times on other forums, if I had my way the ‘federal minimum wage’ would read like this: “No participant in any business or government entity may receive in annual compensation more than ten times the amount received by the lowest compensated participant.’ You’d be surprised at how many Liberals will argue against that. I despise the greedy as much as anyone else but I’m not given towards emotional disturbances morphing into public policy legislation.
        I think of corporations as trees that grow edible seeds. It seems, at least to me, that the Lefts approach to growing hunger and thirst is to eat more of the seeds and give the plants less water, while the Right thinks the only solution is to give the plant more water and hope a few of the seeds make it to the ground, take root, and grow some more trees.
        Me? I’m sure the Left’s strategy is ultimately fatal. I think the Right’s strategy will succeed only marginally, if at all. I think the big money will ultimately go where those that possess it decide to VOLUNTARILY put it and government has no control beyond offering incentives. And I DO think that even those earning below established poverty levels now can purchase more food and durable goods than those at the established poverty level could 50 years ago, (cheap imports) and their standard of living, though not good, is better than it was decades ago.
        Our economy is adapting to globalization. Some of its bad (lower wages, poor career opportunities) and some of its good (a $200 flat screen and six pair of socks for eight bucks.) We have no choice other than to adapt and to try to do it as smartly as possible. And expectations must change.

      • Andy Kinnard

        “No participant in any business or government entity may receive in annual compensation more than ten times the amount received by the lowest compensated participant.” I (and I believe) most of the other lefties here would be TOTALLY on board with that. I flat DARE you to advance that proposition on a conservative blog.

      • Jim Bean

        98% of conservatives do not belong to the 1%. They reject Left-wing economic strategies for pragmatic, not selfish reasons.

      • Raylusk

        What does that have to do with you posting your proposal on a conservative blog? Or don’t you believe in your own proposal?

      • Jim Bean

        Most conservatives would be fine with it too. That’s the connection.

      • Raylusk

        Nah most conservatives wouldn’t be fine with it. One of the conservative platform points is less government regulation. Your proposal increases government regulation. Another thing conservatives always preach is that no one has a right to “other people’s money.” By telling corporations how they can spend their money that would cause conservatives to cry foul. Now one I say conservatives I’m am fully aware that a few might break off from the pack and support your proposal but it wouldn’t even be close to most.

        Of course you could always post your proposal on a right wing site and see what comments you get.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No argument on the first half of your sentence, but I would argue that their reasons for voting with the 1% are not pragmatic but based in misguided bigotry (notice that I’m not pulling a race card with that) and preoccupation with “moral purity” (as defined by their belief system, not our commonly held secular underpinnings [i.e., the Constitution]).

      • Raylusk

        Of course liberals would support the 10 times compensation. Your analogy about seeds and the left is ridiculous. Here is what the left wants. A growing economy that rewards the middle class as it used too and hasn’t for decades. They want a tax code that punishes businesses for exporting jobs and rewards businesses for importing jobs. Policies that allow and even encourage workers to form unions and collectively bargain something that is severely restricted in many states. Management of these companies speak with one voice why shouldn’t workers be given that same opportunity.

        Finally liberals want a strong safety net so that when the above doesn’t work then people won’t go homeless and hungry.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I think you will find Jim Bean can’t process that reality.

      • Jim Bean

        I understand that and ‘feel your pain’ so to speak Those were my best years as well, and my kids are suffering today. However, your premise is that if you raise taxes on corporations, they’ll have to pay because that’s all there is to it – they’ll have no other choice. But I don’t think that’s the case. I think they have a plethora of other choices and the list is growing daily. I think the only chance of you getting them to do what you want is to find a way to partnership with them. And frankly, I don’t know how one would go about doing that either. (I made the 10 times compensation comment on Huff Po once, and some – not all by any means – said it would have to more like 50 times to suit them.)

