7 Facts Republicans Hope Conservative Voters Never Think About

Paul RyanOne of the things I most enjoy doing in politics is presenting conservatives with their own talking points, then exposing the absolute nonsense behind them. Because it’s easy for any conservative to parrot what they hear on Fox News or some other right-wing media source, but it’s amazing how many of them can’t explain why they support that information.

And the ironic part is, the Republican party doesn’t even try to hide their true intentions. They just know that critical thinking isn’t a strong point for the typical conservative voter. So it’s not a matter of saying anything that makes sense, it just has to be what the typical conservative wants to hear. Facts really don’t matter a whole lot.

Well I thought I’d lend a helping hand and expose 7 facts Republicans really don’t want conservative voters to think about.

Let’s begin.

1) Republicans are purposely sabotaging our government: Just think about this for a moment. Republican politicians run on the premise that “government is bad.” So, why would they ever try to help make government more efficient and effective? They wouldn’t. In fact, they go out of their way to ensure that the government operates as poorly as possible so they can campaign on the notion that government is bad – so that they’ll get elected to that very same government. They’re literally causing the very problems in our government that they use to stir up anti-government sentiment among conservatives to get elected. Sadly, most conservatives fail to see this.

2) Republicans want our country to fail: Conservatives hate President Obama. And they know that the only way they stand any chance in 2016 to reclaim the White House is to do everything they can to stall any possible progress and sabotage any kind of economic recovery. Their true hope is that by doing so our nation will spiral into such chaos that we’ll elect a Republican as a response. They would gladly stand by while millions of Americans suffered as long as it won their party the presidency in 2 years.

3) Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history: It’s like I’ve pointed out before, if you go back to the Civil War and see which states fought to keep slavery, they’re the same states that: opposed women’s suffrage, interracial marriage, civil rights, desegregation and currently oppose gay marriage and abortion rights. And that’s not a coincidence.

4) Nine of our last ten economic recessions occurred while a Republican was in the White House: Pretty much speaks for itself.

5) The Republican party is owned by big oil: Just think about it, what benefits big oil the most?

  • Deregulating the EPA
  • More domestic drilling
  • Opening up national parks for drilling
  • The belief that climate change is fake
  • Ensuring that we have poor public transportation systems
  • Opposition to green energy alternatives

And guess which side of every one of those issues the Republican party supports…

6) The truth about Ronald Reagan is very different from the lies Republicans tell about him: During Reagan’s eight years in the White House, unemployment shot over 10%; our national debt nearly tripled; he passed amnesty for illegal immigrants; the number of illegal immigrants coming into the United States was higher than we’ve seen during the Obama administration; he negotiated with terrorists and raised taxes several times.

7) Tax rates have almost nothing to do with job creation or wages: I’m not going to go into my usual “trickle-down economics is a scam” rant. Though I will say that job creation isn’t a problem, but wage stagnation is. That being said, our tax rates are almost at the very same levels George W. Bush (and his fellow Republicans) promised us in the early-2000’s would eliminate our debt and usher in economic prosperity. So, if those rates were low enough back then, then why now are many of these same Republicans saying that taxes are too high? Though, let’s not fool ourselves. Middle class incomes being stagnant isn’t just a “last eight years” issue. It’s been going on for over decades.

I’ll wrap it up there, though I could easily keep going. Maybe I’ll do a “part two” here sometime soon. But in the meantime, hit me up on Twitter and let me know what you think, or if you have any other suggestions I might want to include in a second edition.

Allen Clifton

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


Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    (1) Those heavily engaged in current affairs know there are about 352 bills sitting on Harry Reid’s desk that he won’t permit the Senate to vote on. 98% of them passed the house with bi-partisan support. 55 of the bills were introduced by Democrats. (Three hundred and fifty two)

    (2) Those heavily engaged in current affairs know Democrats have introduced nothing aimed at economic recovery. All existing bills with the capacity to do that are blocked in #1 above.

    (3) Those heavily engaged in current affairs know Conservatives said the surge in Iraq could succeed. Liberals said would it fail. It succeeded. Liberals landed on the wrong side of history. Conservatives said leaving Iraq too quickly would be disastrous. Liberals said leaving too quickly was the right thing to do. Liberals landed on the wrong side of history in catastrophic style. Liberals said Obama would unite us as a nation. Conservatives said he would divide us. Liberals landed on the wrong side of history.

    (4) Those heavily engaged current in affairs know recessions during an administration are always the result of the economic policies of prior administrations and vice versa.

    (5) Those heavily engaged in current affairs know that big oil is one of the cornerstones of our economy and that smashing it prematurely would have the same effect on the economy that leaving Iraq to quickly had on that.

    (6) Those heavily engaged in current affairs know conservatives don’t dispute any of that. They also know that is an incomplete report on his Presidency.

    (7) Those heavily engaged in current affairs know that 29 major US companies inverted (for tax reasons) between 1983 and 2003 and 47 did it between 2003 and 2013. They know they took plenty of jobs with them. They know the Left immediately stopped talking about Burger King doing it when they found out liberal darling Buffett was supporting it. They also know liberal darling Buffett made his money as a venture capitalist and in big oil that he transports via his railroad – all the things liberals claim they despise.

    Per Quinn’s Laws of Leftism (law #2), ‘If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse the conservatives of.’

    • oldiugymnast

      funny. Completely delusional as well. First off, those “job creating bills” you speak of are not going to create any jobs, in fact, they will throw us back into recession by cutting spending. Look up liquidity trap so you won’t seem so stupid. The surge worked temporarily. But let’s go back to the actual inflection point that matters – when you guys wanted to invade Iraq, I was saying that Iraq is going to be destabilized and it will benefit Iran. That happened. You lose.

      Now let’s get to the infantile economic argument. First off, you blame Obama frequently for the crash in 2008 – before he took office. When someone calls you on that you blame Dodd and Frank, without a shred of credible evidence. Reagan’s recession you blame Carter, even though any economist other than Art Laffer will tell you that it was Reagan and Volker that caused it intentionally to end the wage-price spiral. Who was Bush I’s recession caused by?

      Buffett is right about taxes, and some of his gains were ill-gotten, but he didn’t break the law. The law needs to be fixed in order to fix incentives. That whole Burger King thing is demonstrably not true. Inversion should not be legal for any company, period.

      • Jim Bean

        If you were serious about the affairs of democracy and of strong moral character you would not condone Reid blocking the legislative process as though he were an emperor. If the bills are meritless, they will be voted out of existence. That’s the democratic process.

      • strayaway

        You didn’t mention that the second time the House sent a budget bill to the Senate giving Democrats all the money they wanted to spend to get around sequestration with only minimal compromises, Senate Democrats did not respond and allowed the government to shut down. That was then. Now we, in bipartisan agreement, have lots of not budgeted money to spend arming Syrian rebels who are rebelling against the Syrian government rather than IS.

      • Jim Bean

        In their heads, that never happened.

      • oldiugymnast

        Strayaway – that is patently false. Period. You are a liar. That bill had massive revenue cuts – not some “modest compromise.” It also moved the cuts from across all discretionary spending to only a handful of programs. Do Republicans have mothers? Did their mothers not teach them not to lie?

        Jim – Were you an honest broker and someone interested in productive dialogue you would have mentioned the over 400 judicial, cabinet and administrative nominees that have been stalled – most of which have withdrawn from consideration due to parliamentary tactics by Senate Republicans. You would have further mentioned the over 300 bills that the Senate has passed that have not been considered by the House due to the Speaker not bringing them to the floor.

        Instead, you complain about 55 bills – none of which will create a single job, most of which cut taxes on people who pay taxes with income that has zero marginal utility, and all of which are industry give-aways – that were stalled by Ried in retaliation. As has been proven time and time again you are a liar and a paid troll.

      • Jim Bean

        I you were an honest broker, would you have mentioned that the tax to cuts ratio compromise was still 40 to 1 despite your argument?

        No amount of surfing produces any hint of evidence supporting your ‘300 bills blocked by the house’ claim.

      • oldiugymnast

        Not in any reality – The tax cuts were about 150B and the sequester was $185B. That is just under 1 to 1. And it isn’t just the rates that matter, it is the distribution of taxes.

      • strayaway

        My understanding of the revised House budget bill was that it was a very watered down version of the first House budget bill. In the first budget bill, House Republicans exceeded allowed sequester spending in repeal of the (un)ACA. Of course, Senate Democrats wanted no part of that. House Republicans then passed a compromise budget bill still exceeding sequester allowed spending that contained just two provisions regarding the (un)ACA instead of trying to kill it. It would postpone employer mandates for one year and repeal the new 2.3% tax on medical equipment that would be passed on to consumers. Senate Democrats did not respond with a counter offer and sat on the House bill until time ran out and thereby shut down parts of the government. Later after Republicans rolled over and gave Democrats everything they wanted including an end to the sequester, President Obama went ahead and delayed employer mandates. Democrats didn’t complain to his action; the same action they refused to negotiate with Republicans. The possible good thing that came out of this is that if the sequester law could be so easily overturned, then there is nothing sacred about preserving the (un)ACA either.

        Sorry that you find it necessary to resort to name calling in the absence of being able to make your point. If I made a mistake it was in saying the Democrats were given all the money they wanted. That would be impossible.

      • oldiugymnast

        I shouldn’t have called you a liar – that wasn’t fair. Your response here sounds EXACTLY like what you would have heard on Fox or AM radio – it just isn’t accurate. The bill that the House passed that was supposed to be a compromise was essentially Paul Ryan’s plan, which put all of the cuts into a narrow band of social services that frankly only help very poor women with small children. The bill was unconscionably cruel, would have sent us directly back into recession (the sequester very nearly did) and would have done nothing to improve our economy. Furthermore, it cut taxes on estates, certain capital gains that only very, very wealthy people can take, and on corporations.

        I shouldn’t have blamed you. I shouldn’t blame Jim Bean either. You are being sold a scam. Actually, you are being sold a number of scams. How many ads on the radio and TV programs you listen to are marketing silver as an anti-biotic (a stretch at best), water filters, freeze dried food, vitamins, network marketing schemes and gold coins and paper? The people you are getting your information from literally believe you are a rube. I feel bad for you – because they sound credible, and they are confirming biases you probably got from your dad. But that being said, you should check your assumptions, read the fine print and go to other sources that DON’T confirm your biases and compare their claims. It will be really hard for you, because you are going to learn that Mencken was right that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American, and that Twain was right when he said that it was harder to convince a man he had been fooled than to fool him in the first place.

      • strayaway

        There were so called Ryan budget bills passed in the House on April 15, 2011 an on April 10, 2014 but they have nothing to do with the government shutdown of October 1-16, 2013 which I referenced. Note that President Harding brought unemployment down from over 11% to 3.6% in two years by cutting federal spending which would have been impossible according to the Gospel of St. Keynes. Oh, and I hardly ever see Fox because I hardly ever watch television. Your credibility as a progressive poster is on hold until you can put “Fox”, “Koch”, and “because he’s black” into one sentence.

      • oldiugymnast

        Okay – first of all, the October 15th, 2013 bill passed by the House is almost identical to the bill passed April 15, 2011 Bill. In every substantive way, it was the same bill.

        Next – on the “Gospel of St. Keynes” – oh holy apples to oranges. First off, the UI rate according to the best source (Romer) went up to 8.7 and declined to 4.5 under Harding. But more importantly, the causes and responses in 1919-1923 were different in vital ways. The first – and most important – was that there was never a liquidity trap. The interest rate in 1919 was 6% and it was raised to 7% by the Fed. This, naturally, caused deflation after the end of WWI and the pulling back of military spending. What Harding did – and this is consistent with Keynes by the way – was to first convince the Fed to lower the interest rate to 4.5% which they did at the end of 1920, and second to modestly increase spending starting with funding the construction of the Lincoln Highway through Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa. This did the trick, as the models proposed by Keynes show it would. Now, however, we are in a liquidity trap. What this means is that cash and bonds are a perfect substitute because as of this morning the 5 year TIPS was at 0.1% and anytime TIPS is near or at zero, it makes no sense to buy bonds unless you desire a great deal of safety. You may as well hold onto cash. What the liquidity trap means is that the Fed using conventional and unconventional ways to increase the money supply will do little to increase GDP, but will support asset prices in the face of deflationary pressures. And as Keynes (and the post-Keynesian Macro folks outside of University of Chicago) will/would have told you, this leaves direct fiscal intervention as the only policy tool.

        Look – this is pretty simple to understand. Everyone’s income is sustained by everyone’s spending – therefore, if everyone stops spending and starts saving at the same time, there will be deflation and high unemployment because many people will lose jobs and those that do will start selling stuff to get by – and lots of people selling stuff in an emergency leads to fire sales which causes asset prices to crash. Increasing the money supply doesn’t help because there are no businesses that need to expand or to hire because demand is low. To fix this, some big player, say 20% plus of GDP, needs to start spending. In the U.S. that is the Federal Government. Instead, we shrunk government spending and growth in government spending which has resulted in stagnation. Not hard to figure out if you think about it. But you guys don’t think. You reflexively respond to your moral instincts without figuring out that the guys that did this are not getting punished and that people that did nothing wrong are – and further not figuring out that this is a special and rare circumstance that happened in the 30’s world wide, Japan in the 1990s and in the US right now.

        And to help you out, most radical conservative Tea Party types hate Obama because either David Koch told them to through his various shell organizations or because they heard it from Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al and are unwilling or unable to critically think things through. Do I get my cred back? Also, I strongly disavow the previous statement where I overly generalized the motivations of radical conservatives.

      • strayaway

        You manage to complicate things so. Hoover/Roosevelt and Bush/Obama turned on government spending as evidenced by Roosevelt’s debt and dollar devaluation and Bush/Obama’s racking up $12T of debt. The problem is that someone has to pay for the good time spending even if its a curse put on our kids. If cutting interest to 4.5% was Harding’s ticket, then the even lower rates today should have produced an even better economy today. I do appreciate all the hydro-electic projects Roosevelt constructed though. They have paid for themselves many times over. Too bad some contemporary Democrats are tearing out some of those dams for upscale fishermen. Obama tried to spend on infrastructure but one of the problems he ran into was that women’s groups complained that infrastructure jobs were too male. So the ‘stimulus’ we got largely went to support teachers and other unionized government workers who didn’t do infrastructure. One chance and he blew it.

      • oldiugymnast

        If that kindergarten explanation was too complicated then I am amazed you are able to get through day to day life.

        Okay – First off – Roosevelt devalued the dollar? Based on what metric? This simply is made up BS. Inflation was less than GDP growth from 1934-1963. You cannot devalue the dollar if this is the case. And we had double digit growth from 33-37 and then again from 38-46, followed by a very short recession in 47. You are ignoring the emergence of the US as an industrial powerhouse and super power after the war and the fact that all of the Roosevelt debt was paid off by 1965.

        Second, how do you figure that if interest rates were cut from 7% while the country was retooling for domestic production after a war to 4.5% it is in anyway a similar situation to the one we face today – where interest rates were at 2.5% when the crash started and were well below zero for all of 2010?

        I have never heard a single complaint from a union or a teacher or a woman about the stimulus spending on infrastructure being too male. The fact is the stimulus was too small. It is an easy calculus. What is potential GDP, what is nominal GDP – subtract the second from the first and you get how much needs to be spent over 4 years to end a liquidity trap.

        And the dams? Really? You think killing our fisheries is a good idea? Are you aware of how much the CA salmon and steelhead fisheries have crashed since WWII? And there have only been a few dams torn out, mostly because they were silted full and causing other problems (see Carmel River) – not for fisheries. Most of the Pacific Northwest dams are still producing power, storing water and have had fish ladders installed thereby solving all the problems.

        Lastly, the debt in no way puts a curse on our kids UNLESS we continue to not achieve potential GDP. As long as the GDP grows faster than debt and debt service, there is no reason to expect it to hurt our kids. In fact, the cuts to spending, lack of education investment and lack of infrastructure investment a much bigger drag on our children’s economy than debt. Sorry – you simply don’t know what you are talking about. And again – it isn’t your fault. You are are being conned by a bunch of con men who are trying to get all the rubes into one place for easy picking.

      • strayaway

        re: First Off: Executive Order 6102 is a United States presidential executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation. Once turned in to the government, The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 changed the value of gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. Then the government took the gold it had bought for $35/ounce and paid off its debt with money backed with $20.67/ounce allowing the printing of money to pay bills.. The dollar became worth 1/3 less in international exchanges so it bought 1/3 less. What’s the 1934-1963 number got to do with anything? part of that double digit growth you mention was from spending those printed dollars. Too bad it did’t fix unemployment. The war helped though. We had the only factoryies left standing after the war resulting in huge demands for US products that paid off the debt.

        The retooling line is BS. We retooled after WWII too. Besides, making tools creates work too. That’s what tool and die makers do.

        Re Second: the lower the interest rate, the more business is stimulates or so goes the theory. Today’s interest rates are so low the economy should be super-charged now. It isn’t. I don’t have en explanation. Maybe that’s an indication that the economy is unsound.

        Re Male jobs: Try NY times article, “Where Are the New Jobs for Women?”12/09/08
        Economist Hayek made the point that when the planners plans fail, they always claim it would have worked if only they spent more money. Fail.

        The dams are already there. Norway has much more hydro-electic power and superb fisheries. Yu are being a luddite. Hydro plants have to be replaced these days with fracked gas if that’s the alternative you are pushing. From what I read, its ecologists and native Americans pushing for dam removal. Canada, by the way, subsidizes new hydro construction as green energy.

        Divide 314M Americans into the $12T debt Bush and Obama got us into. That’s what the average American owes for the policies of these twin fools. I don’t think the economy has kept up with that. In fact the average American’s income has declined under Obama. Debt up hugely, income down slightly should be called the “bad deal”.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        And let’s see, whose party was it that said as soon as Obama was elected that their main goal was to make sure that he was a one term president. After he was re-elected it became quite clear that Boehner and his cronies were going to make it impossible for our president to succeed at anything he attempted. And they didn’t care one bit if it hurt our country in the process. How you can call any of those people patriots of our country I can’t even imagine. You, sir, are a phony. This is in response to Jim Bean or whatever his name is—-not to oldiugymnast.

