5 Popular Conservative Talking Points Debunked By Common Sense

bachmann-boehner-ryanThe words “common sense” and “conservative” don’t often go together.  Especially since the rise of the tea party.  You know, the people who base facts and reality based on what they want to be real instead of what actually is real.

But while reading through a few comments left by conservatives on several of my articles, I decided I’d throw out stats, sources, and fancy political talk and simply write an article using just some good ol’ fashion common sense to counter 5 popular conservative talking points.

So let’s just get right to it.

Tax Cuts Create Jobs

This is the cornerstone behind trickle-down economics.  Which, of course, is the heart and soul of the Republican economic philosophy.

Honestly does anyone really think a corporation creates jobs based on their tax rate?  Heck, does anyone think a corporations creates jobs just for the sake of creating jobs?

Businesses create jobs typically because they have to.  Mostly because demand for their products or services dictates that they do.

If a business is meeting demand, then suddenly a massive tax cut is passed, who really believes the next thing on their agenda will be to create jobs that they really don’t need?  If a business is meeting demand, no matter how low their tax rate is, they’re not going to create more jobs.

The same rule applies if demand goes up.  No matter the tax rate, a company is not going to risk deflating growing demand based upon their tax rate.  They’ll create jobs to meet that demand.  Because if they don’t, some other company will, and they’ll soon be out of business.

Doubt me?  Go ask Walmart about the lesson they recently learned.


This one is pretty simple.  People are going to have sex.  Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims, atheists – we’re all doing it.

You can pray really hard for people to stay abstinent from sex until marriage, but for the vast majority of Americans it’s not going to happen.

Sex sometimes leads to pregnancy.  Some are planned, some are not.  Many unplanned pregnancies are the result of sexual activity without any kind of birth control being used.  The more unplanned pregnancies that occur, the higher the abortion rate goes.

So if you’re truly against abortion, and the fact being that a woman’s right to have an abortion has been deemed a Constitutional right, wouldn’t it just make more sense to make birth control as widely available as possible?

And wouldn’t it just make more sense to properly educate our children about sex rather than pretend like if we don’t mention it they’ll never find out about it?  Isn’t it better if younger Americans learn about sex from an educational standpoint as opposed to the stuff they’ll find on the internet?

Or do you really think that the best way to lower abortion rates is to oppose birth control, reject sex education being taught in schools and push the unrealistic notion of abstinence?

Because reality, and common sense, tell us that combining those three things undoubtedly leads to more abortions. 

Republicans are Fiscally Conservative

Another easy one.  Nearly every Republican I’ve ever met sings the praises of “conservative legend” Ronald Reagan.  But can you guess who the last Republican president was to actually balance the budget?  Hint: It wasn’t Reagan.

It was actually Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950’s.

Republicans controlled all, if not a part, of Congress for nearly all of Bush’s eight years in the White House.  Guess what?  We went from a balanced budget to doubling our national debt.  And he did that by cutting taxes right as he started two wars.  You don’t cut revenue right when you plan to spend trillions you don’t have.

How’s that fiscally conservative?

Reagan, the conservative legend, massively grew our national debt too.  Even George H. Bush, in just four years, managed to grow our national debt.

So, how can your party be the party for “fiscal responsibility” when for over five decades Republicans haven’t once balanced the budget?  Heck, they haven’t even come close.

Christianity and our Constitution

Real simple.  The words “Christian” and “Christianity” don’t appear even once in our Constitution.  With all these men who many conservatives claim were Christians (many weren’t by the way), doesn’t it seem as if those words would have found their way in there somewhere… anywhere?

Even just once?

Right now if you took 50 Christian conservatives and had them draw up a new Constitution, do you believe that those words would still be omitted?  It’s highly unlikely.

So it doesn’t make any sense to believe that our Founding Fathers meant for this nation to be founded on Christianity, yet left all mention of Christianity out of our Constitution.

If anything the fact that neither word appears even once in our Constitution seems to be by the Founding Fathers’ “intelligent design” rather than by accident.

Liberals are Socialists/Communists/Fascists

First, all three of these are different ideologies.  You can’t be all three.

Besides, while you do often find far-left liberals who are true socialists, neo-Nazi’s are found on the far-right.  You know, the fascists.

Second, this belief that “socialism” is completely terrible is ridiculous.

Public roads, public schools, the post office, our military, the police, fire fighters, public drinking water, stop signs, traffic lights, our national parks, the Interstate Highway system, our country’s largest universities, Social Security, Medicare – all brought to us by some form of socialism.

Just to name a few.

So unless conservatives oppose all of those things, they’re supporting some forms of socialism as well.

Alright, I’ll go ahead and wrap this up.  While I know it probably won’t make any difference with most conservatives, I just thought I’d write out a pretty straight-forward and simple common sense guide for addressing these five popular conservative talking points.

Allen Clifton

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


Facebook comments

  • Eg Kbbs

    RE: Trickle Down.

    We’ve had nearly 4 decades of trickle-down economics and compassionate conservatism. Haven’t we gotten enough data showing it doesn’t work ?

    • David Hovgaard

      Those on the right are like die hard communist no matter how badly their polices fail they will never admit that they don’t work. It would be akin to admitting that a belief in God is really just a sad delusion.

      • adcbeast

        @david_hovgaard:disqus .. You are a complete IDIOT and that is being kind

      • David Hovgaard

        An insult isn’t an argument it’s proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. These are the facts the last three republican presidents have left huge deficits and economic recessions. The last two democratic presidents including this one have cleaned up their mess. This is proof that cutting taxes on the rich only helps the rich and not the economy.

      • Robert

        Funny how Bush’s tax cuts led to 3 or 4 years of increased tax revenues that only dropped due to the recession (which also caused the huge deficits)…the same recession liberals love blaming on Bush yet the typical reason they do so isn’t supported by facts showing cause or culpability…it’s “well he was in office when it happened”….which is nonsense and only makes them look completely foolish.

      • David Hovgaard

        Um no they didn’t because taxes high or low do not stimulate the economy. The only thing that stimulates the economy is demand and the rich don’t buy enough goods and services to matter, so giving them tax cuts is a waste of time. Plus the only thing the Bush tax cuts grew was the debt which ballooned under him as it does under every republican president. So your argument that tax collection went up kind of falls flat when you consider the fact that the projected surplus under Clinton evaporated thanks to Bush’s tax cuts and unnecessary war in Iraq.

      • Robert

        So you are denying the FACT that after the tax cuts in 2003 tax revenues rose from 2004 through 2007, only to drop in 2008 due to the recession…is that it? The “rich” weren’t the only ones to get tax cuts, the poor and middle class did as well, if you don’t think they spent that money in our economy I’d love to see some sort of proof of that. You sure seem to have the typical leftist talking points down but I don’t see you supporting them with anything factual. BTW, there was no surplus under Clinton, utter BS – You should Google CNN I Report “Bill Clinton Legacy of Myththology and Surplus.”