      • Raylusk

        Sorry but it is more about government policy that has offshored our jobs than anything else. When government allows businesses to write of expenses for exporting American jobs that is wrong. If that was reversed and there were tax penalties for exporting jobs and tax benefits for importing jobs that would bring many jobs back. Government policy for the last 50 years has been an attack on the middle class.

        One final thing so what if its 10 or 50 times? Either number is somewhat arbitrary. It could be 15 or 40. In fact in the 60s it was around 30 but that 30 was actually 30 times the average pay. So 50 times the lowest pay might very well take us back to how workers and management were compensated back in the 60s.

      • strayaway

        Well, Raylusk, Why don’t you wave your magic wand and print more money to accomplish that? It is President Obama who is leading the charge to have the TPP fast tracked right now. Congress can’t even look at what transnationals and Obama operatives are cooking up for us. Unions have collapsed largely because of the export of jobs you mentioned and the import of illegal aliens to compete for jobs still here. If there is no demand for US labor, unions can’t exercise leverage. How does this strong safety net get paid for except by indenturing our children? It’s a great idea but someone has to pay for it and we don’t have a budget surplus.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      1. The CIA approved the talking points. Issa and Company got jumpy when, during one of the initial hearings, someone started talking about the covert CIA operation in Benghazi that no one was supposed to know about.

      2. Recent article about background checks in Colorado. 7,351 applications were denied in
      2013 because of:
      arrest or conviction of assault, sexual assault or homicide; the applicant had a
      restraining order against him/her; or
      convictions for other crimes. You can’t vote if Republicans pass laws making it difficult to impossible to vote.

      3. Greed encourages investors to seek greener pastures. Business people will tell you demand, not tax cuts, creates jobs.

      4. “There may be a belief that people who think stocking shelves for 40
      hours should yield enough money to support middle class lifestyle for a
      family of five for a lifetime might be too lazy to embrace the
      unavoidable challenge of working their way up if they want that
      lifestyle.” Education costs money that these people don’t have and sometimes, those are the only jobs available. Not everyone is a Rhodes scholar; that job may be the best they can do, and SOMEONE needs to do them.

      5. IRS/Tea party was another non-story. The Cincinnati office manager calls himself a “conservative Republican.” He wanted consistency in processing the 4000-5000 applications submitted each month. Fast and Furious was program similar to the Bush era “Wide Receiver” program. Both were inept programs.

      And I’m from Illinois. Ol’ Rod Blagojevich was ALL OVER the media; we all thought he was a weasel.

  • Shemp

    There is no answer to any of these questions that a Progressive (on either side of the aisle) will consider, much less accept. Both sides of entrenched Progressive elites need to be completely flushed from political power, Liberals and RINOs gone, you’ve failed us miserably…they’ve had control of government long enough and have shown themselves to be clearly unwilling to deal with the fundamental problems that cause our America to continue to deteriorate. Start with term limits*, ending the FED and simplifying the tax code…* with restrictions on elected office “jumping”

    • Raylusk

      America is deteriorating because of the tea party. If their brand of absolutely no compromise politics hadn’t been introduced into our politics, then things would have got done that would have moved our economy. If you think extreme conservatism is the answer then you are the problem and most Americans agree with me.

      • Shemp

        Consensus arguments are meaningless, America’s been “deteriorating” since before the Tea Party even existed…so don’t blame them…it’s massive festering corruption in a Federal government that’s growing in size, programs and regulations like a pandemic. WE the people are supposed to control the government, they work for us…we aren’t their subjects or dependents, although we’re going quickly in this direction…how can Conservatism possibly be the problem, when Progressivism has had full control of government for almost the last 50 years (except for maybe Reagan).

      • Raylusk

        I’m not going to continue to argue with you. Your type always thinks they have all the answers and if America doesn’t listen then America will fail. This talk of failure has been going on for over 50 years. As far as I’m concerned all your type has to offer is fear mongering. You are incapable of compromise and believe that what you want is more important then what Amercians want. One final thing, America has not been deteriorating since before the tea party. Have there been issues before the tea party, sure. But we have always been able to work together in the past but since the tea party that has ended. I will not argue with you any longer but anyone that thinks if his ideals aren’t implemented then America will fail is an egomaniac. Good bye.