    • Charlie Spaulding

      Care to count how many are on BONER’S desk. How many jobs bills he has blocked or refused a vote on?

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t know how many are on Boehner’s desk. Evidently not enough to generate enough conversation about it to track it down, because I tried.

        For the sake of argument, lets say its 88. I would fault the Pubs for not offering to vote on one bill for each 4 bills Reid allows a vote on. But we both know Reid would not agree, so how can I fault them?

        As for the Dem’s jobs bills, I’ve looked at them. They are all tax revenue consuming jobs that they want to create. Taking a dollar from Joe’s pocket to put in Jacks does nothing to grow GDP and the nations prosperity in general can only grow if GDP grows. Rearranging existing GDP is a zero sum adventure. ALL GDP growth comes from the private sector. Dems doesn’t know it exists beyond their incestuous relationship with unions and the campaign contributions they siphon from them.

      • oldiugymnast

        You didn’t try that hard. Its right there in the record – you just need to go see how many Senate bills have not been up for a vote. My count is 413 since 2010 – but it is a lot to wade through. Also, almost all of your 352 “bills” were amendments.

      • Jim Bean

        You wrote: “you just need to go see how many Senate bills have not been up for a vote. My count is 413 since 2010”

        Don’t look now but Harry Reid (Democrat) is ‘Senate’ majority leader. He’s the one blocking those votes. Boehner is Speaker of the ‘House.’ The House and Senate are not the same thing.

      • JimNauseam

        Well, saying there are 300+ bills on “Harry Reid’s desk” is simplistic and untrue. Most bills from the House go to various Senate committees for review, and that can take a long time. Either that or the Senate is working on it’s own version of the legislations, and that too takes time. What we do know is Boehner won’t let bills come to a vote, even though they passed both houses — the minimum wage bill and immigration reform are two examples. Insiders say the votes are there, and it would take a simple majority, but that could be perceived as giving President Obama a victory — and that runs contrary to GOP policy, which is, obstruct, defeat and destroy anything the President wants, no matter what it is or how clearly beneficial it would be to the average citizen. That’s not governance, it’s a temper tantrum.

      • Jim Bean

        How does Boehner refuse let a bill that has already passed both houses come to a vote?

      • JimNauseam

        Bills that pass the House go to the Senate, and when it passes the Senate it goes back to the House for a final vote. As Speaker he gets to decide what’s on the calendar, and he won’t let those bills come to the floor for an up-or-down vote. You answered your own question.

    • Nemisis

      G’Morning Jim, I hope you are well today.
      ( a new thing I’m starting and I hope it catches on.)

      I want to reply to all of your item list, yet lack completed research for some of them so I omit points only because they require a greater depth of inquiry.

      Point 1. 352 that is staggering, and will by volume require more time. I tend to read the bills completely so there will need to be more time.

      Point 2. Your contention is inaccurate there have been a plethora of bills introduced by the DEMs that are aimed at economic recovery to one degree or another. So has the GOP.
      Since your contention and my counter rely on perspective, the point can not be argued without first establishing rules of observation.
      Further reference to Item 1 is not evidence to support as you allude that any bills pertaining to economic recovery are delayed at the senate. Yet H.R. 803 (now Pub.L. 113-128) is a prime example of a bill being passed that is directly related to economic recovery and entirely a GOP sponsored bill. Evidence for it not being tied up by Dem H. Reid. Another bill is H.R.5021 (now Pub.L. 113-159) also via GOP sponsorship. This bill indirectly influences the economy by improving the transportation system. IE Better roads reduce cost of vehicle maint. which lowers overall costs of operating them.
      Not DEM bill again. My point is to counter the claim that Reid is blocking bills that are economic boosters due to political positions.

      Point 3. This relies directly on historical events compared to current events. Spans 14 years, 2 administrations, opinion, international treaties, global influence and conjecture.
      Trimmed down to just the facts working regressively through the time line.

      President Obama:

      Iraq is destabilized.
      Iraq’s national forces through corruption or plain cowardice surrender with minimal fighting. (not always)
      Iraq is invaded from Syria by ISIL.
      ISIL makes it presence known.
      Congress and media inspired public opinion prevent intervention in Syria.
      Assad asshats his own people.
      The US withdraws from Iraq complying with SOFA.
      Iraq is more stable.

      President Bush:
      The US signs SOFA which details the exact date of troop removal from Iraq.
      The US “Surges” (fancy name for reinforcements, because surge sounds better and reinforce implies a weakend position.
      The Iraqi’s establish a sort of democracy .
      The US invades Iraq.

      President Obama never promised he would unify the country.
      “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America.
      There is a United States of America.”
      “We are not a collection of red states and blue states.
      We are the United States of America.”
      There are no promises there. He is directly stating that he wants both sides to be as one. That is not a promise.
      In light of Point 2, the evidence that he is willing to work with congress when congress actually does something contrasts your statement of broken promises.

      Point 4: In a broad sense yes. Let’s look at the last 3 presidents.
      (President is implied, no disrespect is intended.)
      Clinton passes a budget surplus to Bush.
      Clinton’s 1st term began with a economic recession.
      Clinton’s 2nd term ended with a economic growth.
      Bush’s 1st term began with economic growth and ended with the beginnings of economic recession.
      Bush’s 2nd term began with economic recession and ended with economic collapse.
      Obama’s first term began with economic collapse and ended with economic growth.
      Obama’s 2nd term began with economic growth and is still growing.

      The pattern cycles backwards through the presidencies with similar results. This also indicates that the success or failures of economic policy are not based on prior success or failure. (Bush’s continued recessive policies, Obama’s continued growth policies.)
      An interesting side note to this is that economic success or failure correlates directly with the regulation or deregulation of the banking industry.

      Point 5. Big oil is indeed a corner stone, placed there directly by itself. and smashing it prematurely would directly lead to a replacement. Painful to at first, but not unbearable. To be sure the demise of the oil industry is inevitable seeking transition energy is a must while simultaneously seeking big oil’s replacement.
      Also, it should be regulated to prevent the price fixing that is currently happening. Fact: More domestic drilling is occurring under Obama than Bush or Reagan.
      According to the SOFA agreement Bush signed with a sovereign power Obama had no choice to but to leave Iraq. Again with the anti-choice, first women then Iraq?

      Point 6. What?

      Point 7. People stopped talking about BK because, like the other companies, nothing can be done other than stop eating at BK.
      It is a done deal. Corporate greed is the driving force behind tax evasion. Tax inversion is merely a tool to increase profit by relocation in order to evade tax debt, evade manufacturing regulation and standards, and evade employment law. Tax inversion is also a misnomer in that inversion means to reverse. Companies are not reversing tax debt. They are avoiding which is evasion. Let’s call it what it is. Greed at the expense of the consumer and ultimately America as a whole. If Buffet could move his railroad I’m sure he would. His darling status is imagined in that he does not always support the actions of corporate greed.
      Quinn’s Law: Replace liberal with conservative and you have an equally strong argument.
      (law #5) “When conservatism conflicts with reality, reality must give way.” (I did the switch for you.)

      This was fun. Good day sir.

      • Jim Bean

        #2. You must deduct all Dem bills that merely redistribute existing GDP. Only DGP growth equal equals economic improvement/ recovery.

        Better infrastructure creates GDP growth only in the event that existing infrastructure is impeding it. Its not.

        Better roads reduce vehicle maintenance to a miniscule extent and reduced vehicle maintenance means fewer vehicle maintenance men needed. Zero sum.

        #3. You left out that the Clinton economy prospered from the development of a housing bubble that should have never been allowed to inflate and that Bush suffered the catastrophe of its bursting.

        #5. Your ‘fact’ is fallacious because it implies that Obama has done more to boost oil production than Bush. See factcheckdotorg ‘Obama’s drilling denials’. All increases in US oil production occurred despite Obama, not because of him. All credit for the increased contribution to GDP goes to the oil companies. (I do agree with stopping the price fixing, however.)

        #7 No they didn’t. They were screaming at the top of their lungs until the Buffett connection became public knowledge. Then they clammed up instantly.

        Everyone who has money in a diversified 401k portfolio is part of a corporation. And yes, our money is there because we selfishly want it to grow. We didn’t put it there because we wanted to give it to the government. We already have, or will be, paying plenty of taxes on that money. If the fund manager can find away to keep us from paying even more taxes, I’m all for it. If the Left wants us to invest more of our money in their causes, then show us there something measurable in it for us.

        Call us greedy, call us whatever you want.

      • oldiugymnast

        #2 – why? And which bills do this? If the spoils of the GDP go to people who most of their income has zero marginal utility and they are likely to save or waste said money (see the $27M Ferrari Spider of which there are over 100), that money will not re-enter the economy effectively removing any multipliers. This makes now sense.

        How is it true that current infrastructure, suffering from a 3 decade lack of maintenance, NOT hindering GDP growth. You clearly haven’t seen the state of roads, rail, bridges – and more importantly broadband – throughout the USA. This is simply not true and poorly reasoned.

        Better roads also reduce time in transit which in turn increases demands for labor. Again – makes no sense.

        #3 There is exactly no evidence that there was a housing bubble during the Clinton administration. The rate of housing inflation mirrored the economic inflation except for those places in which state and local policy artificially limited supply (see California and New York). Again – contrary to evidence and lacking foundation. And you guys want to blame Carter for the Vockler/Reagan recession caused entirely by monetary policy, but then want to blame Clinton for a crash that happened after Bush had been President for 7 years and 9 months. The inconsistency is boggling.

        #5 – again, not exactly factually true. Most of the increases in domestic supply occurred due to new technologies, but it isn’t like Obama got in the way.

        #7 Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Nobody clammed up. You manufactured that out of whole cloth.

        Your taxes have been low for a long time – and if you are a member of the middle class, you got a raw deal because the services that were lost or reduced far exceeded the value of your tax cut. There is tons of evidence that a strong education system, a strong infrastructure system and a strong safety net results in increased production and social welfare – what more do you need? And furthermore, why are you ignoring the evidence that exists?

      • Jim Bean

        #2. When its given to teachers and bridge painters, it enters the Chinese economy and is lost to ours forever. The current state of infrastructure is not a measurable obstacle to commerce, plain and simple. That doesn’t mean it might not some day, but not today. (We need to figure out how to sell bridges to China in exchange for cash to meet the payroll for the guys maintaining them.)

        #3 . YOU’RE in a bubble. Google Housing Bubble Burst.

        #5. Obama issued half as many drilling permits as did Bush. Obama DID get in the way, or at least tried to.

        #6. Google Burger King to Canada. Note how few hits you get for discussions dated after Aug 26 when Buffetts involvement became known.

        Education and infrastructure jobs tax money away from one person and gives it to another. They produce no new additional revenue and, therefore, no growth in GDP and, therefore, no additional prosperity. That IS the evidence. Furthermore, no institution has behaved more unethically than the higher education system where hundreds of thousands of young people are being sold useless educations in fields where there is no demand and left hundreds of thousands in debt.

      • oldiugymnast

        #2 Bullshit again. First of all, most of a middle class persons paycheck goes to transportation, housing, food and services – none of which are provided by China. And even still, those goods from china are sold by Americans who work hard in retail and get paid for selling those goods. Some 70% of a sale of a chinese product goes directly to an American based interest. Period.

        #3 Based on what? There was no evidence of a housing bubble during Clinton admin. It didn’t emerge until 2003-2005, depending on what part of the country you are in. And it was caused largely by Bush cutting funding to the people that regulated mortgage origination.

        #4 This is a meaningless metric.

        #6 First of all, this is better explained by the news cycle and the fact that Burger King backed down than by some conspiracy of the left to be loyal to someone who is hardly a left-leaning person. Second, I found 34 articles published after August 26th about this – mostly about how Burger King backed down. Inversion should be illegal – it was a tax consultant created loophole anyway.

        And on your last paragraph – again – bullshit. First of all, a dollar spent on a gold toilet or a $27M not very rare ferrari creates next to no new economic activity – and a dollar stuffed in a mattress creates zero. When a person’s marginal income has zero marginal utility the way the spend tends to be overtly wasteful and has very low if not negative multipliers. On the other hand, when a person buys a car, a washing machine, a refrigerator, dinner, pays rent etc. the dollars are spent multiple times and multiply the economic value – often in excess of $9 of economic activity per dollar spent. Marginal utility matters whether or not libertarians think it exists.

        Higher education has been unethical? Sorry – bullshit again. What actually happened is public higher education saw a 90% cut in state and federal funding and those costs were largely shifted to the middle class who instead of paying for it with current taxes are now paying for it with debt at a spread of 6.9%. The unconcionable behavior came from right-leaning politicians who gave the middle class a “bargain” by giving the $.50 in taxes back while taking away $10 in services.

      • Jim Bean

        #2. In other words, we have net loss of 30% of the selling price to our economy.

        #3. Wikipedia gives 2001-2005

        #6. BK and Tim Horton’s will merge together and create a new global company – headquartered in – wait for it – Canada.

        A dollar is never more than a dollar no matter how often it changes hands. You’re not making the distinction between stimulating economic ‘activity’ and stimulating economic ‘growth.’ You think the former always and automatically results in the latter. Nope. It doesn’t. If it did, everyone would run out and spend all their money knowing that very soon, it would be coming back and then some.
        As for public higher education, they sure have the money for the athletic programs though, don’t they?

      • oldiugymnast

        #2 – not true. Not at all true. That dollar that was spent on that teacher taught a kid or two vital things, was spent by that teacher for someone to make things or provide a service and was further spent on more things stimulating activity which is, whether you believe it or not, the definition of economic growth. You pass yourself off as some sort of expert and cannot understand the basics of macro or micro economics.

        #3 So what – Wikipedia is hardly an authority and is frequently edited by Americans For Prosperity with false information. Not a good source.

        #6 – True, but only partly. The US holdings of the BK corporation will be a subsidiary of the Canadian corporation and they will not use inversion as a tax avoidance strategy. Also, Canada has a higher effective corporate tax rate than the US.

        And you are a money multiplier denier to boot. Good to know. You don’t understand money or how currency circulation stimulates economic activity which is in fact economic growth. At this point I think you have proven that you are not educated enough to engage in an honest conversation about the economy since you confuse a tautology with evidence and deny a very basic and well-researched economic phenomena exists at all.

        Yes – they have money for sports. No, that isn’t a bad thing for people to be well rounded and to have multiple interests other than taking as much as they can as fast as they can. Student Athletes in the Big 10 make on average 14% more than their non athlete counterparts after college and tend to be in more responsible jobs – so given that employers like us old athletes, you might be a little confused about the value. Oh – and this in no way negates the obvious truth about how tax cutting republicans screwed the middle class by exchanging a tiny bit of tax cuts for huge service cuts.

      • Jim Bean

        ‘I DO understand how currency circulation stimulates economic activity. Take a dollar from your wallet right now and put it in your pocket and place all the other money in your wallet and lay it aside. Now take the dollar from your pocket and put back in your wallet. Now repeat that circulation exercise and tell many how total dollars you have when you’ve finished. Whether it goes back and forth between wallet and pocket or between people, its value remains constant.

      • oldiugymnast

        Thank you for proving me right. I never said that the value of a single dollar went up – I said that as it circulates it creates more than one dollar of value because each time it changes hands it compels a person to add value. Jesus you are dense Bean.

      • Jim Bean

        At the end of the exercise, how many dollars did you have? (You forgot to say)

      • oldiugymnast

        So you are dense and willfully stupid. I am talking about Macroeconomics. I have no idea why your small scale argument would have any bearing.

      • oldiugymnast

        For you – a simple explanation of the multiplier effect.

        In the economy, there is a circular flow of income and spending. Everything is connected. Money that is earned flows from one person to another, and most of it gets spent again – not just once, but many times. What this means is that small increases in spending from consumers, investment or the government lead to much larger increases in economic output. Economists use formulas to measure how much spending gets multiplied. To illustrate this, let’s take a look at a very simple economy, featuring these four familiar faces:

        Bob, the lawn service guy, who also does landscaping when his customers are interested

        Lydia, a neighbor who works on an assembly line in a car factory

        Frank, who is a farmer

        Davis, who recently moved into the neighborhood and works at the hardware store

        Lydia’s factory has a great year, and as a result, she earns an additional $1,000 of income. Lydia, very eager to satisfy her own needs and wants, spends $800 of it on new landscaping for her yard. Since Bob is in the landscaping business, that means Bob earns an additional $800. Since Bob also has needs and wants, he spends $600 of that $800 at Frank’s farm store. This money is additional income to Frank the farmer, and guess what he does with it? He goes and talks to Dave and spends most of it, let’s say $500, at the hardware store. As you can see, the initial $1,000 round of spending actually led to three more rounds of spending, with smaller amounts each time. In this case, $1,000 of spending from Lydia led to an increase in economic output of $1,000 + $800 + $600 + $500 = $2,900.

      • Jim Bean

        Lydia gives $800 to Bob leaving her with *$200*. Bob gives $600 to Frank leaving him with *$200* left. Frank gives $500 of it to Dave leaving him with $100 left and Dave has the remaining $500. So what do we have?

        Lydia has 200

        Bob has 200

        Frank has 100

        Dave has 500.

        $1,000 is all there is. Its just distributed differently. There IS NO multiplier effect. If there was, the country would be awash in money. You are counting money as being in two places at the same time.

        Now, lets say Lydia loans the whole thousand dollars, as an investment, to Bob who is in coal mining business . Bob spends all the entire $1000 to mine 10 tons of (previously valueless) coal. Then Bob sells that coal to China for $1250. Now he has his $1000 back PLUS $250 of NEW money. He can give Lydia her $1000 back plus $125 in capital gains/dividends and still have $125 left over for himself. The money realized a 25% rate of growth because something NEW and of value (coal) has been introduced into the chain

        For a dollar to grow to more than a dollar, something has to be done with it that produces something that has more than one dollar’s worth of market value.