  • Jimbo Jones

    True conservatism is the oppostion to harmful Jewish influences in a white Christian country. If the so called conservative is not speaking out against the Jews, he is just jiving you.

    • Michael Doyle

      WTF Jimbo?

      • Jimbo Jones

        What are Jews and Latinos trying to conserve? They are destroyers. destroyers of white society.

      • Jeff Johnson

        Seriously? If you’re so scared of white society being eradicated then move to Sweden.

      • lurch394

        Yes, he can enjoy some socialism with his lutefisk.

      • Brian

        Nope, Sweden actually has legitimate problems with extremely hostile, largely uneducated and unskilled African and Middle Eastern refugees to the point where right-wing nationalism is rapidly becoming popular. Try Norway or Denmark.

      • Jimbo Jones

        Do I tell you were to go? Sweden is flooded with boons, you think I want or like living with people like you? You are disgusting filth.

      • DavidD

        Tim Mc Veigh’s old cell would be a better fit.Ban this fascist troll.
        Rascism =genocide.Hopefully when he crosses the line someone will be there to meet him.

      • James Orcutt

        no our nigger, non American Muslim,
        is the destroyer, and boehner and co, just
        coward pussified go along jack offs.
        I cant believe the Tony Robbins Legacy.
        yiu are what you believe. bullshit.
        you are the sum of deeds. nothin else.
        wheels comming off you idiots.

      • Jimbo Jones

        You did not need to correct me. You could have expressed you opinion without tagging to my comment. Why do you feel I need to be corrected? Are you Jewish?

      • Michael Doyle

        Wow. It’s a shame what happens when cousins marry.

      • Jimbo Jones

        What does that mean? Was that an insult? You don’t know me and if you did we would not be friends.

      • Michael Doyle

        You are so right. Drink some Koolaid, and GFY.

      • Jimbo Jones

        Thanks kyke, same to you and your dearest family members.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        Jimbo im sorry but you are in no way helping anyone. I certaainly belive that political correctness is a bunch of BS but you are just intentionally being offensive. Please either refrain from commenting or revise you approach in order to promote a healthy debate. Differing opinions are to be valued and considered not dismissed out of hand.

        On a personal note to everyone else even i admit i can have an abrasive personality and would like to thank you for up to this point being very understanding with me and hope we will continue to have a lively debate.

      • Jimbo Jones

        I don’t need anyones help or to help anybody, especially a scumbagg like you. Why don’t you mind your own God damned business for a change, kyke?

      • Michael Doyle

        Actually, I was born and raised christian. Then I reached the age of reason. Thank you so kindly anyway for your concern. Take care. Don’t run over any land mines.
        ps: That is not how you spell Kike.

      • Jimbo Jones

        You follow the kyke religion of multiculturalism .You are not Christian. The Jews own you. You are one of them.You have forsaken Christ for your kyke master Gods.

      • Michael Doyle

        I follow no religion. Go brush your tooth.

      • Jimbo Jones

        Multiculturalism is a religion and you do follow it. It is the religion of the anti-Christ.

      • Michael Doyle

        Which doesn’t exist. You don’t know shit.

      • Jimbo Jones


        a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
        “consumerism is the new religion”

        You are a dupe of the Jewman. Take the right out of your nose.

      • Michael Doyle

        No. I said an antichrist does not exist. I did not say religion does not exist. It unfortunately does to the detriment of humanity. It was invented to enslave the ignorant. You are a bigot anyway so why should I bother with your opinion. I will not respond further, so your racist bullshit will be lost on me.

      • Jimbo Jones

        The Jewish leader of the multiculturalist movement is going to be the anti-Christ once people like you have converted from Christianity to multiculturalism. It is very close.

      • Jack Gossett

        you are obiously not christian, for christ would not approve of the names by which you address jews.

      • Jimbo Jones

        WHOTHEFUCK ARE you to tell me what I am or am not? WHO THEFUCK ARE YOU KYKE? I will stab you, yourottenfuck.

      • Jack Gossett

        as if christ would approve of stabbing someone too. can I tell you that you are full of hate? apparently you know that and are proud of it too. P.S. : threatening to stab someone is a criminal offense. I’m going to have to be careful now tho huh? everytime I see someone with a swastika on each cheek coming up the driveway.

      • Jimbo Jones

        2. Abodah Zara 26b: “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”

        AGREE or DISAGREE kyke? This is what you and your religion thinks of me, you disgusting kyke. I want to stabbed you to death you rotten Jewfuck.

      • Jack Gossett

        so do you think I am a christian or a jew? I’ll tell you one thing: I have no idea what the Abodah Zara is. I don’t condemn any person from any religion for some words in an ancient text. There are many jews very much against killing arab toddlers, the vast majority I’m sure. It was a mistake talking to you. Carry on with your hate and insult me some more if you like. Good bye.

      • Jimbo Jones

        You like judging, you like telling people how to think, you think you are better than everyone else, you are a disgudting kyke.

      • Robert Vernon

        Your words tell who and what you are. It is obvious to everyone.

      • Matt Pantages

        jimbo must be shaking in his boots as all the immigrants and non white folk take over his ‘christian’ country… you might want to look at a census summary sometime Jimbob… most metro areas of the US are already majority nonwhite… you lily white Christians are no longer majority stakeholders.. and haven’t been for some time… blame your hero Reagan, for things like the immigration reform act of 1986 for starters..

      • Jimbo Jones

        STFup kyke.

    • indybeckih

      What white Christian country are you talking about? The United States is not a Christian country. Christians do live here, but so do Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, agnostics and atheists – to name but a few. Some of the Founding Fathers were Deists – they believed in God, but not in the divinity of Christ. So, I’m really not sure where people are getting the idea that the nation was founded upon Christianity – other than people are expected to be civil to one another.
      I’m not sure where you’re coming from in your post, Jimbo, and I don’t get your point.

      • Michelle Grasz

        He’s baiting you, ignore him

      • James Orcutt

        Founded on faith of ones choosing.
        with no national declaration of any.
        thats it.
        Read prior 1915.
        Faith in writtimg in everything everywhere.
        I got shitloads of old textbooks.posted pages g+
        want more ask, no prob.
        you progressives are a frieghttrain to slavery.
        Read a fuckin book.

      • Jimbo Jones

        Typical, kyke multiculturalist. That faux religion of your is going to be destroyed in due time.

    • James Orcutt

      you define you alone as i define me.
      its not possible through extrappalation of Reason.
      That is a Dream by definition not a course of action.
      nor even thought out at all.

      • lindylou

        You are seriously crazy. Or drunk.

      • James Orcutt

        No,, not drunk ……………Awakened.
        I said ,or to be correct, The True.
        Refute it.

      • RBurton

        Your writing is absolutely terrible and absolute nonsense. You should take some classes in English 101 before writing on a public forum. If not, then try to write without being high as a kite. Whatever it is you’re smoking must be some good shit. I’ve seen meth heads spew similar pontifications while peaking on their current high.