      • Shemp

        Goodbye to you as well and good luck…I want a better America for all of us, more good jobs, better schools, less people on welfare, less government interference in our lives; sorry if that offends you. The best way to start achieving these goals is to fix a massive corrupt, wasteful beyond comprehension federal government. Finally, let me quote your words from above, “but anyone that thinks if his ideals aren’t implemented then America will fail is an egomaniac.” …sure sounds like something I hear on the news pretty often these days from our POTUS.

      • Jim Bean

        So then all this blaming of Bush for everything is just form of hocus pocus that the Left spouts when necessary but doesn’t really believe?

      • Raylusk

        When you post a comment that is related to what I said I will be happy to debate you. Until then I’m done.

      • Grand_Old_Partier

        That’s it. Run away when confronted with superior intellect.

        And the left has NEVER compromised with anyone but themselves.

      • Raylusk

        Well if I’ve been confronted with superior intellect it certainly isn’t from a moron like you. Now piss of little man.

      • Grand_Old_Partier

        LMAO!!! You Perpetually Outraged Progs crack me up.

      • buricco

        Funny, the Democrats bend over backward for the Republicans all the time in Congress.

      • buricco

        They say America will fail unless their will is done. Then they make damn sure to guarantee America’s failure. That’s not even a self-fulfilling prophecy, that’s a threat and carrying out on it.

      • Raylusk

        That certainly has been their tactic over the last 5 years. Thanks for the great observation.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      How have progressives failed us? Seems 8 years of conservative control wrecked the economy and 5 years of Republican obstruction post Obama’s election haven’t helped. If you guys were in power, we’d all be working for $3/hr. Or $3/day.

      • Shemp

        Please identify the “Conservatives” that had control…careful, that is a trick question. Republican obstructionism, please it’s all wealthy corrupt elite Progressive political posturing from the left (Liberals) and the right (RINOs).

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Boehner and his gang of idiot Tea Partiers. Where the hell have YOU been living? The House obstructs any real jobs bills; their idea of “job creation” is more tax cuts for the rich.

    • Pipercat

      One itsy, bitsy question, how would ending the Fed help solve our fundamental problems? Inquiring minds want to know.

      • Shemp

        For starters…stop the monetizing of the debt…end the insane continuous printing of new money…read Ron Paul’s book, “End the Fed”, if you really have an inquiring mind. An easy read.

      • Pipercat

        That’s a dodge and you still didn’t answer the question. You just described two problems with central banking. Remember, you said end the Fed. How will that help solve our fundamental problems.

        Oh, and leave Ron Paul out of this, he’s a sell out Libertarian who became Lew Rockwell’s stooge (had to throw that in) and called himself a Republican.

      • Shemp

        The Fed is a private international banking cartel – sorry read the Paul book, it got rave reviews – I don’t play sand-box games with mudslingers…one man’s “stooge” is another mans “genius”…being a stooge, I should know.

      • Pipercat

        That’s another dodge, it’s a simple question. Sorry if the simple pun offended you, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time.

      • Shemp

        Basically, the Fed is an unaccountable tool (system) that allows in fact enables the transfer of massive wealth and power from the average citizens to the wealthy elites…seems like something at least worth auditing, then ending. If you are really still in an inquiring mindset, once again read the book. If that’s still a “dodge”, so be it. When I’m in an inquiring mindset on a topic, and not feeling fulfilled – I tend to do some independent research. Good luck.

      • Pipercat

        And the hat trick. I guess I can help you. I don’t need to read Gabby Hayes’ (sans beard) book to know what the central bank does, as well as, the reserve currency. The Fed does nothing more than pull a number out of thin air and puts that number in the banks. As the reserve currency, it can do this indefinitely. Pretty much that’s it. Once it plugs in the number, they wipe their hands of it. This includes trading toxic waste for cash.