      • oldiugymnast

        No Jackass – You are dead fucking wrong and dumber that a post. Lydia got a new landscaped yard with actual tangible value. The Bob purchased had tangible value and the supplier of the farm store will get a new purchase. Frank purchased hardware – of real tangible value – at the hardware store. And we can be certain that Dave spent his $500 on something else that had tangible value. Things other than stuff dug up out of the ground have tangible value. At each stage in this story new value is created. In fact, the value of the tangible assets created by this story is $1,900 in addition to original $1,000. In otherwords, the multiplier was 1.9. It is no different than your coal story. This is why we cannot have an honest, frank conversation about policy. You don’t even understand the most basic concepts of economics.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re nuts. The landscaper and guy at the hardware store didn’t pull those marketable materials/products out of their ass. They were already in their possession and already had a dollar value of their own that you never assigned any value to. Here’s how that works.

        Bill has $100. Dave has a hardware store and in it, an electric drill that HE paid $80 bucks for. (We now have $180 dollars worth of cash and assets involved). Bill wants an electric drill so he pays Dave $80 dollars for the one he has. Bill now has $20 dollars in cash and an asset valued at $80. Dave has $80 in cash.

        Bill now has $20 cash and $80 in assets ($100)

        Dave has $80 dollars in cash instead of an $80 drill.

        $100 + $80 = $180 dollars. That was the beginning balance.
        (Here’s how NEW money might come in. Lydia paid 800 for the landscape job and found when she sold the home, the landscape job made the home worth $1200 more than it would have been worth without it. Lydia’s $800 has produced $400 of NEW cash for her but nothing more for any of the others.)

        But you’re ‘multiplier’ concept is some fantastic voodoo. If that worked, a dollar becomes two dollars the first time its spent, those two become four when they’re spent, those four would become eight and so on until the dollar bills blanketing the earth blocked out all sunlight. 1 year, max)

      • oldiugymnast

        So you think that Dave is going to subsequently replace his stock? It isn’t that the dollar becomes two dollars, its that when it is spent multiple times it can become more than two dollars worth of economic activity. You don’t – obviously – understand the difference between economic wealth producing activity and the circulation of currency required to produce it. I never said the $1 bill magically becomes $2. What matters is that the dollar is spent in a way that keeps it circulating rather than in a way that results in a gold bar gathering dust in a basement (or a ferrari in a barn). This is why marginal utility matters. If you cant follow that thread – you are too stupid and willfully so to have a conversation with.

      • Jim Bean

        No, that isn’t when the dollar becomes two dollars. That is when Dave hands over his dollar to someone else in exchange for an article that the other guy has that is worth a dollar. Now, Dave has an article worth a dollar but not his dollar bill and the other guy has the dollar bill but not the article. No additional wealth is created no matter how many times this process repeats solely as a result of the process. Economic *activity* may increase but the total amount of wealth involved in that activity never does.

        Something else has to happen that effects the value of that dollar or that article. Like the sale of Lydia’s house resulting in a capital gains because of the landscaping or whoever it was that retrieved the coal having turned something not previously marketable into something that is.
        I will agree with you on the gold bar gathering dust, though. That benefits no one.

        Think about this some more when you aren’t so cranky.

      • oldiugymnast

        Once again – I didn’t say that the dollar became one dollar, but rather that as it circulates it induces people to add value that exceeds the dollar itself. When someone gets new landscaping it has immediate tangible value. When someone buys a hamburger, the person that cooked it added value. When a hardware store does all of the merchandising, assembling of similar products, providing advice on using products, and sells the product the hardware store adds value to what otherwise is a commodity. I have an MA in economics. I have thought about this a lot. You are very clearly wrong and very clearly willfully ignorant.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      Dear Mr. “Heavily Engaged in Current Affairs”—-where is the proof that you have of all of these comments you are making? Are we supposed to just sit back and believe what you say? I guess you are too “Heavily Engaged in Current Affairs” to take the time to verify what you are spouting.

      • Jim Bean

        No, you not supposed to sit back and wait. You’re supposed to effing already know these things. And before you challenge what someone says, you’re supposed to safeguard your dignity by researching the issue PRIOR to popping off.

    • James M. Barber

      Mentions iraq. Fails to mention what presidency the war started under. Completely fails to mention it was started on false pretense. What an fox bot.

    • Bruce Wayne

      Iraq- Iraq was a failure and still is a failure. We only succeeded at destabilizing a country that allowed terrorists to come in and take it over. This wasnt a problem when Sadam was running the show. Evil Dictator? Yes. But he kept the country in check. Those of us who are heavily involved in current affairs know that Obama had nothing do with pulling the troops out of Iraq, this was a plan called SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) which was signed by GWB. It called for all troops to be out of Iraq by Dec 16, 2011. The fact is we invaded Iraq because they had WMDs…. Ooops that was a lie, talk about who ended up on the wrong side of history?!?!?

      Obama is not the one who divided the country, its the conservatives that divided the country. When one side says that they refuse to pass anything that the president puts in front of them, thats pretty divisive. When the propaganda machine spews out non-sense, like Obama doesnt have a birth certificate and hes a terrorist and has terroist ties, and resorts to name calling, like Socialist, Fascist and Communist, these things tend to cause a divide in beliefs. And by the way, everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that the Bush family was very close with and had very close ties to the Bin Laden family. Regan, supported and gave arms to Bin Laden and Al Quida. And yet the conservative base wants to talk about Obama being a terrorist? What am I missing here.
      Its not that I dont like republicans, I just believe that, I, as a non-christian, should not have the law of my country dictated by the Christian bible. I believe that each individual has a right to marry who they so choose. I believe that everyone should be paid equally based on the job they do, not the color of their skin, gender or sexual orientation. I believe that there should be gun laws, not to take them away, but to make it harder for crazy people to get them. I believe that women have the right to do what they choose to their own body and that government should not interfere. I believe that you cant shout, small government when it comes to business regulations and guns, but scream big government when it comes to abortion, gay rights, freedom of religion. Pick a side and stay there. I believe that its not wrong for the wealthiest of the wealthy to stop just looking out for their individual rights, and help pick up the country we all live in to make it a better place. I dont want to take anyones money, I just think we should all pay our fair share. I believe that a wealthy CEO should pay more in taxes then his admin. I believe that corporations should pay taxes directly commensurate with their profits. Dont want to pay more taxes? Pay your employees more money which reduces the overall profits of the company. And they can then pay more taxes and everyone wins. I believe that we should be working on fixing the bridges, roads, and clean energy.

      • Jim Bean

        Those heavily engaged know that there were lengthy negotiations (Obama/Maliki) about changing the withdrawal deadlines and that it was Obama, against the advice of his most qualified advisors, who sabotaged those negotiations by refusing to leave enough troops there to satisfy what Maliki thought he needed.

        What you are missing in the second paragraph is all the divisive things Obama himself has done. He has blamed the Republican Party, the Tea Party, Fox News, anything not-Democrat for anything and everything. And he’s done it on national TV numerous times like he’s the leader of the Democratic Party alone rather than the leader of the entire governing body. And that just scratches the surface.

        I am pretty much aligned with everything said in your third paragraph.

    • Jillz

      “Liberals said Obama would unite us as a nation. Conservatives said he would divide us. Liberals landed on the wrong side of history.’

      Obama didn’t divide the nation. Conservative bigotry, obstruction and fear-mongering is dividing the nation. It started the day after Obama was elected with Mitch McConnell’s admission that, “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”.

      • Jim Bean

        That’s the same thing every losing party always says after the victor wins his first term. Have you ever heard either party say, “OK. We lost. Now lets do everything we can to make sure the guy who beat us beats us again in four years?”

  • TheEquilizer2U

    Funny, liberals parrot CNN and HuffPo, neither of them known for getting their facts right.
    I don’t see a difference

    • Brian Novotny

      No, we can think for ourselves, the lack of critical thinking skills, or any thinking whatsoever by a conservative is what they do. You have nothing besides Fox News, Limbaugh, and all the other right wing propaganda outlets seeing as you can’t think for yourselves.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You got it backwards
        CNN is a joke, they even admitted to getting many of their facts wrong.

        HuffPo is full of bloggers and opinion writers, not journalists
        but you liberals eat it up as if it were facts.

        This is why you get no respect, youre like children

      • Brian Novotny

        Your a moron, no one listens to CNN, I haven’t for decades, HuffPO is now AOL and we research because we are educated, unlike you conservative fools who are spoon fed bullshit propaganda from every news source in this nation, and your MSM is 90% owned by all right wing corporations pushing the same right wing agenda, including CNN and HuffPO idiot

      • Charlie Spaulding

        Fox gets 62% of their ‘facts’ wrong. CNN, 18%, and they admit it. Have you ever wondered why none of the Fox hate spewers have NEVER gotten an Emmy? It’s because they spew fear, hate, and other garbage, so that idiots like you can go through life as a scared bigot.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Give us your source, like you always ask us to.
        Disgusting hypocrite
        You liberals really are the bottom of the barrel.

      • Tim Anderson

        Yet, when “liberals” post information on consecutive months of positive jobs numbers and declining unemployment numbers…directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the same org. that Bush used and is nonpartisan, guys like you say the numbers are fixed. The real problem with conservatives today are that they can’t back up this fantasy Obama “failure” with facts. The facts are the stock market is up 10,000 points over the last six years and that wouldn’t be happening if the economy was still in bad shape like W left it in 2008. Total employment record from the W. Bush years was 138 million people with a job, guess where we are now? 139 million. When you find yourself desperately trying to spin the facts because they don’t line up with your version of the world…maybe you really need to do some real research and find out your entire conservative ideology is based in quicksand, not concrete.

      • tr60

        My Government TSP account was up over 30% for 2013. It made more money than I DID! If Obama’s a socialist, bring it on!

      • Avatar

        Good question; why are you here then?

      • GenerallyConfused

        You do know that the mark of a good journalist is to actually say you got something wrong, right?

      • Nancy B

        Well said. I am getting so sick of the rabid animosity.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        The nerve was you, just look at the reaction I got from you.
        You are so desperate to upset me and get me to stop posting.

        Because you are afraid of the truth.
        You don’t want anyone to know how ugly the left is.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Um. No, that was not my intent at all, but feel free to see it that way. I never said I was on the left or the right – I happen to see the value in both ways of thinking – there are good things to learn from either left or right, I see more in shades of gray than black and white when it comes to political rhetoric.

        The nerve was me? Wow. And here I was trying to be very cordial and rational. I don’t understand why you are saying I’m “afraid of the truth” when I never said anything false in my statement at all. You took one single line out of my entire reply to you and ran with it. Seems like you missed the whole point of my post – or ignored it, taking away only what you wanted and getting rather defensive in the process.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        And yet here you are defending the left and slamming the right.
        I think youre full of shiat

      • GenerallyConfused

        Umm.. where, exactly, do you see me defending anything except rational thought and respectful discourse?

        Last I checked, I hadn’t said one thing or another linking me to either party or political leaning. So, please, enlighten me with what you *think* I said.

        I find It interesting that you seem to want to goad me into exactly what I have said is wrong with both sides of the lines, yet I don’t think you seem to get that you are not going to get that reaction from me.

        I realized long ago that there is no such thing as an us and them anymore. It’s just us.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Every time you deflect

      • GenerallyConfused

        Aaahh, I see. So every time I answer your comments with actual, real decent speech, I am deflecting. And here I thought it actually having rational, well thought out conversation. Silly me. I like to think that having a polite, civil discourse is a cornerstone of our democracy..

    • Hunter Herr

      If the sources are wrong, please post corrected sources and proof that the originals were incorrect.

      Thank you.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        And where is your proof?
        Why is it that you liberals always demand proof from others but never offer any yourselves?

        Disgusting hypocrites and liars all of you.

      • Charlie Spaulding

        When we give proof, you ass-hats ALWAYS say that we got that proof from ‘liberal media’. You cannot be reasoned with, and it’s frankly easier to just let you continue to vomit your bull shit while we sit back and laugh at you.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Don’t even talk to me about reason

      • oldiugymnast

        I won’t – you clearly are not reasonable.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You don’t even know that that means.

      • Avatar

        You sounds so much like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (during his own radio show).

    • Nemisis

      Your assumption that CNN and Huffington Post are the only news outlets “liberals” get their news from is extremely narrow minded.
      Considering that there are at least 2 dozen sources I generally use and possibly hundreds more if you count the places I go for fact checking against the news sources I do follow show that there is indeed a difference. I am certain I am not the only “liberal” who does this.

      Your inability to see the difference is not a fault of anyone other than yourself. With Fox News one hardly need to delve very deep into our history or current events to find the mistakes, the lies or the information that Fox News does not want you to find because they did not do that research themselves or it would weaken their propaganda.

      One thing Fox News continues to rely on is the laziness of the viewer. Their need for the viewer to sit and just watch.
      Their target audience is people who are to old to remember, too young to have lived the history, too lazy to do research, or too willing to be led to the water cooler with “popular” talking-points spewing them as if they created the talking point so as to appear as if they should belong with the “In” crowd.

      Don’t go back and look at all the stories Fox has run at you.
      Start today, check their news against other sources.
      Then check those sources. You know that there are fox articles that you know are falsehoods. I can say this because your statement indicates that you believe it to be so, and your statement continues to support it by comparing fox falsehoods to two others and saying what amounts to, “They do it too so it must be okay.” It is never okay.

      Hell, when it comes right down to it don’t take my word for it.
      Think for yourself. Always do your own research.

      Never rely on any one source for information. To do so is folly.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Just as your assumption that all conservatives are religious and get their news from FOX.
        Do you see your hypocrisy yet?

      • Nemisis

        Not at all. Conservative is not the same as religious, agreed. There are a great many progressives and liberals who are religious and many conservatives that are not religious, however there are those conservatives that fain to be religious for personal gain, and not a few “liberals” either.

        That said foxnews was used as a illustrating point, not a determinative rule.

        Although, I am hard pressed to find a single conservative that does not utilize Foxnews as their sole source of information. I sure there are some out there that do not, and there may be some that never do.

        Have good evening.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        I disagree, it was clearly used to determine the substance of my comments.
        As do all of your liberals friends.

        It’s pretty much the same as calling me a redneck….lol
        Very immature.

      • Nemisis

        Had my comment been directed in it’s entirety to you I could agree. You have read way to far into the comment and come away with what you feel is a slight. Not my problem. You feel that rednecks are doing or are something that is unintelligent and have somehow worked that into an extrapolation of my sentiment.
        Congrats on being a self appointed redneck.
        There is nothing wrong with that. Respect your mom and Dad, respect the woman willing to be with you.
        Have fun, go nuts. Make poor health choices and drink beer. So what. Just don’t think that the defining moment of being a redneck is when you get to go to the voting booth and intentionally vote for someone you know will screw a dog for bone (metaphor), just because you wanna see what will happen, and then call yourself a patriot. ‘Cuz even us real rednecks will look at you and call you a dumb ass. Might even tell you to carry your toyota driving ass on.
        Redneck don’t mean stupid, and it sure as hell don’t mean we gotta vote republican.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        It’s one of the most common tactics of you liberals.
        The word redneck is tossed and used as an insult.
        The same for FOX news.

      • Nemisis

        I’m a redneck. What problems you have with rednecks is your own fault.

        I believe when I speak of most conservatives I refer to them as shortsighted. Is that a disparaging remark to the myopic people?

        An open mind, and a closed mouth lead to education, and understanding.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        That would be the liberals who have a problem with you….lol
        Try reading thru the comments again, youre confused.

      • Robert Kennedy

        Liberals have been compared to herding cats. There is no defining them because there is so much variance among them. It’s only conservatives who follow like sheep. Every one of them uses the same talking points 24/7/365, and almost without exception they are blatantly wrong.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        You liberals parrot everything the govt tells you.
        I don’t see a difference between the worship of govt or the worship of God.

        Govt is almost always wrong, in every field the private sector beats govt in cost and profit.
        The govt can’t run anything right, look at the US post office.

        But you liberals follow their every word anyway, and then turn around and bash on conservatives following the Bible.
        Liberalism is a mental disease.

      • EaDiot

        Sole source Foxnews? You are so far off base on that I have come across conservatives who quote The Blaze, True Patriot, Glenn Back and Dinesh Desouza’s documentary to name a few other sources. Please note I am being sarky.

      • Nemisis

        So what I said was ” I am hard pressed to find a single conservative that does not utilize Foxnews as their sole source…” That is not the same as saying it is their only source. As evidenced by my very next sentence , ” I sure there are some out there that do not, and there may be some that never do.”

        I’m not sure what sarky is, I’ll take you word that you do it sarky better than most.

        I was being snarky. Yet still.

        G’morning to you.

      • EaDiot

        Sarky… as in sarcastic hence the news outlets listed, with their sterling reputations for absolute crud.

      • Nemisis

        After reading my post I have determined that I am going to fire my speech to text editor.

        I could not possibly list all the news sources available to either side, just know that I don’t classify myself as either conservative or liberal. I’m more of a truth seeker and rely on no one source for information.

        Remember what RR said, “Trust Through Verification.”

      • Nemisis

        Just wait, they’ve broken out the polish for the upcoming elections.

        Here is a quote from an ad in my state.
        Your gop candidate is against allowing tax-payer funds to go pay for abortions, and is narrated by a women.

        Okay, all issues aside. That is wonderful except when you realize the statement is accurate only in that a person may be against something. However it is deceitful in that there are no tax-payer funded abortions as that is prevented by current law, and there is no bill trying to get it changed. Our official federal stance is pro-choice with favor to life.
        Meaning, the government won’t prevent it, but will not pay for it.
        The ad is clearly an attempt to discredit any DEM as being for allowing the government to pay for abortion. Additionally creditibilty for the statement is sought by having a femal voice in the narration making it seem that since a woman is reading the script it is not a republican male agenda trying to assert control over women’s health issues. This ad is not for a specific candidate, it is for a state bill seeking ratification.