      • Jimbo Jones

        Are you a kyke? I don’t not need you to teach me, you dumbfuckingJew.

      • Matt Pantages

        how do you manage to make it through the day without someone pounding your ass into the ground like a tent stake, after listening to you speak..?

        do you actually speak like this in public?

        wow… and I bet the KKKkalendar on your wall still reads 1938…

      • Jimbo Jones

        I wish you were in front of me right now, you obxious little kyke. I would teach you a lesson you would never forget.

      • Vellegazelle

        I see what’s happening here, Jimbo. You’re actually of Jewish extraction, and your self-hatred – not to mention apparently poor education – translates into these foaming at the mouth diatribes. Don’t try to deny it. Accept it and learn to love yourself, then you won’t be such an ass. Maybe.

      • Jimbo Jones

        There is nothing more offensive to call a non-Jew, do you realize that?

      • Matt Pantages

        guess its a good thing your opinions don’t really count for shit then?

      • Matt Pantages

        get off your knees if you want people to take you seriously.. you’re so fucking lost..you have no idea..

      • History Of The Democrats And The KKK…..(Why the Democrats started the KKK)

        The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

        An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

        The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

        “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

        Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

        “Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

        “The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death,” he said. “Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included.”

        Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

        Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

        His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

        Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.

        Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

        “The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat ? either in the House or the Senate ? voted for the 14th Amendment,” Barton wrote. “Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans.”

        He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress’ civil rights laws were “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.”

        It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

        Barton’s book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

        Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

        Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee’s Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

        Dems’ website showing jump in history

        The current version of the “History” page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments ? from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women’s suffrage.

        A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. “You’re not going to get a comment,” said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.

        “Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?” Barton asked. “Perhaps because it’s not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about ? perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website.”

        The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.

        “Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat,” Morton said.

        It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. “Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.”

        By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn’t until Harry Truman was elected that “Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender.”

        “That is an accurate description,” wrote Barton. “Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began ? that is, they made their first serious efforts ? to fight against the barriers of race; yet ? Truman’s efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party.”

        Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. “And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist,” Barton wrote.

        The National Review noted that the Democrats’ “Klan-coddling” today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”

        The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was “scorned” by national GOP officials.

        Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.

        Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: “The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”

        Barton’s documentation said the first opponents of slavery “and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation’s first abolition societies.”

        During the years surrounding the Civil War, “the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery,” Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: “All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.”

        Wallbuilders also cited John Alden’s 1885 book, “A Brief History of the Republican Party” in noting that the KKK’s early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.

        “In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them,” Alden wrote. “Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political ? The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises.”

        Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.

        But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled his grandmother never “would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about.” After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.

        Citing President George Washington’s farewell address, Barton told WND, “Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation.”

        “We shouldn’t love a party [over] a candidate’s principles or values,” he told WND.

        Washington’s farewell address noted the “danger” from parties is serious.

    • Robert Vernon

      Typical liberal. If you don’t like how something is going, you just start redefining words until you do.

  • Jeff Johnson

    I can’t argue this one. We have some great people in our party but we let the loud, obnoxious ones speak for us most of the time. The only thing I will say is that there is a difference between socialism and what your examples of socialism are. Roads, signs, social security are all things that you pay into to use. There are vehicle, gas, tolls, etc. to pay for infrastructure and you pay a SSI tax so that you can receive that when you get older. Before you argue that I understand that today’s taxes are paying for today’s seniors. Socialism is redistribution of wealth like food stamps, welfare, medicare, etc. We are giving tax money from those that work to those that either don’t or are underemployed.

    • James Orcutt

      yes like obama care. sicialist.
      for you to tell me what to do.
      we will meet in the battlefield.
      see you then.

      • buricco

        Obamacare is capitalist. Socialist would be single-payer. But let’s not let something as trivial as facts get in the way of a good bash, eh?

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        Obamacare is the abortion of capatalist ideals and the gateway to a single payer system, as intended (lol personal belief, not proven fact) i wouldnt consider obamacare to be capatalist (too much government oversight) or socialist (it does still have capatalist portions) but more of a bastardization of the 2.

      • DavidD

        The only battlefield if any you will be on is the exercise yard or the day room.
        More than likely you are a keyboard warrior or a 12 year old child.

    • James Orcutt

      we dont give tax money, it is taken from us.
      your position is of member status to this unbelievable crap.
      you are not or never were American.
      Your grandfather,father, fight for Liberty?
      Then you are a coward.

      • Jeff Johnson

        You are an idiot. That is all.

    • Cjoebm

      Socialism-A political and economic theory of social
      organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution,
      and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

      Our government is of the people, by the people, for the people. When the people speak, the government should act. The people spoke out as a whole about our health care system. It was, and is, broke. Our governments job is to do something about it. We can argue the law, but something had to be done.

      If you want to talk socialism, lets bring up the subsidies to the oil industry, the corn and soy industries in this country. The govt, under the Nixon administration (conservative) started paying the corn farmers to over produce corn to make it cheaper. That is socialism! And it still goes on today withstanding many conservative presidents and congresses. Why dont we talk about that. That alone would solve our healthcare crisis in this country. But our for profit healtcare system makes a lot of people rich by keeping America sick!

      Obama care is paid into with taxes, defined by the supreme court, that goes in line with what you are saying about social security, schools, etc. Explain the difference.

  • James Orcutt

    your a joke opinion fool.
    Youve proven nothing but lazy repetion of nonsence.
    do you actually research beyond wikipedia?
    you wanna …know the meaning? The participants own writings are clear,eloquent and easily understood.
    old books1700 forward yes me lots last ten months intensive.
    you none.
    you couldnot stand where you do if you had.
    pretty simple, they wrote, they did.

    revision is manipulation.
    do yourself a favor. Read.
    you are an idiot of idiots.

    • Robert Vernon

      Haha. I read your whole statement in the voice of Mr T. Unfortunately it made less sense than he usually does.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        And YOU, Mr. Orcutt, write like a first grader! I read and re-read your—-I don’t know what to call them—sentences??? I am a fairly intelligent person but I have no idea about what you were saying or TRYING to say!

    • You note: The participants own writings are clear,eloquent and easily understood.
      But, somehow, the original statement still holds: Words that have ‘Christ’ in them are not in the Constitution.

  • wrkhrdspprturself

    Lol love the narrow view of tax breaks, over all lower taxes lowers a businesses overhead making more finances available for a company to invest in itself increasing its potential for business and growth. Lower taxes for a consumer creates more capital for a person to spend on products increasing the economy and providing capital a business can use to expand creating more potential for job growth and an increase in the economy.