      • Shemp

        Some have concerns for hyperinflation and some don’t, some let politics influence their common sense & knowledge on serious problems facing our country, some don’t…some have respect for decent non-sarcastic, exchanges, some don’t…some get a kick out of silly name calling, some don’t…thanks for the “help”, I’ll consider your words against Paul’s discussions and solutions. I do have concerns for hyperinflation.

      • Pipercat

        Hyperinflation is a non-starter. What is happening now will, if totally mismanaged, will create hyper-deflation and a collapse. In other words, if the price of a loaf of bread inflates to 100 dollars, no loaves will be sold because nobody, but a few, have enough money. Most of the printed money is in fact, in the speculative markets. Thus, a monetary collapse and then nationalization. We were getting close after 2008. The ending of QE3 is a good step. So there is hope. I’ve had conversations with folks on this site regarding this issue and ending central banking as we know it. Bitcoins were brought up, but they are based on an algorithm and have no real value. That goes for metals too. Some how, some way, currency needs a constant and some futurists have posited basing currency on energy. Both produced and stored, including food. Big change and a logistical nightmare, but energy is used by everybody on the planet. That’s beyond the obvious thinking. Will work or even happen? Shit, who knows, but we can always hope.

      • Shemp

        Got to re-calibrate my brain, thought the $100 bread you’re describing was hyper-inflation…the old Weimar republic story, with folks & wheelbarrows full of practically worthless marks buying basic goods. Will do some research on the opposite “hyper-deflation” situation…you’re obviously better informed than I in the financial world…nice sandbagging…thanks for info.

      • Pipercat

        I was a banker a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In fact, I was involved with the RTC cleanup of the S&L crisis. That was when mortgage backed securities were still good things. You are correct about the Weimar Republic. Difference then was the economy was already screwed because of the war and the reparations. Plus the French were grabbing everything they could get their hands on. Our situation is exponentially worse. Basically due to the massive amount of speculative over capitalization, swaps and derivatives nightmare. I challenged you on the Fed thing because it’s not just the Fed. It’s every central bank on the planet plus the real cartel… the banks and other big monied interests. Just as a quick quip, the Chinese talk tough, but the last thing they want is to become the reserve currency. The price of their shit would skyrocket. Anyway, there you have it. In the long run, we’re probably hosed; so, live it up!!

        cheers!

      • Andy Kinnard

        The Fed should probably be directly controlled by the government. I agree that it’s being private (and a tool of international banking interests vs the People) is seriously problematic.

      • Charles Vincent

        Does that mean we cannot separate the good from the bad ideas?

      • Pipercat

        We do, some of these ding-dongs don’t. This guy had no clue what he was talking about; and yet, he learned as a good padawan should! Besides, I liked Curly better…

      • Charles Vincent

        Why soitainly lol

      • Pipercat

        No shit, if my day didn’t start with a share from a pal who posted Disorder in the court!

      • Charles Vincent

        inorite lol

      • Andy Kinnard

        Monetizing debt is the entire foundation of a world economy that supports our current population. There simply aren’t enough gold/silver/whatever reserves out there to represent enough wealth to support us all. The “magic” of fiat-based currency is the ONLY viable approach to that problem that I’ve seen.

      • Charles Vincent

        Chapters 5-8 in the wealth of nations lists labor as the original cost of a good/commodity, money just made purchase of goods more convenient and portable.

      • Charles Vincent

        My guess is that the constitution only authorized congress to print money the fed isn’t congress (The fed is a private entity). And the constitution only authorized the use of gold and silver as money. Article 1 – The Legislative Branch Section 8 – Powers of Congress.