        There are more like that.
        “Women only vote based on how good looking a candidate is.”
        “Women need to vote a certain way because of the promiscuity of other women.”

        It’s a sad attempt to un-alienate the ladies voting.
        Or as I told my wife, just another attempt by the gop to control women. Which is why they are in the trouble they are in now.

      • mosquito

        You write: “and is narrated by a women”. “Women” is plural, moron.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “Or as I told my wife, just another attempt by the gop to control women.”. That’s not a sentence, moron.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “creditibilty”, which is pronounced:

        cred – it – ib – il – ty.

        When did you make this word up, moron?

      • oldiugymnast

        Not something I have ever assumed – however Bean and others frequently quote right-wing radio and Fox, so what are we to assume is the source of their talking point of the day?

      • Nemisis

        I hope they don’t use Reuters. The editing is getting terrible.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        And you liberals quote Maddcow, how does that make you better?

      • oldiugymnast

        Ummm… Never seen that. Anyway, there is a fundamental difference between Maddow and Limbaugh. One uses verifiable facts to support opinions and the other makes shit up out of whole cloth to support their tautologies. So yeah – that would be better in every measurable way.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        There is NO difference between them.
        One fights for the left, and one fights for the right.

        Maddcow has been caught spreading BS and lies.
        There are websites full of here so called “facts”.
        You should give them a read.

    • Minnesota1994

      Just another FuxNewz lemming that only watches FuxNewz and thinks every other news outlet (Fox isn’t a news outlet by the way, its ALL Entertainment) is a Liberal one! LOL

      • TheEquilizer2U

        More ad hominem BS
        You liberals only get your news from leftist news sources like CNN or MSNBC

        Then claim you are more informed…LOL

    • Robert Kennedy

      CNN is Faux light and Huffpo is almost always correct. The ones who get it wrong almost every time is Faux. They lie 83% of the time and 10% of the time they spin, so only 8% of what Faux says is accurate.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        HuffPo is made of opinion writers and book writers, not journalists.
        The whole page is a liberal opinion peace that does a good job of drumming up drama, with little substance.
        You are so jealous of Fox news, that much is obvious.

  • PRIME79

    Indeed. Conservatives can answer everything but they cant explain anything.

    • Jason

      Republicans were founded as the anti-slavery party info to free blacks from slavery.

      Republican president Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

      what party passed the 13th 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution granting blacks freedom citizenship and the right to vote? Oh that was the Republican Party again.

      what party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes prohibiting racial discrimination? Republicans yet again.

      founding fathers of the NAACP? instituted affirmative action in 1969? The Republican party.

      which party passed the repressive Jim Crow laws and Black Codes? That was the Democrats.

      Which party rejected anti lynching laws as well as a permanent Civil Rights Commission? The Democrats.

      I could go on but I know that most of the troops on websites like these aren’t actually looking for real information, just drivel that supports their own views.

      Oh and by the way, I’m not a Republican either. And please correct me where I have my facts wrong.

      • gt6

        THAT republican party has not existed for 45 years. Hence your list of accomplishments stops there.
        In the SOUTH the party in control until the late 60s was the Democratic party. but politicians of both parties in the south were anti civil rights. Civil rights passed with more Democratic votes than Republican in favor. But when you take the southern states out of the picture, the difference is even clearer with Dems 100% in favor and GOPers onl 84% in the senate and 94% and 85% respectively in the house.
        The southern Democrats left the party over the next 10 years and that faction became the base of today’s republican party.

      • LMB

        You are correct on Republican verses Democrat here, but not Liberal verses Conservative. In the days of Lincoln and slavery, republicans were liberal and democrats were conservative. Over time, the left and the right switched parties, most notably in the late ‘6Os when Republican Nixon stated that a vote for his opponent Humphries was a vote for the black man. Southern conservatives ran to the polls to vote for Nixon after that and have been basically voting Republican ever since.

      • Robert Kennedy

        “what party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes prohibiting racial discrimination? Republicans yet again.”

        Another common right wing lie. Far more Democrats voted for it than Republicans and with, if memory serves, all but 2 or 3 Democrats outside the South voted against it. Many Republicans voted against it, and the Southern Democrats who voted against it and their followers all became Republicans and remain so to this day. Lyndon Johnson was warned that signing it would turn the South Republican for generations and he replied that he was aware of that, but that it was the right thing to do.

      • Jillz

        Wow, I’m not American and even I know that back then Republicans were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives. Have you heard about the Southern Strategy?

  • LMB

    I have a question I have been asking conservatives on public forums (this will be the forth time) and I have yet to receive an answer. FP, maybe you could ask it formally if no one responds here. Okay…
    One of the republican mantras for gun control is we don’t need more gun laws because criminals do not follow laws and will buy guns anyway. Why then, do we need more voter registration laws to prevent voter fraud, stricter guidelines for welfare to prevent welfare fraud, more restrictions on abortions and heavier action on the border to prevent illegal immigration? A criminal is a criminal right? So if they want to commit a crime in any of these categories, why bother putting more laws in place if they’ll just be broken.anyway? Or are gun laws the ONLY laws criminals don’t follow?

    • BrettC

      The answer is very simple: We don’t need, or want, new laws; enforce the existing ones. What part of “shall not be infringed”, do you not understand?

      • Dave Taylor

        What part of “well regulated Militia” do you not understand

      • Danny E. Coon

        A well regulated militia being
        necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to
        keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        What part of the right of
        “the right of the People to
        keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” do you not understand?

      • oldiugymnast

        Well, since I have read the anti-federalist papers and the federalist papers and since I know that the people refers to the states – and that the 2nd amendment clearly allows regulation – I don’t see what your point is.

        Nobody is suggesting that we round up all the guns.

      • All of those papers are totally irrelevant when it comes to the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment, as with the meaning of any law, is determined by the text of this amendment, not by what people said about it. In a court of law, they don’t ask what have people said about a law outside of the court, they ask what has been said about the law within the court.

      • Sparks Bill

        Because the “people” in question are defined as a “well regulated militia”. What part of that do you not understand??

      • Dave Taylor

        The part about a well regulated militia

      • You’re silly, Danny E. Coon. You cannot disengage the clause about “the right of the People” from the purpose of this right, which is to ensure a well regulated militia. This is precisely what you are attempting to do.

      • Danny E. Coon

        Why not you are forgetting that the people that made up the militia was made up of farmers, business owners and laborers. There was no Army and the people made up the defense of this nation. You are attempting to change the reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the most important of the Bill of Rights with out it all of the other rights can be taken. So no you are absolutely wrong!

      • mosquito

        You are quite illogical, Danny E. Coon. You have erected a straw man, thus committing one of the most basic of logical errors. I am not at all forgetting of what the militia was made. But it doesn’t matter of what the militia was made. The point is that the Second Amendment, by its very statement, was about ensuring a well regulated militia, no matter of whom it was made. That fact is unavoidable. You would have to have extremely poor reading comprehension to miss that fact about the Second Amendment.

        I am not at all attempting to change the reason for the Second Amendment. The reason is clearly stated in the text of the Second Amendment. Like I said, you would have to have extremely poor reading comprehension to miss that fact about the Second Amendment.

        You are very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions, another basic logical error. Since you make such assertions, it is clear that you are not intelligent enough to know that making such assertions is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and removed from any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations.

      • Danny E. Coon

        I can say the same about you. Are the Amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights for the people? The Supreme court has held that the Second Amendment extends to the individual rather than just the Militia! Since it is included in the Bill of Rights it further suggests that it is indeed the right of the individual. You too have taken a straw man position but the difference is that the Supreme Court has said it extends to the individual. That is what I base my position on. “The rights of the people shall not be infringed.” Not the rights of the militia.

      • LMB

        You didn’t answer the question; just stated you don’t want more laws.

        The overall right shall not be infringed, but as the other poster pointed out, regulations are perfectly acceptable. The current laws are enforced, but they are not enough. 30,000+ Americans are still killed each year due to gun violence. Compare our statistics to other countries with stict laws; they have extremely low gun violence.

        And if simply enforcing the current laws as they stand, will lower gun violence, why will just enforcing the previous laws on voter registration, welfare, immigration and abortions not work? Why do they NEED new laws, but guns dont? We do not want more laws in those areas. Why do you get all YOUR laws, but we are not allowed to have ours?

      • Beth

        Republicans never answer that question. They can’t; as they know they don’t have a good answer. My favorite question to ask them on this subject is where do they think these criminals are getting their “illegal” guns, from a gang-banger gun fairy? They just don’t get it; and they don’t care. They don’t care about the good of society, only their individual rights. That is what makes them a republican.

      • LMB

        I can see that. They keep referring to other things and dancing around the question. No direct answer yet.

      • Danny E. Coon

        Have you ever heard of theft, burglary and Fast and Furious? Criminals buy guns from people who sell to people who can’t obtain one legally these guns may be stolen or bought by someone who can legally buy one and resold to another who can legally buy and sold to the unscrupulous. Oh and also Gun Fairies!

      • LMB

        Duh! Which is why the NZ plan works. If all guns are required to be locked up, they can’t be stolen. If you have to buy/sell all guns through a licensed dealer, all purchasers will be properly screened before purchase.

        Bad guys do purchase guns legally too as I pointed out when addressing Chicago. They go to states with relaxed gun laws (proving strict laws prevent them from purchasing locally), which is why we need tougher laws for every state.

      • mosquito

        All of them are just one Republican? How does that work?

      • Jason

        How do you explain Switzerland then? You aren’t looking to change your mind. You see what you want to see. We have a societal issue with violence, not with guns.

      • LMB

        We DO have a societal problem with gun violence. I never said we didn’t. So, shouldn’t we, being full aware of this fact, put stricter laws in place to reduce the number of guns and restrict the type of people that can buy guns?

        I am a realistic and flexible person, if you will answer my originsl question and can show me unequivocally that more gun laws will NOT keep criminals from getting guns and will NOT reduce gun violence, then i will gladly take your side on the issue.

      • Jason

        We should just make heroin and cocaine illegal as well and we wont have a drug problem, right?

        At the risk of sounding cliche, guns don’t kill people-people kill people and forks don’t make people fat.

        More strict gun laws just make more people criminals and do nothing for crime prevention. Teaching people to respect each other not because they have to but because it is the right thing to do is more outcome objective than more gun laws.

      • LMB

        I never said anything about making guns illegal. Should we then legalize drugs too since people will do them anyway? Less people in jail, fewer tax dollars housing them right? How do stricter gun laws create more criminals?? Why don’t stricter voter laws create more voter fraud? I have researched this a lot and when you compare countries with very strict laws, they have very low gun crime. Most police officers in these countries don’t even carry guns because they are so safe. The states with strictest gun laws have lower crime than those with the loosest. And yes Chicago has a high gun violence rate, but the guns confiscated there typically come from states that border Illinois whose laws are lax. Which kinda proves that they DO work as criminals have to go out of state to purchase their weapons. Isolating a city is kinda hard, so overhaul for the countryis needed.

      • Jason

        Actually, we should decriminalize drug use and possession since you asked. Countries that do this realize drug use actually decreases. Look it up. On one hand you say you don’t want to make guns illegal but then on the other you talk about strict gun laws. What type of laws are you talking about exactly that would not make guns illegal and have a positive affect?

      • oldiugymnast

        On this I agree.

        And nobody said we wanted to make guns illegal – we want to limit access and require that people that own guns have insurance and have safety training. Not the same thing.

      • LMB

        I actually am aware of the positive effects of drug decriminalization. I believe doing so here would actually beneficial, especially when it comes to our issues with Mexico. Take away their drug market, drug smugglers go away.

        I’m glad you asked. When I think of ideal gun control, I think of New Zealand. In 1990, a mental patient went on a shooting rampage at a mall killing and injuring about 30 people. The government sat down and organized new, stricter laws and they have not had another incident since and only about 11people per year are killed by guns. The ppopulation is about 4.4 million. I can’t remember everything, but here is what I do know:
        You have to be a member of their gun club and shoot and handle firearms there for 6 months before you get a gun license.
        You are interviewed in your home and two close friends are interviewed separately to confirm your sanity and responsibility and that your reason for owning a gun is for sport shooting and/or hunting only.
        You have to pass written and shooting test proving you can handle and care for a gun properly.
        All guns must be kept in locked safes in your home.
        All guns in transit must be kept in locked boxes in your vehicle.
        Assault weapons/high capacity guns are banned.
        People with criminal records or who are mentally unstable can not purchase a gun.
        You can only buy/sell guns through a licensed dealer.
        If your gun is stolen or if you break any of these laws, you never own a gun again. Period.

        We have a big mess here when it comes to guns and it would take a lot of work to clean it up, but NZ proves that it can be done and that responsible gun ownership makes for a safer society. Police officers do not where guns there.

      • LMB

        If all these same laws were enacted, once they were fully in place, calculating the 11 deaths each year per 4.4 million people, our gun death rate would be about 750 people per year for our population of 300 million people versus its current 30,000 per year. That’s an insane difference!

      • gt6

        Countries that have legalized drugs have found that use does NOT go up, but other problems associated with drugs drop dramatically, so yes.

      • Jason

        Someone who finally knows what they are talking about!

      • Robert Kennedy

        People WWITH guns kill people. A gun may accidentally fall and go off sometime, but in 99.99999% of the time guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And the gun is the weapon of choice for the coward.

      • Jason

        We don’t have a requirement to show id to vote. If someone provides an ID, it won’t stop all voter fraud because we can’t account for everything but it would sure be a good idea that is outcome oriented rather than just passing legislation.

      • Orhan Orgun

        Umm, Switzerland has extremely stringent gun regulation.

      • Jason

        Switzerland has very comparable gun regulations to the United States and have very high rates of gun ownership per capita with significantly less gun violence than the US.

      • Robert Kennedy

        Men in Switzerland between the ages of 18 and 60 are required to be armed as part of their National defense. Switzerland is also a wing nut paradise. I used to have a friend who was Swiss and he came here to escape the stupidity. I tried to tell him he made a poor choice if that was his intent.

      • Try again LMB

        “Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward.Whoever cannot take care of themselves without that law is both.”

        If you can’t manage to figure out why adding more laws and regulations to the already existing ones that cover pretty much every facet of crime anyway, then you need to actually read what some of these regulations “add” to a law. And if you can’t manage a way to reduce crime without trampling on the rights of the people of the nation then it just simply won’t happen. Telling everyone that now’s a good time to disarm our people is ludicrous considering the flagrant abuses of power seen EVERY DAY exhibited by people in police uniforms. You can live your sheeple life as you choose, but you also want to leave the rest of us defenseless against the maniacs in power? Educate yourself, you won’t want to be gun-less when goons in uniform decide they need you to produce revenue for the private prison system. Cheers.

      • LMB

        Why do you feel the need to be constantly armed? Are you afraid of a cop shooting you or getting mixed up in a bar fight? Or are you looking to be a vigilanty and save the day? I think cops are trigger happy, because too many loons are walking around with their guns so cops shoot to protect themselves if they think someone might shoot at them. Reduce the number of guns, reduce gun violence, cops feel less threatened they are less prown to shoot. How is requiring guns to be secured infringing on your rights? You still own the gun. You can still shoot it. Is waving it around part of the second amendment?

        Obviously the laws we have now aren’t working because gun violence is very high here when compared to other nations. Why can’t we rework the laws to reduce gun crime, but we can rework the laws to prevent voter fraud, welfare fraud and illegal immigration?

        P.S. I am not a sheeple. I do independent resresearch of pretty much every topic I want to discuss.

      • oldiugymnast

        Which laws are not being enforced the way you think they should be. Why. Be specific.

      • LMB

        Yes! Specifity is what I’m looking for, but I’m not getting anywhere close to it!

      • Jason

        Wait periods at gun shows is a good example. People selling firearms on Craigslist or online without an ffl or paper work is another. Not using an FFL means that criminals can buy firearms. Enforcing that would cut down, not eliminate, firearms in the wrong hands.

        Rather than me telling you why the laws we have are enough, can you suggest a law that would reduce violence without taking arms out of the hands of law abiding citizens?

      • oldiugymnast

        Well, first off, if you get caught selling a firearm without an FFL on craigslist, you get charged with a felony. But is your expectation that we staff our police departments with enough admin staff to sift through craigs each and every day? Good – I agree! But the fact is that almost all firearms used in crimes are sold legally – many assembled from parts.

        I never once said the laws we have are sufficient. They are weaker than they were 15 years ago. I don’t think military style firearms designed to be toys should be legal to sell – guns aren’t toys and I am a little disturbed at all you paranoids and your prepper AR-15s. You are the people who maraud in an emergency. You are the people who are willing to take by forced. Save me the “its for protection” – you and I both know that AR-15s aren’t good defensive weapons. I don’t think high capacity magazines should be legal to sell. I don’t think guns that you can make full auto buy purchasing one part should be legal. I don’t think our existing laws allow for law enforcement to check mental health as well as they should be allowed to. I don’t think cheapo saturday night specials should be legal to sell. I don’t think that people who stalk their exes should have access to weapons. In many cases, violence is due to lack of resources in a community – I support getting resources to those communities. Note – all of these solutions involve new firearm purchases.

        Oh – and nobody I have ever seen or heard has said that firearms should be taken away from law abiding citizens. So congratulations on destroying that straw me.

      • Jason

        Mental health laws keep people from seeking help. It’s a fact. I knew too many fellow marines that didn’t seek help because they were afraid they would lose their right to bear arms.

        Regarding, warps that can be converted to full auto by purchasing a single part: it isn’t something you purchase. You can turn ANY semi auto into a full auto by modifying the parts that cine with the weapon so I guess you don’t like any semi auto firearm.

        The VT Shooting was committed using semi auto PISTOLS with 10 and 15 round clips. Magazine size doesn’t matter.