    Abortions unfortunately for many people falls under a religious issue. Im not overly religious and seperate my religion from political issues recognizing the diversity in this country in different religions or lack of religious belief. On that note its more of a question of personal responsibility. You want birth control fine buy it and use whatever method you want but im smart and responsible for my actions therefore regardless of what birth control you use im going to buy condoms and use them to prevent the possibility of pregnancy and contracting a STD. I would mention the medical benefits to bc but your point is in regards to the benefits of abortion. Abortion is not needed if you practice safe sex and hold yourself responsible for your own actions abortions are a moot point except in the case of rape or life threating pregnancy. Also sex education is important and proper contraceptive use should be taught because yes people will have sex, there is no stopping it.

    Republicans being fiscally conservative……. yup your right they arent for the most part. They are generally just as bad as democrats/liberals/progressives. Which is why fiscal conservatives denounce republican spending and financial policies. Republican spending is generally them bending over and taking it in threar while a liberal screams they need more money to save dinosaurs from steven spielberg cause he keeps killing them in his movies and its just wrong (actually happened).

    Religion and the Constitution….. this is a sticky subject for most but fairly basic to me. The Constitution was written in a time when christians were looking for religious freedom and religion was important to the people of the time. Yes it is my belief that the Constitution was based of christian values. However in the spirit of religious freedom (not freedom from religion) and seperation of church and state no specific religion was placed in the Constitution. Which is smart since different christian faiths hold different beliefs. Basically this assures that the government cannot make and uphold a law which violates a persons religious beliefs and a religious organization cannot use its authority to effect government policy. Which was common practice in europe.

    Side note: im surprised liberals havent taken advantage of religious freedom actually. Simply create your own religion in which the basis to worhiping your god/goddess/gods is running around impregnating each other and having abortions. Problem solved, you get your abortions and no one can say anything about it. (Sarcasm intended)

    Your last point is annoyingly ignorant in its generality. Obviously you cant be socialist, communist, and fascist at the same time fascism is a fundamentally different ideology. However it is completely possible to be liberal and socialist or liberal and fascist. I leave out communism as its the end result of socialism. I certainly dont see the military, police, or firefighters as socialist programs since almost every nation regardless of ideology has had them or has developed them as society has evolved and i would think it happened long before the socialist ideology existed. Highways, stop signs, and traffic lights hardly represent the socialist ideology, maybe created by a socialist, i dont know. More likely they are indicitive of the evolution of modern day transportation, you know common sense. I agree with you on the rest and point out that some of this countries major problems are associated with those programs. public education, universities, social security and medicare are all deeply troubled institutions.

    Finally, and this does go with you liberals are socialist/communist/fascist talking point. I never would have come across this except for an admitted socialist and liberal posted it on social media. For the record although she and i may emphatically disagree at times on politics i still respect her views and value her difference in opinion. I certainly dont wish death upon anyone with a different opinion or their children. Which is generally the liberal response conservatives get. Seriously look at the young woman (whos name escapes me at the moment) who posted a picture in front of hobby lobby in a pro life shit. Liberals wished death upon her and her newborn child, compared her to a terrorist who murdered people and valued no ones life not even her own. This young lady never hurt anyone and this is what the liberal ideology says is how she should be treated just for a differing opinion and the pride to share her beliefs? To use a new phrase i learned from from a liberal, maybe you need to check yourself.

    • Tess

      While I respect your opinion, calling someone else ignorant while you’re attempting to paint a picture that liberals are speaking to the ‘benefits of abortion’, supporting abortions, and should even start a religion so we can ‘get our abortions’ is ridiculous. Are you even listening to yourself? Liberals don’t support abortions, they support CHOICE. No one is running around and begging pregnant women to abort their babies because they love abortion.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        lol the abortion religion was sarcasm and a joke. i even stated it was sarcasm, good try though. personally i dont like abortion but im all for the choice to have one. however as a man who would be a part of creating that life i would like a say in the choice, something most pro choice ppl dont approve of because its not my body. yeah your right its not my body but its my child.

      • chaserblue

        Well, the way I see it, if you are not carrying it, your input should be very LOW. Sorry—you want to say it’s the roll of the dice that women get pregnant and have to change their entire life, usually for the next few decades because of a child, then you have to accept that you’re on the other end of that spectrum and should only have as much input as you did in the entire birthing process, which is to say, very little. And if you’re gonna toss out that age OLD argument that it takes two, well…in reality, no. It doesn’t. It takes the egg dividing and continuing to divide. Which can be done with a laser knife and our current level of technology. Besides, sperm donors? A dime a dozen. Actual decent human male father prospects? That’s a much, MUCH rarer creature. So…come down off your cloud of arrogance and self congratulation…you don’t have all the answers. As far as the abortion debate? One dick, no vote seems to sum it up nicely. Now, if men could get pregnant? They’d hand out abortion vouchers at Starbucks. Tell me I’m wrong.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        You are wrong and you are morally and ethically corrupt. anyways im sure some men would hand out vouchers but just like women. i believe a vast majority wouldnt. There are plenty of men who would love to be good fathers and even be good father to other peoples children (i do and i am). I believe your issue with finding a decent man is with your personality and the company you keep. Alright i took a cheap shot but i get touchy when people advocate th murder of their own children. Besides is it really so wrong to sit down and have a conversationh with the fatherand ask for his input? I mean even if he asks you not to get an abortion and to carry the child to full term, he most likey wont want you around after that. Sign over parental rights and your back to being free to drink, smoke, get high, and spread your legs for whomever you wish. By the way i would never say a woman getting pregnant is a “roll of the dice” its most commonly 1 of 2 reasons: 1) Intent, they want to be. 2) Negligence, use a damn condom and birth control.

        I apologize to most of you, i know my response wasnt the most diplomatic but i found her entire statement inflammatory, ridiculous, and exceptionally self centered. I allowed my emotions to get the better of me.