        Ending the fed it seems to me would kill the possibility of Hyper inflation(think Wiemar Republic). During the great depression they(the Fed) did the opposite of what they are doing now they reduced the the money supply by 1/3. Most economist now agree that this policy exacerbated and lengthened the depression.

        Fast forward to now they are doing the opposite with QE which is inflating the money supply i.e. when you inflate the supply of a commodity the value of the commodity goes down. In this case money is the commodity and its value against other currency is getting worse not better.

      • Pipercat

        Indeed, what’s worse that printed money is being capitalized, hence my disquisitions below. It’s really why basic inflation hasn’t skyrocketed. The Fed isn’t really the problem, basing currency on faith, metal or fairy dust is. Moreover, the whole planet is doing it too. Our friend Matthew and I had an interesting discussion about it. He brought up bitcoins. Which means he does understand. I basically said, currency needs a constant and should be based on something of true value, aka, energy.

        But I repeat, I think we’re hosed in the long run. Next time, aint gonna be no way to put Humpty back together again.

      • Charles Vincent

        Why not base currency on labor as Adam Smith did in the wealth of nations? Labor after all is the base unit with which we can quantify value of any commodity. After all its not labor that varies in value it is the value of a given commodity that changes correct?(at least on the more or less scarce continuum)

        Your concept of energy as currency is intriguing.

      • Pipercat

        Energy is a constant. You could use literally some measure like a big calorie or BTUs per credit, if you will. To keep down fluctuations, you need a constant. Not sure how you can do that with labor. Not sure what the constant would be. In Smith’s time, there were few energy sources. Nowadays, we’re on the verge of Fusion energy. If you look at a bigger picture, labor is the expending of energy.

      • Charles Vincent

        The Key connection here is its energy and labor is constant in that it is needed to produce value to trade for a given commodity. Also what about when if Cold fusion energy comes to the market would the supply demand pull devalue energy as currency?

      • Pipercat

        I would imagine more akin to using metals. In other words, instead of reserve currency or gold, you’d base it on produced and stored energy. Food will have to fall into this too. On the base level, you’d have to create a basic unit, then use that to base the currency on. Labor is a little more iffy, in my book, because of the notion of potential. Even labor requires energy to be performed. It’s a radical notion, make no mistake. You’d have to have some sort new global treaty and the economists will have to figure out the details. Moreover, only way this is a gonna happen is after a major crash and nationalization. As for cold fusion, don’t bet your quatloos on that one.

      • Charles Vincent

        I get where you’re coming from on this line of thought;
        “I would imagine more akin to using metals. In other words, instead of reserve currency or gold, you’d base it on produced and stored energy.
        Food will have to fall into this too. On the base level, you’d have to create a basic unit, then use that to base the currency on.”

        To me labor is more basic that the unit of currency in that in order to get that unit of Currency I have to expend labor, and therefore labor is the metric by which we purchase our wants/needs.
        Expand on what you mean here;
        “because of the notion of potential.”

        Sadly this is probably true;
        “Moreover, only way this is a gonna happen is after a major crash and nationalization.”
        So its a good thing I am a boyscout, and look for sustainability in my daily affairs.

        “As for cold fusion, don’t bet your quatloos on that one.”

        Nope more of an example of how the unit of energy could be overinflated and lose value. I would be more inclined to hedge my bet on pebble bed reactors and hydrogen fuel cell Automobiles.

        What about tying things to standard commodities in general?

      • Pipercat

        That’s where things get tricky I reckon. I think the labor thing would require a formula of some kind. The reason I was drawn to energy was because we are energy and is the most basic of basic units. Easier to create a constant on something intrinsic than by formula. Kind of why I don’t like the Bitcoin idea. Based on an algorithm. Potential is potential energy. Stuff still in the ground for example. It adds a dimension. As for a monetary collapse, I hope they nationalize fast, I lived though 2 big quakes and nasty hurricane. During Ike, my truck had half a tank of gas and my litte Kia had a full tank for evacuation after the fact. Can be really humbling when you can’t buy some fritos, tortillas and diet coke for several days. Shit, if that collapse happens, we’ll be using script and basic commodities for barter.