        Your comment regain Craigslist only supports the position that there are enough laws on the books already. It IS illegal to sell without an FFL. Drafting laws that make it MORE illegal doesn’t change anything. Guns used in crime are often legal-made from assembled parts- not sure your point but I disagree that many are bought bit by bit. Lower receivers are ALL serialized and regulated just as a whole firearm.

      • oldiugymnast

        Well for a firearms enthusiast you don’t know much about guns.

        You cannot turn a Remington 770 into a full auto – well you can, but if you pull the trigger it will jam in 5 rounds or fewer because it has a narrow ejection port. The Colt AR-15 however has a huge ejection port and a bolt that travels almost an inch further than a 770.

        Magazine size does matter – the VT shooter was limited in damage by the magazine size. The only reason Aurora wasn’t worse was because he jammed his weapon.

        Those Marines that were afraid to lose the right to bear arms are who shouldn’t be bearing arms.

        And guns still aren’t toys!

      • Jason

        “You don’t know what you’re talking about…. You can’t. … well you can but…” awesome argument dude. I actually do know what I am taking about. I never said that every semi auto can be converted into the prefect full auto, did I? I said it can be done. Then you follow up with a weak argument of well it wasn’t so bad in aurora because….. dude you are applying speculation. Use facts. VT was semi auto and worse than Aurora end of story.

        I was diagnosed with PTSD 12 years ago. I have owned firearms the entire time and was never a threat to anyone who didn’t mean me or mine violence. Cops are often diagnosed with PTSD have treatment and are back on the force. Weak arguments.

      • oldiugymnast

        So you didn’t say ” You can turn ANY semi auto into a full auto by modifying the parts that cine with the weapon so I guess you don’t like any semi auto firearm.”

        Interesting level of commitment to honesty you have.

        My dad had PTSD. He gave all the guns to my uncle. Good thing too because when his malaria relapsed he thought he was in Vietnam. If you are in the midst of active, uncontrolled PTSD you should not have a firearm. Period. It isn’t a weak argument at all.

      • LMB

        There are people that scroll craigslist looking for sex offenders and prostitutes and stings are set up to trap those people. It can be done for guns as well, but the easiest and best option would be to make selling guns in this manner illegal. Make them go tthrough a licensed dealer.

        As far as mental disability…. If a mental check was required BEFORE gun purchase, then people wouldn’t have to worry about their guns being taken away and if they are mentally unstable, they will be diagnosed at that time so treatment will be in front of them. If they have something that can be managed with meds or if they prove they have recovered and a doctor sees they are fit, gun rights can possibly be restored with a stipulation that they see a doctor a few times a year to make sure they stay on track.

      • oldiugymnast

        I agree.

        But with the caveat – all gun owners should be required to take an annual safety and proficiency test, be required to store their weapons safely and should be required to purchase liability insurance to pay for any accidental damage caused by their fetish.

      • Robert Kennedy

        Illegal carry of a gun should result in a life sentence with no possibility of parole. Use of a gun to harm the life or well being of someone else who isn’t attacking someone else, the same. Open carry to scare others, maybe 10 years.

      • oldiugymnast

        Agree – and when a kid kills a kid playing with daddy’s gun – it isn’t an accident. It is gross and willful negligence and should at least be an A felony.

      • Mo Reno

        Because there’s a magic number of laws, right?

        Not too many, not too few.

        Why don’t you guys elect Goldilocks to the legislature, then?
        That way you could have your fairy tales further enshrined in law, like trickle-down economics, Too Big to Fail, and all that other nonsense.

      • Robert Kennedy

        In the 30s the SCOTUS ruled that the only ones with a constitutionally protected right to keep and hold arms were the active duty members of the National Guard. Even the police don’t have a right to have guns, they have laws that permit it.

      • Obviously, ‘shall not be infringed” is not a prohibition against gun laws, since the Second Amendment is itself a gun law. So long as gun control laws do not rob the people of their right to bear arms for the sake of providing for a well regulated militia, these laws are not infringing on that right. Note that the amendment does not talk about every single individual, but of the people.

      • BB-Mystic

        As much as I disagree with everything else you’ve said, I do agree with you on this. This is why commonsense gun laws such as universal background checks and restrictions on magazine size would (or should) be acceptable. Justice Scalia said something similar in the DC vs. Heller decision.

        “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” Pp. 54–56.

      • It doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether or not you agree with me. Everything that I said is proven. To disagree with it is to be obstinately incorrigible.

      • BB-Mystic

        Dudelet, I’m trying to have a civil conversation. (And obviously you haven’t tangled with what I would call “Second Amendment fanatics” much, or you wouldn’t say “Everything I said is proven.” They can, and will, argue you to a fare-thee-well over the meanings of “A well-regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed.” I’ve seen it.) Just accept the compliment.

        You’re welcome.

      • There is nothing uncivil about anything which I have written in this thread. Like I said, everything which I said is proven. Your Second Amendment fanatics will do no such thing. They haven’t got a leg on which to stand. I know what I’m talking about. I happen to be an expert on logic. They are not going to be able to pull the wool over my eyes. I’m not a moron.

    • Obamafooledyou

      You want background checks for guns but when someone wants one to show ID to vote that is prejudice?

      • Miguel

        Sad that you can’t understand the difference.

      • LMB

        There is no need for heavier voter ID laws as voter fraud is not an epidemic. Last election there was one case in South Carolina and four in Florida, average that to two per state, that’s about 100 cases per election. 30,000 people are killed by guns EVERY year.

        And you still didn’t answer the question. Why will voter ID laws prevent voter fraud, but gun laws will not prevent gun violence??

        Why is this so difficult to answer?

      • Jason

        What are you talking about with 4 cases here and a case there? What left winged blog are you getting these statistics from?

        Can you explain what the problem is with providing identification when you vote? How crippled do you think American adults are that it is burdensome to show id to vote? You have to show ID for a laundry list of less important things in life and this is where you dig your heels in? You must think people are so helpless and can’t do anything for themselves and showing id is just to much. Thank God the helpless American adults have you to fight for them.

        Do you really want the person who can’t produce id to be influencing the outcome of elections? Voter id laws are about the dumbest thing we can debate.

      • Robert Kennedy

        If the states require picture IDs than they should go to every address in the state and provide them for every person of voting age if they qualify. Many folks can’t get to places where they are available, many people were born at home and have no birth certificate. etc. Voter ID is 100% scam to disenfranchise Democratic voters. If not, why didn’t they arrest Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney who both voted illegally?

        And while I’m at it, they should have to go to court on each case individually if they want to keep the people from voting and they should have to prove with no possible doubt that the voter is not legally qualified to vote.

        If they do that, than I will believe the voter suppression has a leg to stand on. Otherwise, NO!!!!

      • Danny E. Coon

        They can’t get to a DMV but the can get to a store and a liquor store. Buy groceries and booze. There are not that many people that do not have a birth certificate. That is bull and there are ways to obtain a birth certificate in the rare cases.

      • LMB

        There are a lot of people who don’t have birth certificates for varying reasons. I can’t post links here so you need to look it up, and the fees to obtain one can range anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. Disabled and elderly people often have food delivered to them. I read a story about an elderly woman who has voted in every election for forty years, but she may not get to vote this year because of these insane laws. She can walk to the grocery store and pharmacy and other places for her day to day needs. She can even walk to her voting place, but the DMV is across towns so she has to arrange for a ride. It’s not right!

      • Danny E. Coon

        There will always be an excuse for you people who do not want to ensure that the people voting are the ones registered to vote.

      • LMB

        And there will always be the lie that gun control doesn’t work, even though there are mountains of evidence that prove IT DOES WORK in many parts of the world and our excessively high rate of gun violence here proves that more guns equals more violence.

        My statements about the voter ID issue are factual. LOOK THEM UP. Show me FACTS and DATA proving that gun control does not work and that walking around with guns strapped to our bodies makes us safer?

      • Danny E. Coon

        Show me some facts. Chicago has the most strict laws on guns and it is the city with the highest murder and crime rates in the nation! Check it out yourself!

      • LMB

        Oy… Seriously dude. I already covered Chicago. Chicago has very strict laws, but the states bordering Illinois Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri…have very relaxed laws. Most guns confiscated in Chicago come from these states, meaning these criminals are forced to drive out of state to purchase their weapons. If Illinois had gun check points at it’s borders, gun violence would be extremely low. New York has stricter laws, the states the border New York ALSO have stricter laws, New York has a lower rate of gun violence. The states in our country with the most relaxed laws have higher gun crime, the states with the strictest laws have lower gun crime. New Zealand strict laws, low violence, Norway, Denmark, all of the UK strict laws, low violence. Honduras loose laws, biggest murder capital in the world, Venezuela loose laws high gun violence. All of this is factual. Look it up yourself instead of regurgitating NRA dribble.

        Now it’s your turn. Show me countries where the laws are very relaxed, where people walk around with guns on their hips and the gun death rate is extremely low.

        Even if you can find places like that (i ain’t gonna hold my breath) we have to factor in America’s obsession and lack of responsibility with guns, because 30,000 deaths by guns per year is ridiculous! It is something that can so easily be prevented with proper laws and enforcement and regulation, which are desperately needed because Americans obviously are NOT responsible enough to be fully entrusted with guns.

      • Ed Morgano

        Danny, can you show us ANY evidence that there is a significant amount of voter fraud?

      • Danny E. Coon

        How can you show voter fraud when no one is checking? Why are you democrats so against voter ID when you have to have proof of who you are for so many other things. The poor have to have an ID to get Add to Dependent Children, to check out a library book and get a library card, to cash a check, to be seen at the doctor’s office, to be seen in the emergency room, to go to college and take classes, when applying for work, to get a plane ticket. You people kill me!

      • oldiugymnast

        More than 1/2 of all Americans don’t have or don’t know where their birth certificate is. Fail. And when I had my birth certificate reprinted from Illinois it cost $45. How does someone living hand to mouth come up with $45 to pay to vote? It is a poll tax. Period.

      • Ed Morgano

        And how about women who got married but their birth certificate doesn’t match their new legal married name?

      • oldiugymnast

        Just because you can’t imagine a life different than the one you have doesn’t mean that people don’t have those lives.

        My great aunt lived for 20 years after she could drive. She was independent but old. You think that an old person who can’t drive should have to spend an entire day that might kill them getting an ID? How about people who are very poor and live in inner cities. The DMV is usually in a suburb and there is no bus service. Plus poor people get fired when they take a day off. What if they don’t have a birth certificate because they were born before 1960 and at home? There are a lot of people that this is the case for. What if they don’t have $40-200 to pull together the supporting documentation for some of the more ludicrous voting ID laws? Again – the whole ID thing is simply a way to keep minority and poor people from voting.

        You are arrogant and privileged and have no idea how people with limited needs live.

      • Danny E. Coon

        I was born in 1953! I have a birth certificate and a picture ID. Most companies want a picture ID and a Social Security card. They have to eat so if they can get to a store they can get to a DMV.

      • oldiugymnast

        So you are 61 and you think you are old? Have you ever heard of families taking care of their elderly relatives? Rest homes? Are you saying that the elderly, infirm and non-ambulatory should not be allowed to vote? How about the many, many Americans who live in large cities and don’t own cars and have no intention of owning cars. Many of these folks are working poor.

        Why won’t you guys be honest. This is all about keeping black people and poor people from voting because they won’t vote for your side.

      • Danny E. Coon

        My father was born in 1914 he had a birth certificate and a picture ID up to the day he died. My mother was born in 1925 she had a picture ID and a birth certificate every one can obtain a birth certificate and a picture ID if they desire to do so. It just takes a little time and a little bit of money. My family are poor and they all have a birth certificate and a picture ID. You are all about excuses why don’t you be honest. You and the Democrats do not want to even find out if there is voter fraud.

        Half the people in America do not have a birth certificate? I’ll call you a liar right now because children today have to have a birth certificate to start school. Almost every company wants proof of birth, picture ID and Social Security card for employment. If people can afford to by Beer, liquor or cannabis they can afford to obtain a birth certificate.

      • oldiugymnast

        Each and every voter ID law doesn’t include a previously issued state ID. Sorry – fail again. And there are lots of people that can’t afford beer, booze or cannabis. Just because YOU have an experience doesn’t make you the prototypical american and does not mean that everyone else has the same experience.

      • Danny E. Coon

        What are you talking about voter ID laws including previously issued ID??? You get an ID from DMV in some states they will give them to those who can’t afford them free. All they need is a birth certificate. But your experience makes you the pro-typical American!

        You ask me for facts but you provide none through out your posts and if you were to provide any it would be from the pages of some liberal rag.

      • mosquito

        What the hell is a “pro-typical” American? My God, you’re a moron. What is this construction “through out”? Did you make that up all by yourself?

      • Danny E. Coon

        corrected my mistake but guess you could not figure out that I was replying to the post above mine. Thank you mister grammar police. Guess that is all I can expect from you!

      • buricco

        Birth certificate, SS card, and so many pieces of proof, with the number depending on the type of proof provided. At least in NY.

      • LMB

        What about people who don’t have time and money? The people who work 40-60 hours a week on minimum wage. They can’t afford a day off plus sacrifice money they need for food and bills to purchase something they never needed before to vote. You yourself just provesd exactly why the Republicans are adament about these ridiculous restrictions.
        Just because a person can not drive, does not need to drive, is poor, elderly, or disabled does not mean they should be denied the right to vote.
        Some reasons why someone may not have a birth certificate: elderly, lost (like during a move), stolen, fire, poor

      • Danny E. Coon

        What if frogs had wings? If you need something enough you can find time. People working 40 hours a week is a normal work week over that is overtime and if you needed something to keep your job I think you would find the time to obtain it. Even people living on Add to Dependent Children find money to buy beer, liquor and some buy cannabis.

        My father did not drive for the last ten or so years of his life and he was able to get where he needed to go. There are more people that volunteer all kinds of services that you are not giving credit for.
        I say to you that if a person needs something they will find a way to get what they need. You can provide all the excuses you can think of but in the end they are just excuses!

      • LMB

        Wah wah wah…. Poor people working sixty hours a week are working two jobs, 30 at one and 30 at the other meaning no over time. There are volunteers to drive the elderly and disabled, but not the poor. It’s great that your dad could get around, but not everyone is lucky enough to live in such favorable circumstances. These people typically don’t have vacation time either, so if they miss work they are short on their paycheck. Now, they are docked on their pay and have to spend extra money for a bus ticket, cab ride, or subway ticket they wouldn’t usually need to get to and from the DMV and pay for their ID. If they are lucky, they will have all the documents they need, if not they will have to pay for copies of those too which is even more money spent. For a lot of people, the risk of loosing their job AND being short on money for the month which will put them behind on bills and groceries is too burdensome, do they will just not vote which is EXACTLY what the GOP wants. These are not isolated incidents; it is happening quite often. If it has been proven numerous times that voter fraud almost never happens and it’s occurance is so rare that it will NOT affect the outcome of an election. With these low statistics known and the amount of problems presented to people who have voted legally, often for decades, why won’t the simply overturn these restrictions?? Because they don’t want people to vote!

      • Danny E. Coon

        In this day and age everyone should have an ID and it is time that states start requiring voters to obtain one. Even if a person was born at home their birth should be registered in the County where they were born. If they can not afford to pay for a copy then proof of their inability to pay should be provided to the County Court and one should be provided. A photo ID for the poor that can not pay should be provided free but the person should have to prove they do not have the ability to pay. The state can raise the money by adding a poor tax to the drivers licenses and ID’s to those who can afford.

        Those that could not travel and wait for an hour or less because it might kill them would not be able to vote anyway because they should have to vote in person unless in the military and deployed to an other country.

      • Ed Morgano

        He didn’t say that 1/2 didn’t ever have them…but that they didn’t have them available to them. One of my grandsons lost his because his mom and dad moved so many times. It took him two years to get another one.

      • Danny E. Coon

        I lost mine also but I called the county courthouse where I was born and guess what I found they had a copy of my birth certificate and was able to purchase a copy. Yes it takes a little effort!

      • mosquito

        If they had a copy of your birth certificate, then why would they need to purchase a copy? That’s interesting. They was able to purchase a copy. That’s interesting how you moronically went from the plural “they” to the singular “was”.

      • Danny E. Coon

        They because there is more than one person that works in the Courthouse records department. I is a given since I am the one checking on my birth certificate. I blew holes in your argument so all you can do is be the grammar police? Pathetic!

      • mosquito

        Like I said earlier, your logic is atrocious. Your premises do not imply your conclusions. Give it up. You couldn’t make a logical argument if your life depended upon it.

      • mosquito

        Your logic is atrocious. Give it up. You couldn’t make a logical argument if your life depended upon it.

      • Danny E. Coon

        A good Nephew would ensure his Great Aunt had the proper identification!

      • oldiugymnast

        What part of infirm don’t you understand? She was to go to the DMV for 3-4 hours when she couldn’t stand and struggled with palsy? Please. You have no empathy and simply cannot imagine that there are people different than you.

      • gin

        I thought repubs are all about personal responsibility?

      • Danny E. Coon

        See that is where you are wrong. Not all conservatives are Republicans. And yes most conservatives are about personal responsibility but we also believe in helping those who can not help themselves when possible.

        Unlike the Democrats who always have an ulterior motive for helping the poor. If you want to call it help. I call it manipulation myself. Welfare the great Democratic gift to the poor! Provide just enough to keep them alive but never enough to climb out of the hole. You keep them buried all of their lives and you pat yourselves on the back and think you have been real charitable. Your charity causes people, young single women to give up on their dreams.
        Then there is your blood lust for the murder of the unborn and call it a woman’s choice. When what it really is, is a judgement and an execution with no defense. If there is a war on anyone it is a war on the unborn!