      • chaserblue

        Congratulations…you fell right into it. First of all, you don’t know me and know nothing about me. Secondly—there you go, showing your true colors. Calling someone a murderer because they do not subscribe to your questionable morality. Because they do not have the same beliefs as you do, you call them the worst thing you can think of. You do not know their situation, you do not know what happened to them, you have NO CLUE what their life is like…yet you sit up there wrapped up tight in your morally bankrupt indignation, knowing that you will never face the situations they do and make moral judgements on people. Aren’t you just the special one—deciding who and who isn’t worthy. There are many reasons for an abortion—even beyond rape and incest. But according to “conservatives” women don’t ever need one. Not even if the FETUS IS DEAD INSIDE HER. According to “conservatives” cows and pigs carry dead fetuses until they naturally expel them…so there’s no reason a woman can’t do it, too. Sure, it’s tragic, but if farm animals can do it, so can women.
        We won’t even touch on the psychological nightmare that carrying a dead fetus inside you for up to nine months would be, but physically? It can kill a woman.
        See, you turnips think “they’re using it as birth control” because you’re absolutely convinced that everyone is after your thousands of dollars!!
        But you really have absolutely no clue, do you? The birth control could have failed—condoms fail, the pill fails ALL. THE. TIME. Hell, antibiotics can take those out quick, fast and in a hurry.
        And let’s not forget how a woman has ways to “shut that whole thing down” if she’s raped, according to conservatives. Because, yeah, only a “REAL LEGITIMATE©®™” rape would keep a woman from getting pregnant. You people are something else…you are completely convinced that you know all, see all and can judge all. And you haven’t a frickin’ clue…
        Congrats—you’re just another spewing idiot, with absolutely no moral character or conviction that isn’t spoon fed to you by some of the stupidest people on the planet.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        lol if you actually read my posts you would realize you actually trapped yourself into looking like an idiot. i approve of abortion for rape or life threatening situations. i only dont approve of abortions used to terminate healthy babies created through consensual procreation. furthermore you lump me in with all conservatives without knowing my personal situation, which is exactly what you accuse me of. i consider life to start6 at the moment of conception whether your human or cow. if you actually read my posts you would notice im a fiscal conservative which means my conservative views mainly pertain to financial situations. overall im fairly liberal on social issues. abortion being the one social issue im split on because yes i consider it morally wrong to kill a child but i can recognize situations where it could be beneficial. you should read everything i wrote, carefully, before trying to trap me. you nullify your own point of view by not having all the information.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        I’m not involved in this “argument” that you are having on this post, but I must say that after reading all that YOU have written you DO sound very pompous and special because you seem to have “made all of the right decisions”. Great for you I guess—-but not all people are as perfect as you for various reasons so you might want to cut them some slack. Just sayin’.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        Give up?

      • chaserblue

        And BTW—that little hissy fit you threw? A good portion is because you DID NOT UNDERSTAND what I said. Let me see if I can put it in little words.
        I meant that women get pregnant as a gender thing, the roll of the dice? Because they were born a woman. Not a crap shoot from sex.

    • Bill Lommey

      wrkhrdspprturself Unwittingly,your comment supports the writers comment that it’s demand that governs the economics more than taxbreaks for business. “Lower taxes for a consumer creates more capital for a person to spend on products …” thus increasing DEMAND. Simply lowering taxes on business does NOT create demand. We’ve already seen that in the past. Business will simply hoard the money until demand forces them to expand to meet the increasing demand. Google business hoarding cash to see what is really happening

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        i apologize, my comment was for lower taxes across the board for both businesses and consumers. i wasnt looking looking specifically at one or the other. i live in new york which makes ridiculous laws that have driven thousands of jobs from the state whille offering severe tax breaks to draw in companies and taxing the hell out of the public to make up for while still continiously wasting money on nonsensical legistlations. my belief is that if we get rid of the laws driving business from the state and stop wasteful spending on failed policies we can cut taxes across the board for businesses and citizens. which in turn will stop the mass exodus of people from the state and increase the economy.

      • Timothy Elsewon Johnson

        We cannot survive without taxes. Do you drive? I don’t, I take mass transit, yet I pay road taxes. I don’t have kids, yet my taxes go to schools. I don’t call the cops, my house hasn’t burned down, etc etc., yet I deal with those taxes because I’m not selfish and I’m part of a community. The money has to come from somewhere. How bout we crack down on the mega corporations taking their business out of the US so they can pay employees less then 50 cents an hour, slap them with HUGE import taxes to make it less economically feasible and have them reconsider keeping the jobs in the US. I lived in the 53rd richest town in the US. Bernardsville NJ. Look it up. Anyway, the mountain side is home to multi million dollar 10,000+ foot homes. Mike Tyson, Jackie Kennedy Onasis, Mark Ecko, etc. The OTHER side of town has the 3rd largest Paragauayn population in the world. After Paraguay and NYC. Why? Because the ultra rich hire illegals from there to work. Now, do you blame the Paraguayans or the Rich, who are too cheap to pay real wages? This is why trickle down has never worked, because the rich do NOT spend money. They don’t bu American made products, they cheat on their taxes, they hire illegals, etc. Go to downtown Portland or LA or anywhere and see how many Mexicans are standing on the street waiting for day labor jobs. Paid $5 under the table. Go look in a multi millionaires driveway and see how many Chevy or Fords you see. Maybe the gardener. Rolex watches, Bang and Olufsen stereo’s, Italian Marble, Sony flat screens, etc. The rich stay rich by cutting corners and making sheisty deals. Middle America and the working poor run our economy.

    • Matt Pantages

      you bash readers of your tripe as ignorant, then go on to completely ignore one fact… birth control isn’t just to have sex without making babies.. the pill can help a woman control ovarian cysts, regulate their periods, as well has help to treat other medical conditions…

      just because ‘you’ don’t agree with insurance paid contraception, doesn’t change the fact, that it is medically accepted treatment for some things.. just as your Viagra is, but, I don’t hear you offering to pay out of pocket for that…

      as for your comments regarding taxes and business growth.. you seem to have a basic misunderstanding about how the rich spend money vs how the poor spend money…

      you give a poor (making under 35K/yr) person an extra $100 a month, he’ll spend that money more often than not, BECAUSE HE HAS TO.. he has no other choice.. rent needs paid , the car needs tires, the kids need school clothes, the list goes on and on.. that money is then released into the economy creating demand, and that is what drives businesses to spend money on new hires, and expansion…

      meanwhile.. let’s look at a typical wealthy person… making 250K/yr and more.. you give him an extra hundred a month, and it means nothing to him, that is pocket change, couch cushion money… If he does anything at all with it, He’ll invest it, either in stocks or other paper investments, or just sock it into a bank account where it will sit, creating nothing but more interest income for him, the individual… nothing more.. and as such CREATES ZERO NEW JOBS.

      the wealthy person, has no need, nothing to compel him to spend money… his needs are already met, so, he creates zero demand, and no new jobs… Even in the case of a momentary incident, like a car breakdown, unexpected medical emergency, or a change in jobs, isn’t a big deal, again because he has savings built up, something the poor person, is never able to create, because there is never anything left over to build upon.

      As for business spending, they will never spend to create demand, they are in business to generate profit for shareholders, Speculation is not something shareholders want.. they want dividends,, if you aren’t making profit, you die… and more profit is always preferable to less profit… so, this would mean, that CUTTING JOBS, which would lower expenses, would always be more likely to happen instead of any effort to hire new employees.

      simple logic really..

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        Actually i did mention that birt6h control had health benefits but i simply stuck to the point of abortion as did the writer of the article i discussed what he discussed and stayed on point. I did not say bc should not be covered by insurance especially if needed for health reasons. Also i would have no problem paying out of pocket for my own viagra as it isnt medically needed other than to get a stiffy and fornicate. Once again i am not against insurance paid contraception (thanks for putting words in my mouth), im against unnecessary abortion due to irresponsible behaviour.