      • Charles Vincent

        I see your line of logic and its becoming more intriguing. But its seems to me that Energy is sort of Intangible and its hard for people to wrap their brain around that. bitcoin for example its a tangible item and people have a hard time wrapping thier head around the concept.

        If a collapse happens this “Can be really humbling when you can’t buy some fritos, tortillas and diet coke for several days.” will kill a lot of people and then things will get really ugly.

        This is completely true;

        “Shit, if that collapse happens, we’ll be using script and basic commodities for barter.”

      • Pipercat

        You know honestly Charles, the day after the damn storm hit, people really behaved beyond belief. Some kind of shock I guess. There was no mayhem; in fact, quite the opposite. People helped out and checked on neighbors. Nice to know we’re better than what we believe we are sometimes. Then the skies opened up and added insult to injury.

      • Charles Vincent

        I think initially people would act in a decent fashion I was more referring to and extended time period. I am happy to hear that under such circumstances in your case things went rather well considering the circumstances. More than anything the mayhem would be a result of desperation because of dire circumstances such and hunger/thirst injured or sick family/friends etcetera.

      • Pipercat

        Should the old fan blades become encrusted, the powers that be have to act fast. Otherwise, there will be chaos…

      • Charles Vincent

        I have little faith in government response time after hurricane Katrina…. Hell it takes LEO’s an hour minimum to respond to an emergency call and they work in the town the call originated in.

      • Pipercat

        Prepare to be colored shocked, but all levels had their shit together during Ike. Perry and White had that dreadful dry run during Rita. This was an enduring bitch, make no mistake, but it could have a whole bunch worse.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well at least someone in government learned from the mistakes that were made. I am curious to get your take on my idea of pebble bed reactors and hydrogen fuel cell autos.

  • TD MW

    And don’t forget this one – if anti-choice conservatives think that it’s nasty, loose liberals getting abortions; why are they so concerned about the “lives” of 55 million would be liberal voters???

  • strayaway

    #1 and #5 both about Benghazi? That must be a touchy subject. The outrage about Benghazi is misplaced. Benghazi, after all, is just a manifestation of Obama’s executive ordered bombing of Libya and the allied overthrow of its government. Besides Benghazi, there were racial attacks on sub-Saharan Africans in Libya, weapons wound up in the hands of Al-Queda types who took over north Mali, Libya’s standard of living took a hit, women are worse off in Libya, and hundreds of US surface to air missiles stored in Libya wound up in the hands of Al Queda. The latter might be a the larger disaster if Al Queda figures out how to point them at airliners, So, I think that the conservative outrage about Benghazi and Hillary are too narrowly focused.

    #7 Do you mean to say that after five years of Obama and a Democratic Senate including two with a Democratic Senate and House, that we still have trickle down economics? It must be like still having left over Bush wars and starting new and similar conflicts. Let’s blame it all on Bush. That works when reality fails.

    #8 I fully agree with the criticism of Republicans who raised the debt ceiling seven times during the Bush years. They should be driven out of Congress for doing so and charged with child cruelty.

  • dittoheadadt

    And I got some questions for you clowns. Only difference is my questions aren’t littered with juvenile straw men and false premises. How you answer these will be a window into your intellect, your maturity, and your familiarity with the world around you. How you answer will be a reflection on Liberals, Progressives, and American Leftists, and your ability to think rationally and logically. So don’t disappoint. Your reputation is on the line. Ready? Go:

    1. How will adding 50 million people to the insurance rolls without adding a single doctor, nurse, hospital, pharmaceutical company, or research lab improve health care in America?