      • cole

        no that is not how we think or see things. i am self-identified as just ANTI-Republican…..but you might (most likely) be projecting your own manipulations onto others who really just want to help other people…

      • Danny E. Coon

        You are going to have to elaborate more because you say you are anti-Republican but give no qualification or reason for your Anti-Republican self identification. According to your statement you are only Anti-Republican. Who do you through into that category. I am conservative and as you may have figured out I am very, very, very, much against abortion. I believe that if you play around then you should be responsible enough to accept the outcome of your actions and that is not just the women but the men as well. Since when did we start promoting irresponsibility? I am also a Christian and I am against promoting same sex relationships just as I would be against promoting adultery or any other sexual sin. I do not have a problem with two people of the same sex receiving the same benefits as other married heterosexual couples but I do have a problem with our government trying to force me and my children into accepting that it is normal. I have a problem with people that say when a Christian says it is a sin for two men or two women to have sex that we are hating on the gay, homosexual, lesbian and transgendered people in this country. It is not hate to call a “sin” sin. It is concern for those peoples immortal souls.

        I do not hate Democrats I believe they are misguided and I do not agree with the style of government they seem to embrace.

        Democrats have this idea that all people that vote Republican are rich white people but most are not rich at all. I am not rich. I am just above the poverty line. I know there are many more that are living below the poverty line in this country. I think that the minimum wage does need to be raised but I think any extreme increase in the minimum wage would be counter productive. Every time there has been an increase in the minimum pay it was followed by a rise in prices at stores and places that provide services that actually put those who received the wage hike ended up worse off then they were before the hike. So until it can be figured out how it can be done with out having the rise in goods and services we should leave it alone. I do not believe it is right to rob from the rich to give to the poor. The real rich are what 1 to 2 percent of the population? You are not going to force them to give you all of their money. Sorry just not going to happen. They will simply move to a place where they are more welcomed. The idea that Bill Gates or any rich person or corporation paying more taxes then the remaining 98 percent is simply not truthful. Most of the rich make there money on a lot of people that make way less either by selling them goods or services or capitalizing on investments where some win and some lose, mostly the rich win and the not so rich lose. But the free market system is by far better than any socialist or communist system.

        I would appreciate it if you would clarify who you classify as Republican. Yes I have voted Republican because they most represent my views, but I do not agree with everything. I consider my self conservative leaning Republican but with an eye on the Tea Party.

      • cole

        First, I now have to admit my opinion of you has changed. I will admit to a small bit of hypocrisy in the way that i initially judged (a sin) you of being just another avid fan of the hate-mongering Fox network who has lost the ability to think for himself. I apologize, I was wrong. Your respectful response to my comment alone speaks to the quality of your character..We still don’t share many views, but you come across as a person who can take in information, evaluate and analyze, and then come to your own conclusions. I do the same, and that is why I do not label my self as a Democrat. While I agree with the Democratic Party views on most things, I think through and analyze and conclude for myself.

        I say ANTI-republican more to just “tweak the nose” of the extremists of the political right more than anything else. I think you would appreciate the fact that I have many people (of whom I care deeply for) in my life who are 100% tow the line Obama-should-be-impeached deeply red republicans. But, like me, they do not take themselves too seriously and we poke good fun back and forth at each other.

        This is part lone of my response if you ever read this, i have an appointment to get to but would like the chance to further answer the questions you have posed to me….

        I will do so within the next 24 hours….

      • Danny E. Coon

        Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand having friends on the other side I have a few blue dog, should have tared and feathered George W. Bush Democrats for friends.

      • cole

        I would like to now complete my earlier post. I will now explain The reasons why I like to call myself Anti-republican. Our of respect for you, Danny, I would like to preface this, I could, in fact, actually be wrong sometimes, or have based my view on faulty assumptions or false information. with admitting that these are only my current opinions on this matter, I am not some idiot, ignorant, blow-hard who thinks he know the answers and reasons to everything, I could, in fact, actually be wrong sometimes, or have based my view on faulty assumptions or false information. But here goes a list of the main issues I have with the Republican Party.

        #1 I’m gay and have been with my partner for 10 years. I would like to our relationship to be recognized just the same as an opposite sex relationship. I also believe in religious freedom, so if a church does not want to marry us, I am fine with that. But I would like to have the government recognize our union. (Anti-Republican)

        #2 I am Christian (born-again) as well. Of course we must protect our borders against actual terrorists who only want to kill us, but I do not agree with the stance the Republican party has taken against illegal immigrants, especially the children. There is no simple solution this. I believe we should somehow tighten our borders somehow to protect America, and at the same time stop shaming the illegals that are already here and help them. Yes I believe in amnesty, I don’t care what some people may say about that, but I think my God wants me to have compassion to strangers who are in a strange land (sound familiar). Show them mercy and help them assimilate into our society and teach them skills so that they can find employment and be able to take care of themselves. (Anti-Republican)

        #3 I personally do not believe in the principal of “trickle-down-economics.” Without regulations, the people at the top tend to keep the extra and nothing much seems to trickle anywhere else. (personal opinion) (Anti-Republican)

        #4 It always seems that the majority of people who claim to want smaller government really don’t understand all that the government is and what it does, and what all the public services it provides. They do however, blame the government for not being able to respond to crisis as they arise, not realizing that the government now is not able to meet the needs of the people hurt by crisis because, basically, is had to cut back on public services as its budget was cut too severely.

        #5 Unemployment benefits. I was unemployed for a couple of year during the “Great Recession.” I have now been back at work for a few years, but I will always despise the actions of the Republicans in office during those years. I was not able to find employment, there were not enough jobs then for everyone. So many people needed the help then and the Republicans in office did not care, and were more interested in blocking Obama than in meeting the needs of good, hard-working Americans who lost their jobs when companies had to cut back. I could elaborate, but anything further I would have to say about what they did and how they acted does not belong in a respectful dialog. They turned their back on those who needed help the most. I will never forget cold and totally cold and completely lacking in any compassion how those of us who were long-term unemployed were portrayed by the republicans. “lazy, drug-addicts, leeches, trying to swindle the money out of the pockets of employed.etc….” NO WE WERE NOT.

        #6 Universal health care….If you don’t like Obama-care, them come up with a better alternative. I think Obama-care is all that great, but it is still better than what was in place before. And is much better than the Republican plan for universal health care, none to date. Except maybe what Romney did in his home state….If a little more has to come out of my paycheck so that old people can afford their prescription, than so be it. Period. If you don’t care much about poor people receiving proper medical care than you and I better just stay away from that topic. (Ant-Republican)

        I could go on and on, but that covers a great bit of it…I am open to any comments and will be happy to have a civilized debate with you on anything you disagree with.

        (P.S. Your earlier response to me confirms my good opinion of you, my friend)


      • mosquito

        You’re full of crap. A good nephew cannot ensure that. It’s not up to the good nephew. You’re just making this shit up as you go along. You’re a fraud.

      • Danny E. Coon

        A good nephew would take his aunt to the places she needed to go to get the proper identification.

        You are the fraud! You are the one using the name of a nasty disease carrying blood sucking insect for a name. You are the one that does not have an argument in the discussion. The only thing that you seem capable of doing is to use your grammar checker and spell checker because you are not smart enough to argue a valid point.

      • MG

        Voter Id is a great idea, I personally would like to know that those voting in our elections are actually US citizens. Gun Control is a bad idea, let everyone carry guns it will slow down the criminals because they won’t be the ONLY ones carrying guns like they are now. You say gun control will cut down on the violent crime obviously you don’t know how easy it is to make a projectile weapon such as a gun.

      • Robert Kennedy

        Stupid argument with no credibility. Even in the “wild” west where everyone carried a gun you weren’t allowed into town most places unless you were disarmed.

      • RINOVirus

        Demonstrate once in recent history where a “good guy with a gun” has stopped a shooting. If they statistically exist then they are outliers.

      • Danny E. Coon

        Tell me where can a good guy woth a gun carry it into an establishment? If you do not have it on you you will just be another victim. You do not see people going into a police station to rob a police officer. Why do you think criminals go to gun free zones to commit mass murder? Because it is going to take a good guy with a gun a while to get there and stop them.

      • RINOVirus

        Read my question again. When has your idea ever worked?

      • oldiugymnast

        NRA lie. Sorry – there is no evidence that gun free or police station is a deciding factor in mass murder – and there have been more than a few mass murders in places where there were armed people. When you guys stop shooting your kids and your kids stop shooting each other (and shooting range attendants) we can start talking about how super responsible and safe you guys are.

      • Danny E. Coon

        Every mass murder that has taken place was in a gun free zone, so what do you mean it is not a deciding factor?

      • oldiugymnast

        How come so many of these “good guys” with guns kill kids over nothing? How come so many of them let their 5 year old accidentally shoot their mom because they left their toy on the table? More guns = more gun deaths. Period. And there is strong evidence that people who own guns and consider themselves responsible gun owners are much more likely to kill themselves, their family members or friends with their gun than they are to ever even marginally are to prevent a crime.

      • Danny E. Coon

        Let me address the last part of your remarks first.How are you going to know how many crimes were prevented? If crime in an area goes down because potential victims may be able to defend themselves then that is one indication. You can argue that it wasn’t and I can argue that it was. I do not know what you are eluding to “How come so many of these “good guys” with guns kill kids over nothing?” Not all people that own guns are safe gun owners. But the number of accidental shootings while tragic are not wide spread. More people are killed by cars.

      • Ed Morgano

        Sorry to burst your bubble Danny but we just had an incident in Greenville, SC two weeks ago where a guy walked into the law enforcement center and shot two cops.

      • mosquito

        You’re living in a fantasy world. It has been proven that your so-called good guys with guns at mass murder sites caused more harm than good. They ended up making the job of the police more difficult.

      • Danny E. Coon

        No bases in truth or fact!

      • fifthdentist

        I live in an area where farmers use a lot of migrant workers. The legal status of many of them is, shall we say, questionable.
        They are notorious for not reporting domestic violence, thefts, even home invasions where people come in and take everything they own.
        Why? Because they don’t want to draw attention to themselves. They don’t want to encounter people in uniforms. Ever.
        You think that they’re going to go fuc*ing vote? What color is the sky on your planet?

      • LMB

        Exactly! My dad was in a small car accident several years ago. It was his fault, yet the latino man in other vehicle feverishly begged him “no cops, no cops!” The other driver could have got all the repairs covered by my dad’s insurance, but told him no and took care of it himself to avoid even talking to the police.

      • wendy

        Curious at what age should we start arming ourselves? 16, 18, 21?

      • Danny E. Coon

        It was already answered but you didn’t like the answer. If you are not checking every voter how would you know? And why is showing a picture ID disenfranchising anyone. Everyone should have a picture ID. You need it for so many things.

      • LMB

        What was the answer I didn’t like?

        I addressed the ID thing in another post.

      • Danny E. Coon

        The following is just one answer that I understood and agree with;

        Jim Bean


        a day ago

        That’s any easy one. We don’t need more gun laws because we already
        have the all the tools in place we need to deal with the criminals who
        violate gun or other laws with them.

        What we do NOT have are tools
        in place to accurately determine whether all people casting votes are
        eligible to vote, eligible for welfare, eligible to be in the country,
        etc. When we put those tools in place, we’ll have a mechanism to deal
        with these criminals that is on par with our mechanisms for dealing with
        gun crime.

      • LMB

        If we had all the tools in place to deal with gun violence and gun crime, why do we have the highest rate of gun violence in the industrialized world? Our current situation is clearly NOT working, but anytime anybody tries to even so much as discuss the topic you all loose your $#!+. Yet, when it comes to voter fraud (which has been proven to be extremely rare) and welfare fraud ( which has been at a historic low of 1%) and illegal immigration (which could probably use some adjusting) you all hop up on your soap boxes and demand change?

        This does not answer my question why reform works in those areas, but does not work in regards to guns? Why will crime decrease in those areas due to new laws, but new laws with guns will do nothing?

      • Ed Morgano

        How is showing someone a fake ID proof of who you are?

      • CrymeLord

        If you are actually looking for an answer there is an obvious, logical one.

        Guns are relatively easy to come by illegally, so the laws passed only affect those buying guns from a legitimate dealer (law-abiding citizens).

        Voting is comparatively harder to do illegally since there is only one small window of any given year to vote, so enacting laws has a much better success rate in preventing illegal activity.

        BTW. I agree that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent. If you want to curtail illegal votes you should go after absentee balloting first.

        And because voting is so important, if I we were to require photo IDs for voting there should be a massive effort to make sure every voter has one. So you would go into the places where you think that are most likely to have people without photo id and get them set up. Voting should be both easy and accurate.

    • MG

      Criminals don’t follow the laws that is truth. I am not for more gun control and the reasons follow.
      1) If you look at statistics areas where less gun control and concealed carry exists has less crime, violent crime at that.
      2) I believe in our constitution and it allows for citizens to carry guns.
      3) I don’t personally carry or own a gun but I feel safer living in a state with concealed carry.
      4) We have plenty of laws on the books already we don’t need more.

      I am not a republican but this is how I feel.

      • oldiugymnast

        1. Not true. Not at all. And you should talk about “accidents” involving guns and not just crime. Only one study makes the claim you are making and it has not been repeatable.
        2. Also not true. No legal scholars thought that the Founders intended a right of individual gun ownership until just recently. The 2nd Amendment was there to protect state militias which no longer exist anyway.
        3. Why – the facts are that gun deaths are higher in states that allow conceal carry.
        4. This is a meaningless metric.

      • Danny E. Coon

        No one seems to have an answer you will accept though you have nothing to back up your disagreements. I give you Chicago Illinois Vs Houston, Dallas, San Antonio how about the state of Texas against the city of Chicago.

        State Militias? Then tell me why the founding fathers never tried to take guns away from the people? Why now is it a problem? The Second Amendment is the right of all individuals, all people to own a firearm. Your interpretation is not the intended interpretation or the people would have had their firearms taken. The Second Amendment is also part of the Bill of Rights. You do not want to own a firearm fine probably a good thing. I have owned one all of my life. I am not going to going to demand a law that says all people must own a firearm and be proficient and safe with it and would appreciate you not trying to take mine away because you can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

      • LMB

        You obviously haven’t read through all posts as I already addressed Chicago and laid out plans based on New Zealand’s laws that could be applied here to reduce gun violence. I never said I wanted to take your guns away; that is conservative paranoia. Secondly, I am not satisfied because no one has answered my question: Why do voter laws, welfare laws and immigration laws prevent criminal activity, but gun laws do not?

      • Danny E. Coon

        As someone already told you! There are no current laws requiring a picture ID period. Laws do not prevent criminals from breaking them. They let law abiding citizens know so they do not mistakenly break the law. If there are laws already on the books for immagration and welfare covering the particular criminal activity then it is redundant. There are already federal laws requiring background checks to purchase a firearm.

      • LMB

        Why do we suddenly need a picture ID to vote? They were never needed before and as myself and others have pointed out, voter fraud is extremely, extremely rare. And can’t a person determined to commit voter fraud just get a fake ID. Pretty much every college kid under the age of 21 has one so I don’t see how that does much to prevent the crime.

        If we need extra ID to vote, why can’t we have more extensive background checks on gun license applicants? Why do you believe these extensive background checks will work in regards to voting, but will not work for guns?

      • Jim Bean

        When did voter laws, welfare laws, and immigration laws effectively prevent criminal activity in those areas?

      • askirsch

        The militias were intended to put down slave revolts. You don’t think the amendment applied to blacks, do you? Read the minutes of the constitutional convention, You’ll be surprised at what you find there.

      • PJones

        Either you are an easy-to-use tool repeating the lies of others, or you’re a liar – maybe both. But what’s solid fact is that if you’re familiar with the Constitutional Convention, you know that what you said has absolutely no basis in fact.

      • mosquito

        You’re very big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you do this, you are clearly not intelligent enough to know that it is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and ruled out of any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we allow people to make such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations.

        You write: “You do not want to own a firearm fine probably a good thing.”. That’s not a sentence.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        the second amendment also addresses regulation and a militia.

      • Anthony Jones

        Then why is it a big deal to register them,and I guess you missed NPR’s report on the open carry nuts being rob of their guns….and as a big scary black man scardy cat bitches like you are my biggest danger, and stop bastardizing the constitution until you know the history behind the 2nd amendment.

    • Jim Bean


      • LMB

        I answered this earlier. I guess it didn’t post because I had copied a link to it. Anyway….

        I never said there was a problem with showing ID to vote. Of course I want elections to be fair, but voter fraud is not as rampent a problem as the GOP makes it out to be and the problem I have is all the hoop jumping and fees people have to pay to come up with the documents necessary to get their ID. This was not an issue before. People who have voted here legally for decades are now not able to vote because of these new restrictions. Look it up. I tried to post a link, but it wouldn’t let me. Why is it okay to have such heavy restrictions on voting, but not guns? If these new voter laws WILL deter some people from commiting this crime, why will new gun laws NOT reduce gun crimes?

      • BB-Mystic

        You can post links here if you manipulate them a bit; i.e. http://www.linkee DOT com instead of the standard format. It’s a quirk of the Disqus settings for this site.

      • LMB

        Thank you!

    • Jim Bean

      That’s any easy one. We don’t need more gun laws because we already have the all the tools in place we need to deal with the criminals who violate gun or other laws with them.

      What we do NOT have are tools in place to accurately determine whether all people casting votes are eligible to vote, eligible for welfare, eligible to be in the country, etc. When we put those tools in place, we’ll have a mechanism to deal with these criminals that is on par with our mechanisms for dealing with gun crime.

      • oldiugymnast

        Demonstrably bullshit – as with almost everything you post.

      • Jim Bean

        Then carry on with the demonstration.

      • oldiugymnast

        Numerous studies have been done to check how frequent in person voter fraud happens and it is virtually never. This whole effort is simply a way to prevent minorities from voting to help Republicans.

        And on that – Mitt Romney just committed felony voter registration fraud. Should he go to jail? How about Ann Coulter who committed in person voter fraud 2x?

      • Jim Bean

        Well, first I would say that if it ‘virtually never happens’, you must have concocted the Romney/Coulter instances.