        My comments on taxes and business growth i find you response particularly convoluted. If i undertand correctly you have equated business to “rich” people (250k+ year) and from a perspective of just being rich your probably right he would just save the money or
        invest (<— i like this as it proves my point not disproves it) it. However being a rich person and being a business are 2 very different thigs but i will combine the 2 for the sake of discussion. A smart "rich person" running a "business" is more likely to "invest" that extra money into his business to cause growth and expansion in order to turn that $100 into $10,000. Now the investment which caused groeth potential creates jobs and increases the economy. It costs money to make money. Now im poor (less than 35k annually) by your standards and i am not spending that extra $100 to stimulate the economy by buying goods. Im either saving it for a rainy day, investing it and hoping for a return, or spending it on bills like rent, electric, gas, CC bills, etc. Im certainly not going out and purchasing an easy bake oven or a big screen tv.

        Business spending: you are so backward. I will even use a real life example. IBM is one of the most profitable companies out there and annually brings in 17% profit (if you pull in 12-14% you have a very strong company) but continually cuts its workforce…… why? Its not because of increase technology or efficiency. Its because in their field they have reached maximum growth potential. They have no where to expand to and ultimately they want to get out of semiconducter manufacturing and move into software production in order to show growth and increase shareholder interest. At which point they will rebuild increasing their profits and continually invest money into that growth creating jobs and boosting the economy. Now for their manufacturing end that will go to a new company (i think global foundries) which will invest in that creating jobs and shareholder interest boosting the economy.

        Simple logic really.

      • Bill Lommey

        I know a little something about your example. In 1998, I worked for ATT as a software source control engineer. In 1999, my job was outsourced to IBM. I was one of over 2000 people who eventually moved over, over multiple years. It was the single largest outsource contract in history at that time. I did the same work as before. Within two years, 95% of the people who came over with me, were no longer with IBM because their jobs were offshored to IBM India. Over the next 14 years, I dodged 4 separate layoffs, till my number finally came up this past April. IBM started the move to sofware development long ago. They’ve been moving out of manufacturing just as long. They sold the Thinkpad to Lenova years ago. IBM is not as profitable as you indicate, mostly due to the increased competition from offshore software companies. It’s cheaper to hire in India or eastern Europe (where a lot of ATT money is going) than it is to maintain a presence in the US. My point is this, global corporations such as IBM will continue profiting only by increasing their offshore labor. The internet is a wonderful thing but it does not necessarily generate corporate jobs in the US. For me, I’m happy. I saved enough money so I don’t have to work. Anyone in the work force today will have to be extremely flexible and maybe have to accept working overseas, for less pay.

      • Cjoebm

        Some of each points can be made to be accurate, and false at the same time. Your comments “A smart “rich person” running a “business” is more likely to “invest”
        that extra money into his business to cause growth and expansion in
        order to turn that $100 into $10,000.”, this is really only a small part of business reinvestment. We all know businesses reinvest to lower the taxable P and L. Lower profit, lower tax. It is done in many forms of reinvestment, bonuses etc. Any point can be made to have accurate and misinformation.
        Im so over the divided conservative-liberal borders that have been eating at our country for so long now. It seem like every simple issue or story, sides are taken. Liberals say one thing, conservatives have to say the opposite, even if it does not really go along with what conservatism stands for. Many of Obamas policies are pretty conservative by nature, but because he is a lib, they have to say the opposite. Kinda damn childish if you ask me!

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        lol if you say his policies are conservative i wont argue with you but i have as of yet not seen one and am hard pressed to find anything i agree with. for example the 3.7 billion 2% of which is going to border security he requested from texas for the border crisis i believe would be better spent if texas just kept the money and delt with the border issue themselves and removed federal employee law enforcement privilages from operating in the state. hell i would donate money to the border states if they chose to enact and enforce their own boder policies and left the inept federal government out of it.

        sorry not one of my better arguments even if its probably a more specific and actionable plan than anything the federal government could come up with. im a bit burned out today.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Perry informed the federal govt that he didn’t want any federal help and would handle things himself in our state. He’s been quite adamant about that! Then when things get hectic on the border he accuses Obama of not doing what he should and giving federal funds to Texas. Obama can’t win no matter what he does because he is constantly being accused of not doing the right thing. Since you are so bright about so many subjects–even what the feds should be doing—you might want to write up a plan about how to run the country and then we’d all just be in great shape.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        If i missed anything let me know i got tired of typing and needed a break.

    • Nathan Frigerio

      I just take issue with the Communism/socialism, stuff. In theory, all are good. The implementation is a different story. Sure Stalin called himself a communist, but his actions were more authoritarian, and totalitarian. Look at the etymology of these words. The authors of these ideas were trying to help. Capitalism is a great idea, until a select few hold all the cards, then you have a monarchy/oligarchy. Holding the idea that everyone should be responsible for themselves is admirable, but some can’t, or won’t, hence democracy’s failings.

      As for liberal vs. conservative:

      Liberals got rid of slavery. Liberals got women the right to vote.
      Liberals established the ACLU. Liberals got blacks the right to vote.
      Liberals created social security, lifting millions of elderly people out of poverty.

      Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act.
      Liberals created medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water act.
      Liberals passed the AHCA, evilly trying to allow folks affordable health care. Where was the uproar
      when the government mandated car insurance?
      Every protection from the greedy pigs that would have us eating rotten meat, breathing noxious
      air, or drinking poisoned water was brought to you by liberals.

      Conservatives…..well they opposed each and every one of these, and are still trying to undermine them.
      This statement can be verified by looking at bills introduced, and usually passed, by republican led state legislatures.

      So go ahead and vote for the party that keeps us in guns, away from same sex marriage, and wants unsustainable population growth. Because when your children get sick from polluted air, water, and food, you’ll have yourself to blame. You also won’t be able to afford the health care either.

      To wrap it up, does anyone even try to deny that 90% of the 1% vote republican, and contribute heavily to said party? And, if that is taken as fact, go back to the words of Christ describing money lenders, bankers, and the rich. The party of Christian values???
      What a crock.

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        although i appreciate your view and well stated points you are unffortunately wrong. historically if you look at these important events they recieved more support from republicans than democrats and recieved more votes from republicans than democrats. even the KKK was established by democrats. you have the views of a sterilized democratic history that is fictional. Abraham Lincoln was a republican. the first slave in what would become the US was in 1605 and owned by another black man. this country is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic which is different. communism is probably the most ideal form of government but it doesnt work simply because of human nature. for example if liberals were all about true equality and sharing they woulshare everything equally and Michael Moore wouldnt be a multimillionare with 9 homes denouncing capitalism yet getting rich off of it. liberalism is hypocracy at its finest. conservatives want equality for all and for those who can hard work. we are not opposed to giving a hand up, we are against hand outs and entiltements. we are not monster just simply practical and based in reality.

      • Nathan Frigerio

        I said liberals and conservatives, the distinction is important. After the Civil War, southerners became democrats because Lincoln was a republican. After L.B.J. signed the Civil Rights Act, they all became republicans. Dem/Rep had nothing to do with it. Lincoln was a liberal. Why? He helped give slaves (that dirty word) LIBERTY. The root word of liberal. See, it’s very simple, liberal = liberty. Duh…..