    2. What would it take for you to conclude that the theory of man-made global warming is false?

    3. What was the purpose of the Fast ‘n Furious program?

    4. Why was Sandra Fluke not allowed to testify before the House?

    5. What percentage of Americans favor restrictions of some kind on abortion?

    6. What policies of Barack Obama led to the demise of Osama bin Laden? How do these differ from George Bush’s policies, and which of Bush’s policies did Obama oppose as a US Senator?

    7. Which George Bush policies that led to the mess Obama inherited did Obama oppose as Senator?

    8. Can you name something that you love that you want to fundamentally transform?

    9. Why is health insurance the only type of insurance in America that’s in crisis?

    10. Why do you lose your health insurance when you change jobs but you don’t lose your life, homeowner’s, or auto insurances?

    11. Does your auto insurance cover oil changes, scheduled maintenance, minor repairs, fuel, tires, or car washes? If it did, would your auto insurance cost more or less?

    12. Does your homeowner’s insurance cover driveway plowing, lawn maintenance, landscaping, new drapes, or a cleaning service? If it did, would your homeowner’s insurance cost more or less?

    13. If you had milk insurance and a gallon of milk only cost you a $0.05 co-pay, do you think you would waste more milk or less milk than you waste now?

    14. What is a “fair share” tax rate for each income bracket, what are your income brackets, and how did you arrive at your tax rate and tax bracket numbers? (I assume you can answer this, because you pass up no opportunity to claim that certain taxpayers don’t pay their “fair” share.)

    15. After George Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich,” did the rich’s share of America’s income tax revenue go up or down? If it went up (it did), then explain why you call them “tax cuts for the rich.”

    16. Is there a correlation between skyrocketing worldwide food prices, food shortages, and the conversion of food products (e.g. corn) to motor fuel?

    17. Is there a correlation between gun restrictions and gun violence (e.g. guns were banned at Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, and the Colorado theater – 58 dead, 103 wounded as a result; guns were not banned at the FL internet café – zero dead, 2 armed thugs in custody)?

    18. If same-sex marriage is a “civil right,” then why does President Obama favor leaving the issue to be decided by each state? Would the Left be equally obsequious if a Republican president favored letting each state decide whether women should be allowed to vote?

    19. How is the president’s position on gay marriage (“leave it to the states”) different from the pro-slavery antebellum South’s position on slavery (“leave it to the states”)?

    20. What is “chain migration?”

    21. For those who say Obama deserves credit for getting bin Laden, name the president who deserves credit for putting a man on the moon. (Hint: it’s not called the Nixon Space Center.)

    22. If drone strikes and terrorist detentions were war crimes when Bush did them, why are they not war crimes when Obama does them in even greater numbers than Bush?

    23. How much intelligence in the war on terror can be gained by killing terrorists with drones rather than apprehending them and spiriting them off to Gitmo?

    24. If Obamacare is so good, why has the Obama Administration granted over a thousand waivers to Obama-friendly organizations to exclude them from the health care law?

    25. What was Journolist?

    26. Why are you only concerned once every 4 years about the (alleged) disenfranchisement of minorities who don’t have photo IDs, when the rest of the time they are unable to fully participate in life in America (without photo IDs they can’t board a bus, a plane, buy Sudafed, enter federal buildings, buy a gun, etc.) and you don’t give a damn about them?

    27. Why do you denigrate Mitt Romney for making the effort to find women qualified for his Cabinet (the binders thing) while you still deify Bill Clinton, who put women under his desk, who was an inveterate sexual predator, and who credibly was accused of rape…ALL of which he did as a married man?

    28. If you believe in the minimum wage, what should it be and what’s your rationale for your number?

    29. Do you support or oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act? Does President Obama support or oppose its principles?

    30. Do you support or oppose partial-birth abortion? Do you know what it entails? Please explain.

    31. Who is Kermit Gosnell?

    32. What’s the difference between the Boston bombers and Bill Ayers?

  • surfjac

    Good questions.
    No, there will be no answers. They don’t have answers only a finger to point out who is to blame for our nation’s problems…and it never points in the right direction. (pun, double entendre, etc.)