        And if you believe voter ID is a scheme to prevent minorities from voting, what do you call the claim that 28 days of early voting is not near enough?

      • oldiugymnast

        So your google doesn’t work? And unless one of those 28 days is on a Saturday and one on a Sunday, yeah – it isn’t enough. Poor working folks get fired if they go vote.

      • LMB

        “Virtually never happens” means it is extremely rare, as in it occurs something like .001% of the time, as in not enough to change the outcome of an election. The irony is, two of these instances were committed by Republicans and high profile ones at that.

      • mosquito

        Jim Bean, you’re logic is atrocious. The phrase “virtually never happens” does not mean “never happens”. It only means that it hardly ever happens. So, there is no contradiction in saying that voter fraud virtually never happens and Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter both committed it. Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter, two persons out of how many, hardly tip the scale from “virtually never happens” to “happens a fair amount of times”.

      • Jim Bean

        Its only not there for those looking very hard to not see it.
        • Shalonda Michaelle Brinson, 36, nine counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote
        • Judy Ann Crumitie, 51, four counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote
        • Laverne V. Haynes, 57, two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration
        • Ora Bell Rivers, 41, seven counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, three counts of perjury by false written declaration
        • Raven Simona Williams, 20, two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration

        Democrat Clement Campana, President of the Troy City Council, right, is arraigned for his role in a ballot fraud case in Rensselaer County Court while sitting with his lawyer E. Stewart Jones, Jr., left, on Tuesday Dec. 20, 2011 in Troy, N.Y.. (Philip Kamrass / Times Union )

        FOUR Wake County, North Carolina, Democrats have admitted to voter fraud charges, according to local news reports.

        Kierra Fontae Leache, Shelia Romona Hodges and Brandon Earl Mclean each admitted to casting two ballots in recent elections. Local reports indicate all three voted for President Barack Obama twice in 2008.

        According to ABC News Channel 11 in Raleigh-Durham, authorities have placed the three on $10,000 bonds.

        March 17, 2011:

        LAKE COUNTY, Ill. – An illegal alien from the Philippines was arrested Thursday morning on a felony complaint charging her with 17 counts related to voter fraud in Lake County. The state charges resulted

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’m assuming you have citations for that handful of instances during several election cycles in which hundreds of millions of votes were cast. Even if all those cases are real, it does not prove your point that voter fraud is “a thing”. As oldie gymnast said, “demonstrable bullshit” just like most everything you post.

      • Geoz32

        Sounds like the laws are working then. But your list still means it is pretty rare. Further, there is no disputing that the GOP has asserted this is about depriving real voters, not stopping fraud.

      • Jim Bean

        Where has the GOP asserted they were motivated by a desire to prevent legitimate voters from voting? And if you are uncertain of the source, then who told you that?

      • Teresa Groves

        Google it. The information’s out there. Former FL GOP chair admitted it. A PA legislator admitted it. Noted GOP champion Phyllis Schlafly admitted as much. And re your comparison of voter ID laws to gun laws: in many states you don’t need ID to buy a gun online or in person from a private party. Hey, it’s a constitutional right. JUST LIKE VOTING. Why the hue and cry for ID now? Why not 15 years ago? And how do you show current, valid, original ID when voting by mail?

      • Barbara Tillman

        SO in a country with approximately 180 million eligible voters, you have to go back at least ten years to give anecdotal evidence of any voter fraud; my calculator may be off, but that sounds like about .0000001% of all opportunities to vote. On the other hand, there are around 30,000 gun deaths annually over that same ten year period. That means that for every case of death by gun, you have a one in a million chance of finding a corresponding case of voter fraud. There are much better ways for us to be spending our time and money.

      • Jim Bean

        You have a 100% chance of finding a record of every gun death. What you have .0000001% chance of is finding a ballot that was screened for fraud.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        so less than twenty counts somehow exceeds the hundreds? math isn’t your strong point.

      • Jo Clark

        I hate to burst your bubble, but … your own party has admitted multiple times that this is all about disenfranchising voters of color, because they are likely to vote Dem. So save all your vile breath about voter ID BS for your right wing friends. They’re the only ones dumb enough to buy that line.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        the key lies in understanding what ‘virtually’ means. also, the current cases reported involved which party?

      • J.Bob

        Show me instances of a person in a position of authority saying that. You can’t. Find me a quote from a reputable source. Find me a video of someone actually saying that who is as stated, a person of authority and not just some shill. On the other hand, we have video of people from the left denying people the right enter the polling place who were not even prosecuted by AG Holder.

      • I have a fun idea…which number is higher? The number of fraudulent votes cast each year or the number of people killed by a handgun?

      • Jim Bean

        The number of fraudulent votes by a country mile. All people killed by a handgun are represented in the stats. There isn’t even a mechanism in place to detect voter fraud. Those few that are caught are caught by happenstance (and Liberals take great delight in presenting those few in the context that they represent every instance of fraud that ever occurred. Liberals are, on occasion, less than straightforward.)

        That WAS fun. Thanks.

      • You answered that with a high level of certainty. It is awesome how you are capable of producing a definitive answer regarding the magnitude of voter fraud being larger and also saying that the very same thing cannot be counted in the same statement.

        It was more fun for me. Really, the pleasure was mine.

      • Jim Bean

        I didn’t say it ‘can’t’ be counted. I said it is not being searched for. Despite not being searched for instances of it surface. Its illogical to assume that if some instances are being discovered inadvertently the number of instances found if it were being looked for would not be wildly higher.

        It certainly would be greater than the number of non-suicide related handgun deaths.

      • Morrigan

        As a certain logic-troll would say, that’s a bald unsubstantiated assertion. I’m sure you know several studies have been done, and in-person voter fraud simply is almost non-existent.

      • Rob

        Learn how to read Jimmy, David Woods just said that it IS being searched for, and it is. But how about a little academic standard here? Sources or it didn’t happen. And by sources I don’t mean blog posts, the actual source of the info.

      • kduke

        “Certainly.” Was that another obvious lie or did you just fart? Hard to tell the difference.

      • Jim Bean

        I didn’t say it ‘can’t’ be counted. I said it is not being searched for. Despite not being searched for instances of it surface. Its illogical to assume that if some instances were being discovered inadvertently the number of instances found if it were being looked for would not be wildly higher.

      • David Woods Jr.

        Conservatives ARE searching for it, and if they could prove it they would, and they would get their way and voter ID laws would be enacted everywhere. But they could not prove it because it is not an actual problem.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        sounds like you’re back peddaling. where are the stats/sources to substantiate your claim?

      • kduke

        “Illogical to assume.” Beans for dinner?

      • Julie Wickstrom

        8,583 for every 100,000 (68% of all murders) in the US 2011 were caused by firearms. www theguardian com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state I tried finding data for voter fraud during 2011. 250 cases in Delaware were investigated with only 9 were valid. You are arguing that millions per year commit voter fraud. We would have a much better voter turnout if there was fraud anywhere NEAR that number. 😉

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        Oh, now don’t be throwing actual facts and figures at him. He won’t be able to get a wink of sleep tonight.

      • Joey Angelo

        How dare you! Throwing facts like that, sheesh.

      • johnmburt1960

        Some numbers, please, which are more specific than “by a country mile”.
        You do HAVE such numbers, don’t you?

      • Jim Bean

        Less that 1%. (Number of votes screened for fraud.)

      • digitlburn

        AHAHAHAHA!!!! Look at the drunkard Jim Bean go back to “there isn’t a mechanism in place”, time and time again. Memes don’t work just by repeating them over and over on people that have more than 3 brain cells.

        Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola University Law School and an expert on constitutional law did a 15-year study showing the total number of verifiable fraud cases to be 31. The U.S. has over 30,000 gun deaths PER YEAR. Which is greater?

        THAT WAS fun…pointing out how you can’t do simple math!

      • Jim Bean

        Key word being ‘verifiable.’ I think if only a miniscule effort is made to uncover voter fraud only a miniscule number of ‘verifiable’ case of it will be detected.

        Do you think Levitt would disagree?

      • John Sonderegger

        If you have evidence of massive voter fraud, quit bloviating on the internet and get yourself to a grand jury.

      • Roy Merritt

        I was a voting judge for several years and as new computer programs have made voter fraud nearly impossible. The greatest threat is not voter fraud but voting machine manipulation. In all the years I worked at voting stations I have never witnessed anyone that tried to vote more than once or did not have a proper ID. Most use Drivers License as registration ID but we have older people and Nursing home patients that do not drive.

      • Moss500

        Each and every day, I see a new article about a crime being stopped by a victim or someone close-by who had a gun, yet the MSM gives those stories no coverage. Here’s a sad dose of reality for you … one which liberals can’t seem to wrap their brains around. Bad people do bad things. You can’t stop it by legislating an inanimate object. If you want to address it, then address the real issues … selfishness, greed, drug abuse, and hatred. Not one of your liberal “anti-gun” politicians have offered a law that would take guns out of the hands of criminals … they only affect law-abiding citizens. Until you offer a cure for the real problems, you’re simply idiots full of hot air.

      • Hunter Rose

        I don’t know you, but I know enough from just this one post to know that you are disingenuous. You’ve just told three demonstrable lies here.
        We have the tools for all of those, and it doesn’t matter that we do because the law is violated by people in all four circumstances DESPITE the illegality of doing so.
        LMB is right, to argue against new laws because ‘we already have enough of them’, but then turn around and ask for new laws where they already exist is astoundingly hypocritical.

        You are indeed a hypocrite, and I have little doubt that this has gone over your head.

      • Jim Bean

        If the person wants a concealed carry permit, he must verify his identity and pass a background check. To vote, you don’t even need to do the former.

        Picture ID was required to attend (of all things) NAACP events to protest voter ID laws. Where was the Left’s righteous indignation over that?

      • Hunter Rose

        What is obviously sailing over your head is that the ability to vote, in our nation, is an aspect of our inalienable rights. Creating obstacles to a person’s right to vote is a violation of democratic principles. Making people show ID to get into an event is at the discretion of the host. The fact is that individual voter fraud is virtually non-existent, while imposing obstacles of ANY kind will disenfranchise many, many people.
        Meanwhile, you’ve already demonstrated that you are either clueless or disingenuous. I have no more need to converse with you here than I need to convince a brick wall that the sun is out.

      • Jim Bean

        There is no evidence that voter fraud is virtually non-existent. There is no system in place to screen for voter fraud on any meaningful scale – and – no meaningful system in place to verify the identity of those showing up to vote.

        I’m not a believer that ID-related voter fraud is a significant issue. But I’m not a supporter of hypocrisy either. The same people who fight tooth and nail against strict ID requirements for the constitutional right to vote (so that no one is wrongfully denied) also fight tooth and nail FOR impossibly strict ID requirements for the constitutional right to own a gun without regard to who might be wrongfully denied. These are not honorable people.

      • David Woods Jr.

        The difference here, Jim Bean, is that the right to bear arms is supposed to be regulated. It is right there in the second amendment. It starts out “A well-regulated militia…” The founding fathers were ok with regulation of guns. Now if you want to argue that they were wrong, then that is another conversation.

      • Jim Bean

        Don’t want to argue they we were wrong. Am willing to argue (and prove) they had no intention of allowing regulation to the extent of disarming law abiding citizens of ANY form of weapon. Am also willing to argue that they had no intention of allowing non-citizens to vote in their elections and that they anticipated a means of regulating that would be established.

      • Jordan

        I literally went to a gun store, filled out papers, and within 3 days, I was picking up my new Beretta 9mm. Three days and a few signatures is not, in any circumstance ever, in the history of everything, a situation that can be described as “impossibly strict ID requirements”. You should stop trying to communicate with other humans. You’re really bad at it.

      • Jim Bean

        Bingo. And if they (liberals) were satisfied with the process that you went through, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?

        I only need to stop trying to communicate with you.

      • Jordan

        Nobody is trying to take guns from people who are mentally sound enough to have them. How is it unreasonable to expand the background check process – you know, the part YOU don’t actually have to do – to make sure people who shouldn’t have them never get them? Nobody with a brain is suggesting anything other than that.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        you’re communicating? sounds more like regurgitating the NRA and FOX lines. try and fail harder.

      • Andy Kinnard

        That’s a straight lie, Jim. You and I both know that recent efforts were ONLY aimed at applying those same background check process Jordan experienced to all gun purchases. We’re TOTALLY “satisfied with that”; we just want the loopholes closed.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        i’m sure they did an ‘in depth’ check in those three days.

      • Jordan

        Well, I’ve had some pretty uh… extensive background checks in the past for work, so maybe it was faster than the average.

        Regardless, calling this “impossibly strict” is just false.

      • Taryn Gibbons

        big issue: votes aren’t killing people.

      • Jim Bean

        Neither are rapists. So just leave them alone?

      • BB-Mystic

        Jim. Come on. That is a nasty, unwarranted comparison, and you know it.

      • Mark Christensen

        guess it depends on who your voting for…6 bullets in the chest is not a suicide two bullets in the back of the head is not a suicide..voting for clinton kills people

      • Taryn Gibbons

        yet, domestic abusers and felons can still buy guns in a state/county that has lax laws. tell me how the laws are working again?

      • Jim Bean

        People can still buy heroine – and easily – and its illegal everywhere. So tell me what difference your point makes.

      • GL

        First off, it’s spelled “heroin”, sirrah. No “e”, drug. Has an “e”, it’s a human being and/or alien identifying as female who does good. Learn the difference and spell it correctly.

        Second, the entire mechanism that allows people to buy heroin is illegal. The mechanism that allows people to buy firearms is legal. In addition, the people Taryn listed are people who are not supposed to be able to own firearms, under current US law. They are people who, by virtue of trials conducted under the blessings of the Sixth through Eighth amendments to the US Constitution, have been deemed unfit to own a firearm, or been deemed a danger to others when in possession thereof. And before you protest, you’re not actually officially labeled a “domestic abuser” until you’ve been convicted of domestic abuse, which requires a trial. But hey, if your buddy Johnny Walken owns a gun, and he sells it to you despite your being a domestic abuser with a file at the local PD, that’s going to go through because unlike a store owner (but like a gun show), Johnny doesn’t have to run a background check.

        Third, heroin’s legal history is complicated. As is cocaine’s. As is asbestos’s. Many things we thought were healthy are now banned. Firearms, however, have only ever been restricted, not completely taken off the market.

        Finally, a note about as related as your example was: If you’re going to meet up with Jack Daniels, don’t drive afterward.

      • anonymouslyunknown

        We do have tools in place to determine if persons applying, participating, or attempting to participate are eligible for all of those things. There are requirements for all of those and application/ registration process. However, criminals will do their best to dupe those processes. The data/ statistics indicated that voter registration process is sufficient to prevent “false ballots.” There is very little voting fraud and the woman last year who tried to demonstrate how easy it is to fraudulently cast a ballot failed miserably. Similarly, persons who are intent on coming to (or staying in) this country without following the rules for doing so are working very hard to do so. However, the Obama Administration has the highest enforcement rate and the most number of deportations of any administration in years. This just proves that any past issues were due to lack of enforcement – not because of the inability to determine or a lack of rules. Likewise, welfare fraud is punished both under state and federal law. There are very clear guidelines for income eligibility for assistance and people are prosecuted. The laws and rules being suggested for FIP aren’t even consistent with preventing fraud. Testing for illegal substances does not prevent those who are “getting over” from applying and fraudulently receiving aid. Denying a drug user will likely leave the children (because a person must have children to receive) without needs being met.

      • Jim Bean

        The only thing I would challenge in your comment is the deportation numbers. If you research, you will find the O administration changed the way deportations are counted thus concocting the illusion that he has deported more (and he has admitted this). Specifically, he increased the number of people being turned back directly at the border being counted as ‘processed for deportation.’

        So actually, when you apply the same calculation method Obama is using now back through recent history you learn that total deportations under Obama are the lowest since 1973.

        The Left is easily persuaded to believe whatever they take comfort in believing.

      • Morrigan

        So the only thing you’re challenging is the deportation numbers?

        How about this?

        “The data/ statistics indicated that voter registration process is sufficient to prevent “false ballots.” There is very little voting fraud and the woman last year who tried to
        demonstrate how easy it is to fraudulently cast a ballot failed

        I would say you’re contradicting yourself, glorious Beanie.

      • Jim Bean

        How bout this?

        November 1, 2011 – 8 were arrested for absentee voter fraud in Madison County, Florida.

        The case began when the Florida’s Division of Elections notified FDLE ad FBI that “an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of absentee votes,” had been cast in the District 1 school board race. The eight suspects were arrested on November 1, 2011.

        Before I post the names of those arrested for voting more than once in an election, they are ALL registered Democrats:

        Tina Johnson was arrested on 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations.

        Johnson Jr. was charged with 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting votes, as well as corruptly influencing voting, and perjury by false written declaration.

        Williams was charged with 17 counts of neglect of duty and corrupt practices for allowing the distribution of these absentee ballots.

      • Karen Christie

        And voter ID laws won’t address abesentee ballots

      • Taryn Gibbons

        8. how many gun related deaths by comparision?

      • Taryn Gibbons

        there is a great deal of irony in every post. you regurgitate right talking points, while crying about ‘left’ talking points.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You actually had an informative, sane sounding comment going there until you took that needless parting shot. Really?! A callous stereotype after so much useful information?

      • Brian

        And you have some sort of objective, sociological, and legal proof of this? It sounds to me like you’re making an unqualified assumption based on your own personal biases. Like always.

      • Jim Bean

        Proof of what? Proof of the concealed carry eligibility requirements are available on any state gov’s website.

        Proof of ID requirement for the NAACP events is available by searching: Anti-Voter ID Protesters Required to ‘Bring Photo Identification’

      • Taryn Gibbons

        sources, don’t be obtuse. you knew what brian meant. you have yet to post any sources.