      • Eve Morton

        Abraham Lincoln was a Republican but by today’s standards he would be a Democrat and vice versa. Also, please learn how to spell and punctuate properly. It would really help your argument if you knew the difference between “your” and “you’re.” Maybe then we would take you seriously instead of laughing you off.

      • Timothy Elsewon Johnson

        That’s ludicrous. Equality for all? Gay People? Do you speak for all conservatives? In my local paper a man who identified as conservative wrote in suggesting all people on foodstamps should be LISTED IN THE PAPER. Is that “offering a hand” or tying to embarass someone who needs help? You people think everyone is lazy, that just because your job is safe, everyone else is. If you think everyone should have a job, you must not have any complaints about the economy or Obama, correct? (see how that works). Also, I have seen MANY conservatives defend Child Murderer Zimmerman as “look, he was found innocent in our court system, that’s how it works, leave the man alone”, yet when I say “so you then believe OJ was innocent in killing Nicole and Ron Goldman?” they disappear. If anyone is a hypocrite, it’s a conservative. Give me my gun rights, but censor your rap music. My 2nd amendment, the least important (and I’m a gun owner who got his shotgun license at 10) verse your 1st amendment rights. Ban gay marriage, ban abortion, ban this, ban that. Call themselves Christians yet completely disregard Jesus teachings. I support ALL constitutional rights, how bout you? You might be an OK person, but then you are FISCALLY conservative, not morally. The so called Morally conservative ammosexual regressive hate mongers of this country need to go away and take care of their OWN families.

      • Terry Chesnut

        You really need to read a history book. Republicans passed all the equal rights laws the dems fought them. Your two worst enemies Bush and Nixon are responsible for the biggest environmental laws. Clean Air Act of 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon. Two
        decades later, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed, again
        with large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed
        by President George H. W. Bush. President Richard Nixon is credited with establishing the
        Environmental Protection Agency, and with signing many of our federal
        environmental statutes into law. Dems just like to talk republicans fix problems.

      • Nathan Frigerio

        Look into it yourself. Have you actually paid attention to the gutting of the clean air and water acts, or the EPA by your wonderful conservative republicans? Or do you just read the first thing some head with an agenda says? What exactly have the reps introduced in bill form that wasn’t business friendly? Have you justices ever found a company negligent or ever found in favor of the little guy? When, if ever, have the brave and courageous been in the majority?? Ask yourself that.

    • Julie Echo Tyler

      Actually, raising a company’s taxes promotes their investment in their own growth. If a company must choose between paying taxes or investing in people, equipment and growth, they will choose growth; if they can sit on their profits through tax cuts, there is no motivation to raise pay, benefits or improve equipment.

      Abortion, on the other hand, is a necessary evil. No one “likes”, no one does is casually, but even the most dependable birth control can fail, mistakes happen among the most responsible. Using a condom is great – using one *every time, no matter what* is responsible behavior. But condoms can, and do, break. A missed or defective pill, a dislodged IUD, a mis-fitted diaphragm… Stuff happens.

      We need better, science based sex ed. We need affordable, widely available birth control. These are the items that will reduce, but never eliminate the need for abortions.

      • Robert Vernon

        Businesses don’t pay taxes. Never have, never will. They pass those taxes on to their customers, reduce salaries, reduce dividends, etc. Here in the USA the taxes have gotten so high (highest in the world) that businesses still can’t stay in the black. What do they do? They move to other countries. Now Obama is trying to stop them from doing that. What other option do they have? They can close their doors.

      • Robert Vernon

        Taxes on businesses are a hidden tax on individuals. Do you think there is no tax on that loaf of bread you bought? Well there is…Aproximately 23%. When the farmer paid tax on the wheat he grew, he tacked that onto the price when he sold it. When the mill paid tax on the wheat they milled, they tacked that onto the price of that flour when they sold it. And so on up the chain all the way to you.

        We should all support the Fair Tax HR25. It’s the elimination of ALL federal taxes and replace them with a federal sales tax. That tax reform there is NO hidden taxes. ALL the federal tax you pay is printed on the bottom of the receipt when you purchase an item. And so to not hit the poor overly hard (make it progressive) there is a prebate. Prebate meaning every single person receives a check every month in the amount of the taxes at the poverty level based on family size. This means that NO ONE pays a single penny of tax on the basic necessities of life!!!

    • John

      As I see is the word potential to invest in one self and not itself as a corporation of a no name entity of artificial nothing worth no substance with an empty shell attach…potential growth is an under statement,,,meaning there is no growth of capital to invest in,,,,,something for nothing…you really live in a dream world…potential is a word of a maybe …why you live off society on potential capital that doesn’t exist…while infringe on Americans

      • Robert Vernon

        OMG!!! Write a coherent sentence would you? Just re-read your statement and then re-write it so it can be understood, OK?

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Or at LEAST put periods in there somewhere!!

    • Steven

      You are so basically misinformed if you think the First Amendment means that the government can’t “make and uphold a law which violates a persons religious beliefs”. If that were so, we couldn’t have a law against murder because Satan worshipers believe in human sacrifice. And Charles Manson would be walking the streets a free man. In fact, it were so (as you point out), you could form a church and do whatever you want to whenever you want to. That’s absurd on its face.

      You are also mistaken when you imply that the Constitution does not speak to the right of “freedom from religion.” That may be your opinion but the Supreme Court’s opinion is more persuasive to me as they are the FINAL authority on the Constitution and they have said, “Freedom of religion is meaningless unless it includes freedom from religion.”

      PS: I know a lot of Liberals and I have never met someone who was “pro abortion”. Most of these people believe that religious zealots should not attempt to use the government to tell women what to do with their own bodies. That’s what the Taliban and ISIS does. I don’t believe in abortion and would counsel against it if asked. I also believe its none of my business unless I am the potential father/mother.

    • Steven

      I forgot to address your curious point on business economics. You say that tax breaks to a corporation/business would give them more money to invest in growth. I presume that you think customers would automatically follow? And that markets are static? I don’t thinks so. Can I mention Solyndra? Millions of investment down the drain because customers didn’t show up to buy their product because of new technology and shifting market conditions.

      Giving tax breaks to corporations accomplishes one direct effect: it increases the bottom line profits (or lessens the loss). What the owners do with that is up for grabs. But if they are already meeting demand and their production capacity exceeds demand, they would be foolish to invest in increasing their production capacity. Instead, they could declare a bigger dividend to stockholders, give bonuses to management, or maybe even lower their prices (or any combination of those). Or, they could just bank it.

      On the other hand, tax breaks for the workers in that company who are probably living paycheck to paycheck, would give them more spending money right now. The money goes back in to the economy at the gas station, the grocery store, the lawn service, etc. Thus demand for those products and services is instantly increased.

      This is Economics 101. You’re welcome.

  • Jim Bean

    ‘Christianity and the Constitution.’ This conservative notion escapes the grasp of the less intellectually developed because a basic understanding of this country’s birth is required. The Constitution came to be as the result of the Declaration of Independence which came earlier and which states, ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, . . . . . .” (Their ‘Creator’ – not ‘by evolution’ – get it?) Since the founders came from regions of heavy Christian influence, the claim that this country was founded on Christianity makes all the sense in the world. That’s why the Ten Commandments appeared so often in government establishments.

    • Brian

      That’s a pretty big stretch, mate. The Declaration of Independence is completely irrelevant in terms of US law, and the Constitution specifically states that no law respecting or disrespecting a religion can be passed.
      Claiming the US was founded on Christianity simply because of one part of the language isn’t really all the sensible. Especially when you take into account the fact that almost all of the signers were freemasons, who aren’t really Christian, even if they sometimes go to church.

      • Jim Bean

        That’s incredibly shallow thinking, but if you say so.

      • Laura Hurt

        so if you talk about something that isn’t law it is still counting but when someone refers you to the fact that the actual laws are different, they are shallow? Way to debate mate….

      • wrkhrdspprturself

        I think i actually address the religion vs Constitution issue in my original post. Lol at this point im a bit fied and cant remember exactly what i said. However it is one of the points ive made that no one has yet debated me on if you would like to check it out. Its up near the top somewhere lol

      • giankeys LOVES shemale porn

        jimbo– for a relatively introspective guy your above comment was rather lame. we are NOT based upon Christianity; in fact the originals were here to AVOID religions persecutions in england

      • Jim Bean

        Why were they being persecuted for their religion in England if they weren’t religious to begin with?

      • giankeys LOVES shemale porn

        jimbo !!!! pleeeeeeeez! U and I BOTH know that they left mother England because they were persecuted BY religion! the ‘persecution’ was being TOLD that they must acquiesce to the religion of mother England; and if not- DIRE consequences would occur. I suspect they all had a variety of religious upbringing and views -including deism and atheism –and by getting pummeled by the power in England they made (correctly) the assessment that RELIGION should be a personally PRIVATE matter NOT forced upon anyone else- especially legislatively. TODAY a CERTAIN group of religious ( evangelical pseudo Christians) imbeciles demands that this “founding father” logic should NOT be adhered to: hence- we have problems when no problem should be here! That intrusion upon lives is very much what OTHER militaristic religions do overseas to the inhabitants of other countries ( predominantly moslems) yet when it happens here the CHRISTIAN claims its GODS will; as the radical muslims do over there
        any pertinent thoughts?

      • Jim Bean

        Yes. You’re dancing. Probably because you’ve lost touch with what you said first.

      • giankeys LOVES shemale porn

        said 1st: they came here to avoid being persecuted ( by religion.)
        explain how I lost touch with that——————you cannot/willnot as my follow up was 100% RIGHT on; totally in step ( see: dance) with my initial message. YOU and the regressive religious trash don’t like it because U want to FORCE–legislatively– YOUR VOODOO( religion) upon all of us who don’t suckle your outdated sheepherder book. we who are Buddhist/atheist/moslem/agnostic/hindu/ jewish don’t CARE about your “religion”,,,,, we care about living in peace- NOT being forced to say CHRISTMAS or JESUS or GOD or any other vague pagan term. U want to believe in a dead jewish fella as YOUR GOD? no sweat– in THIS country U are free to! U wanna believe in sheeba the goddess of death? ZEUS? Asmodeus/Ashmedai ? Allah? We don’t care and we don’t mind– its a FREE country: what we abhor to the point of physical reminding ( voting) is: WE DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT your “GOD”. What part of this do U stubbornly fail to see? We are sick of YOUR superstition! Keep it ( happily?) to YOURSELF! if we seek YOUR VOODOO we will find U and sincerely ask——until then ; keep that disgusting — and long proven as false– superstition to yourself.
        what part do U not grasp? “FREEDOM O.F. RELIGION”

    • Bill Lommey

      Jim Beam the Constitution came about not from the Declaration of Independence but from the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
      Also, accepting the science of evolution does NOT preclude the existence of God. In fact, it enhances it. It shows the truly remarkable power of God who figured out that all that was needed was a few basic elements and evolution would take care of the rest. It’s pure arrogance to think otherwise. As mentioned in the article, Christ, Jesus, Christianity, etc… do NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution for good reason. There is a good body of evidence indicating that many of the Founding Fathers separated their religious beliefs from their concept of a new nation. Many were not strictly Christian but were in fact Deists.
      The bottom line is your conclusions are based on logical fallacies and as such, are invalid.

    • giankeys LOVES shemale porn

      creator yes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, CHRIST aint the CREATOR: and “10 commandments” doesn’t mention RAPE; but cussing using GODS ‘name” is a mortal sin?? really? not rape; but UMBRAGE???
      and; pray tell…….how do U or anyone else KNOW that evolution isn’t GODs handiwork??? I suspect strongly that the RELIGIOUS ‘influence’ did such a number on the founding fathers that they EXCLUDED religion FROM the constitution and bill of rights– THEY WERE ADEPT ENOUGH 2 KNOW THAT religion IS A NIGHTMARE WHEN PLACED IN GOVERNMENT/LEGISLATION!

  • Fernando

    Michelle [dim bulb] Bachmann was right when she said that Obamacare was going to “kill, women, kids, old people, etc! ONLY, that! diictum, is due to the FACT that ‘reuglycan’ governors are refusing to let it happen in their States!
    right on Michelle!

  • Scott

    Communism and Socialism aren’t two different ideologies; Communism is a specific type of Socialism.

  • Paul

    You mean as opposed to the all redistribution data showing that that works? I don’t pretend to know all the stats, but even JFK tried tax cuts to kick start the economy. And it worked

  • Jack Gossett

    you sure do attract some conservative trolls of varying degrees of nasty to this page…. the main point I see about their tax cut arguement is that hiring an employee gives you a tax deduction. if you don’t want to pay more taxes then hire more employees!

  • The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

    The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

    For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

    January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

    George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

    Remember that day…

    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

    The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?


    THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

    (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

    OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

    So when someone tries to blame Bush…


    Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.

    Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

    Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

    And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

    In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,

    and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

    There is no way this will be widely public!

    More people are out of the workforce than in history. More people are living in poverty under Obama. More people are going on welfare and food stamps. More people have gone on SSD because they cannot get a job. We have 318 million Americans and you need 300,000 news jobs per month just to keep up with the population growth. Something is very wrong with these numbers. The GDP LOST 2.9% last quarter yet you hear nothing of hat from the liberal media.

  • tstucker

    In order to really understand the economy and tax rates and the way it all works, you would have to be solidly grounded in economics and business education. That isn’t taught in schools . It isn’t even mentioned in schools. So to think you can come in here and get it all out there in a few sentences is just ridiculous.

  • Jess L Calloway

    The thing that gets the trolls going is this is all true. Kudos to Allen Clifton. This article is well written and accurate.