      • Sarvepalli

        Your assumption is based on the false premise that our gun laws are effective. They aren’t due to the NRA cult’s legally bribed politicians who’ve obstructed, amended and loopholed nearly all gun safety laws into ineffectiveness. Our flawed background check system, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a case in point.

        We have no system in “place to accurately determine whether all people” buying guns are eligible to buy a gun such as the mentally ill, or felons.

      • Jim Bean

        Two points: (1) you will NEVER create a system whereby criminals cannot buy guns but you CAN create a bigger black market for illicit guns if your work at it. (2) Mentally ill people are not usually mentally stupid. As a soon as you make a link between a persons mental stability and his second amendments rights, may people will stop seeking treatment for mental illness. (Beside, I’m sure if someone suggested a person pass a mental fitness test to exercise their right to vote, you’d wet your pants.)

        Furthermore, psychotropic drugs have been at play in murderous incidents more than once in the past.

      • Sarvepalli

        Point one is a fallacy. Fact is, we can create a system that will cut down on the number of criminals buying guns even if it won’s stop all criminals.

        Your second point is absurd therefore not worth the waste of time to address.

      • J.Bob

        Exactly right. In addition to the fact that the current administration has not even tried to enforce current law in many cases.

      • God

        Asshole. Corporate welfare is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more than public welfare, and it goes to trillion dollar profit machines, so that means all corporate welfare is ineligible. And 85% of public welfare goes to red states. Let’s kick your teeth in even more – Blue states pay more federal than they collect and Red states collect more than they pay. All facts that be easily checked, and this backs up the article to prove you’re being played by republicans. The rich, and the uneducated, poor red states get all the handouts courtesy of the hard working Blue States. And here’s one more thing for that last tooth in your mouth… The 2nd amendment actually doesn’t give anyone the right to have a gun. All you have to do is read the very first congress that still survives. It clearly states it’s for a Militia during a war instead of having a standing army. and this has nothing to do with interpreting the written 2nd amendment. Gun trafficking is the same as drug trafficking.. Now you’re toothless, and support terrorist having right to walk in a get a gun. You toothless traitor LOL

      • Jim Bean

        You shot yourself in the foot. That was one more self-defeating arguments I’ve read in a while.

        Maybe if you weren’t giving blue NY and CA ten times as much corporate welfare (each) as you’re giving Mississippi, Mississippi wouldn’t need more public welfare than CA and NY? Duh!? (if indeed, they are even getting more when Obamacare subsidies are counted in.)

        Huh? Whadaya think? Would Miss. need less public welfare? If not, why not?

        And why the hell should the blue states who are so prosperous solely on the basis that their people possess all that superior intelligence be needing any corporate welfare at all when other states are struggling? Tell me. Why? Why are the blue states so selfish?


    • RINOVirus

      The answer is that the American Right doesn’t believe in Freedom or Liberty. They believe in a double standard where they decide what rights other have based on their narrow worldview.

      • LMB

        I know, but I am enjoying watching them to try answer :).

      • larrd

        You claimed above that they’ve never answered.

        There are holes in your story. You seem to be lying to start off the discussion.

        Then of course Jim Bean has answered your question very ably.

      • Anna Turner

        My last month paycheck was for $11000… I got that by doing simple freelance jobs from comfort at home for few hr/a day that i got from company I found over the internet and they paid me for it 95 dollars every hour…
        Try it yourself

    • Aileen Caldwell Laing

      I’d love to see some of their replies. I bet they get angry. It seems their default position

    • Steve Brains

      BRilliant!!! SO we should have NO voter registrations at ALL!!! Just like ZERO gun control. A backround check is NOT control. A NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY and BALLISTIC DATABASE for EVERY FIREARM is CONTROL.

    • LMB

      Well… I asked and as you all can see from scrolling through the comments, I still did not get an answer. There was much discussion, some points made, but no direct answer (telling me we dont need more gun laws is not acceptable). I guess I will try again some other time ;).

    • Nemisis

      The answer is not a clear answer.
      These are separate topics and to link them in such manner is a distraction from both issues.

      I do get your point though.
      In both cases we do not need more laws, just better laws.
      In both cases these are constitutional rights.

      Except there is a distinction where for one right you do not want a mentally unstable person to exercise this right.
      Which right is that? I know unfair and tough call.

      The level of criminality is also a factor here. A person can be a criminal and not be a gun fan. Some criminals avoid gun use all together as the penalty for their crime is ramped up by the presence of a gun. A person who commits voter fraud is not necessarily a violent criminal.

      Better laws, better enforcement, better education.

      • mosquito

        This is the typical moronic post that we get from you. There is only one topic involved in this thread, the topic laid out by the original post.

        Nobody suggested that a person who commits voter fraud is a violent criminal. So, you’re raising a straw man when you bring up this fact.

        One things for sure. You need better education.

      • Nemisis

        There is a reason to your stupidity. You actively seek to be stupid.
        The topic of this thread is dictated by the article.
        Therefore you once again fail due to stupidity.
        Your trollish behavior prevents you from doing otherwise.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proven yourself to be a fool.

        You don’t even remember your own post. You were responding to the previous posts. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. So, was everyone else responding to a previous post. So, that shows what was the topic of this thread, moron.

        All you’ve got is bald, unsubstantiated assertion, which amounts to nothing.

      • Nemisis

        I clearly stated that the reason your stupid is you actively seek to be stupid. The post thread is on topic, you are not. Therefore, you are seeking the status of stupid. I concede, you are stupid.
        Due to your own efforts, you remain a failure, even at trolling.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proven yourself to be a moron. Whether or not my post is on topic has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am stupid or not or whether or not I am seeking the status of stupid. You are just making a moronic, bald, unsubstantiated assertion that it does.

      • Nemisis

        This is the typical trollish response we get from the McCarthy Imposter. The inability to form cognitive thought, and translate it to written word is demonstrative that Mosquito suffers from exposure to mercury through self ingestion.

        I will translate for the rest of the folks.
        ” Wonderful post. I really am envious of your abilities to put words together and I want to have your babies.”~Mosquito

        I am flattered however you are just not my type. For your procreative needs perhaps the Gibbon exhibit at your local Zoo.

      • mosquito

        Once again, you have proven yourself to be a moron. You demonstrate that you have nothing. That is what a bald, unsubstantiated assertion is, nothing.

        Your beating your chest like a moronic ape only gives you one advantage, that of demonstrating that you’re a complete asshole.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “For your procreative needs perhaps the Gibbon exhibit at your local Zoo.” That’s not a sentence, moron, and why the hell did you capitalize “Zoo”, moron?

      • Nemisis

        Because your a predictable little monkey. WP, five bucks please.

        No little monkey, the money is not for the capitalizing of Zoo.

        Thanks for the contribution MM.

      • What was it that you were trying to say about my a predictable little monkey (I.e. your a predictable little monkey)?

        Why the hell did you capitalize zoo, moron?

      • You’re a pathological liar. You’re not making any money off of my responses. Your claim that you are is just your pathetic attempt to save face, to make it look like you made your moronic mistakes on purpose, when in fact you made them because you are a moron.

      • Nemisis

        I am making money by winning bets. I have lost some money too. For the most part I win money when there is a challenge to illicit a specific response from you.
        I only make a buck when you make posts related to what you posted above. I donate 50% of my winnings to charity every post you make that does not have the word “moron” in it. The more people that follow this thread and join in on the creation of the posts the more fun this gets. The more you complain about language and it’s use in informal communication and are wrong, the more laughs that are generated.
        Some of the posts made are actually debated over before the final post is made. Like the Zoo post, or the comma post, there really has been a great deal of manipulation of you.

        I have said it before. I really do hope that you are McCarthy, but I will not make a phone call based on just your word. Your a liar and troll and that would be playing into your game. This is my game. You are just the ball. Until you complete the equation you are still just a liar, and a troll.
        I have been very upfront with you in this matter.
        Now you know more, and maybe you realize that you have been quite the complacent little monkey.
        Maybe you do not even see that, but that matters not. What does matter is you complete the equation.

        ” C subscript 1 ( M, omega )[sigma]= ”

        (ugly due to the constraints of the Disqus posting fonts.)

        I really don’t understand why McCarthy wrote C(subscript)1 when C would have sufficed.
        Maybe it was just a typo on his part.
        I am not looking for the solution, just the rest of the equation. The equation can not be solved.

        There are 3 hints and two baited responses in this post.

      • As I said, you’re a pathological liar. You’re not making money off of my responses. You’re not even predicting my responses.

        You write: “The more you complain about language and it’s use in informal communication and are wrong, the more laughs that are generated.” I have not been wrong even once in my participation in this thread. If laughs are being generated by my responses, it is not because of my responses. It’s because those who are laughing are just as moronic as you are.

        As I have observed previously, you have nothing. For that is what bald, unsubstantiated assertions are, nothing.

        You write: “Until you complete the equation you are still just a liar, and a troll.” That sentence is truly moronic. I’m a liar before I complete the equation, but no longer if I do complete the equation. You’re truly a moron. Either I’m a liar or I’m not. The fact of the matter is, I’m not. This all has nothing to do with whether or not I complete the equation. Your thoroughly illogical.

        What did I tell you about your moronic test?

      • Nemisis

        I am regaining the money lost when you posted without using “moron”.
        There are rules, I am following, and you are my little puppet.

        what are you going to do now

        or now


      • mosquito

        No money whatsoever has passed hands over my responses. As I have previously observed, this whole charade is your pathetic attempt to save face. It has failed miserably.

        You’re hopelessly self-deluded. I am the one who is in control here. I’ve refuted every single post you’ve put up in response to me.

      • Nemisis

        That, would be a wrong again statement.

      • BB-Mystic

        I donate 50% of my winnings to charity every post you make that does not have the word “moron” in it.

        Then, unfortunately, that particular charity hasn’t gotten very much. *heh heh* You sure you didn’t mean DOES have?

      • Nemisis

        In this case, no . His responses that do not include the word are the trigger. I predict he will reduce his usage significantly.

      • mosquito

        You’re a pathological liar.

      • Nemisis

        May have to revisit this 50% clause.

      • mosquito

        You wrote: “I am flattered however you are just not my type.” Could you please butcher the English language a little more? You have not completely destroyed it yet.

      • Nemisis

        because you lack imagination cognitive thought logical thought and intuitive insight this sentence its very structure and context will be completely enigmatic to you and should cause a certain twitch just to the left of your dominate eye i am personally hoping it causes you physical pain to read it

        finish the equation to prove you are knowledgeable of mccarthys work

        i got another fiver for predicting you would focus on the lack of a comma

        i am predicting a cranial-rectal inversion on this post

      • This is a complete waste of your time, Nemisis. I already knew that you were capable of butchering the English language.

        You wrote: “your dominate eye”. That’s quite amazing. You managed to modify a noun, eye, with a verb, dominate. You really are quite the moron.

    • Joe Kerr

      the answer is simple… gun control laws deprive lawful owners of their rights… voter registration doesnt deprive anyone of their rights…but you know this!

    • PJones

      Maybe the answer is so plain that you overlook it due to familiarity. If you know you’re the only one in a place who has a gun, then you know that as long as that condition lasts you can literally call the shots in that place, i.e., take the property, liberty, lives etc. of others present. So if your objective is to do those things, of course you go to where you know that the rule in place and respected (except by you) is, No guns! Hence the axiom, “If you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns.” It holds true because a law is only as potent as the power to enforce it, and in this very real scenario, the prevailing power simply neutralizes the law.
      Well, there’s the answer. Now, can you answer how abortion, voter fraud or illegal entry into the U.S. can similarly neutralize enforcement of laws about those things? (They can’t. That’s the point.)

    • ChairmanROFLMAO

      Are gun laws the only ones you think need to be more restrictive, or even enforced at all? Should we simply do away with laws since people keep breaking them? Which of the scenarios you described has to do with an enumerated right in the Constitution? And is it not worth noting that of your examples, gun laws specifically pertain to protecting the citizenry, not only from each other, but also from the government itself? The Constitution mentions that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That might give you some indication that many Americans would be wary of further restrictive legislation being applied to the Second Amendment.

    • 1NedSprockethead1

      Seriously, are you that stupid?

    • leona doan

      9 months have passed since I’ve lost my job and after that I was fortunate to find an awesome website which saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after, I’ve started earning 10 thousand dollars /a month… What was awesome about it was that since i am not a tech person what so ever all I needed was knowing how to type and internet access and i was ready to start… Read More HERE

    • WMCOL

      Simply put, they think the laws you are comparing gun laws to will be effective but gun laws will not.

    • larrd

      Shooting folks is already illegal. You don’t get answers because there’s no parallel, and thus it is a stupid question.

    • randolphgarrison1

      I believe you are right! More laws will not solve the gun issue! We need to call up the militia in pairs to patrol our schools, malls, and anywhere there are large assemblies of citizens that could be targets.

      This is a practicable solution as the state would not be required to pay the militia as this is part of the second amendment, his is part of what it is all about! The state could be responsible to hold proper training for the use of the firearms as part of the well ordered and maintained militia.

      Also part of the second amendment was to be able to bear arms aginest or for our own government should the need arise.
      Which personally I believe is very close to now!

    • Phyllis Colmar

      They are ass kissers of the NRA money so they spin the illogical into the logical and assume the sheeple will follow along as they always do.

  • strayaway

    I have a suggestion. Instead of article listing 5-15 things, how about just one alleged, horrible, evil, conservative topic per article? It would allow for better responses and more articles. For instance, I can basically agree with the list of Reagan’s shortcomings listed in point #6 and it is an adequate topic by itself. In fact, there are seven topics for discussion just in point #6. I can no more understand some conservatives’ adulation for Reagan than liberals’ adulation for Roosevelt or Obama.

  • Rick Flash

    I think liberals parrot history and facts. Can you actually dispute any of the above points with facts of your own instead of name-calling and pointing fingers with no evidence to support?

  • gt6

    #4 is my favorite way to shut a republican up. I ask them to name the last GOPer President to finish his term without starting a recession. Still waiting.

    • Matthew Reece

      They start recessions by starting wars and by picking Federal Reserve chairpeople who start Austrian business cycles. A Republican with a non-interventionist foreign policy and an anti-central banking mentality probably would not start a recession.

      • oldiugymnast

        So you got F’s in Macro economics. Good to know. Austrian business cycles assume a fixed supply of money – so fail. Epically so.

      • Matthew Reece

        So you got F’s in authentic (Austrian) economics. Good to know. Otherwise, you would know that Austrian business cycles involve an expansion of monetary supply during the boom, followed by a contraction during the bust.

      • oldiugymnast

        Just like all the Austrians then – it wasn’t that Von Mises and Hayek built their non-models with an assumption of hard money (they did) – its that I didn’t understand what they meant by that. The concept of a business cycle predates the Austrians anyway – they don’t own that.

  • Champ86

    Good points Allen.

  • Brenden Donaldson

    If something does not change soon we will have lost what america is, A free country. then we wil have to fight for it back and it will be long and and bloody.

    • Jillz

      I watched Gasland 2 last night. Watch it if you want to see what the Republican vision looks like in the USA. Very disturbing though.

  • Liberal Is Good

    Whoa! Little buddy! Wha jus yew wait! Afer tha lection nex month we goona have magic pixey dust on everthang we don lack an thangs’ll be jus great then! Wha r idees r what makes tha werld go round!

  • Betty Eyer

    8) They are the ones who are really going to “Mess with your Medicare”.

  • Minnesota1994

    Anybody voting Republican is a LOW information voter which is exactly what the GOP counts on!

  • Vivian Sue House Hughes

    How can they be so “pro life” but are okay with the death penalty and war?

    • drew

      All I ask you is this Vivian…if we determine a life ends with the ending of a heartbeat then isn’t it fair that we determine life begins with the beginning of a heartbeat. War, the death penalty and abortions do not belong in the same category. Using your logic is like saying puking, a five star meal and dog food belong in the same category. Sorry but please think before you publicly speak again.

      • James M. Barber

        Even medically there is disagreement about the ending of life.(braindeath). Fetuses dont survive outside the womb before 20 weeks. Relating killing to killing is a valid point. To say it isn’t is avoiding the dissonance in the pro life argument making pro lifers look like they have a learning disability. Better to let people speak than to open your mouth and let everyone know your too dumb to argue properly.

      • BB-Mystic

        Except that we DON’T determine that life ends with the “ending of a heartbeat.” We determine that by cessation of brain activity. If you’re going to allow organ harvestation of a relative’s body, the heart still has to be beating, because blood still has to be flowing to the organs which will be used for transplant. Same if your relative is on life support–the heart is still beating, but once the brain has ceased to function, then life support can be turned off. This happened to my aunt more than thirty years ago, after she had a massive stroke.

        Without a functioning brain, the body is nothing. Before or after birth.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        Wrong, we keep brain dead people alive all the time with feeding tubes and other machines.

      • BB-Mystic

        You’re still missing the point.
        Remember Terri Schiavo and the fight to remove her feeding tube? Her parents insisted she was “alive” because she breathed on her own, her heart beat, she made noises, and they claimed she was responding to them. After the feeding tube was removed, an autopsy showed there was literally nothing left of her brain but the brain stem, the part of the brain that controls reflexes. Everything that they claimed proved “life” was nothing but a nonsentient, unconscious reflex.
        You want to call a brain-dead person “alive” who is “living” because of a machine? With all due respect, that’s heartless. The person is gone and nothing but the body is left. Wouldn’t you turn off the machine in that situation? You know, or you should know, that this is almost always what is done. People aren’t left in the ICU on machines; the family turns the machines off. Brain death is now the standard medical definition of death, and it doesn’t matter if the heart is still beating.
        This should apply to fetuses as well. Before a functioning brain develops, there is nothing but a body. There is no conscious “person” to terminate, and as such, the decision should be left up to the person who definitely IS the conscious, sentient person in this scenario. That would be the woman.

      • TheEquilizer2U

        I truly feel sorry for you.
        What do you tell the people that love you?
        Do you say things like, “thats not love sweatheart, it’s just a collection of chemical responses”

        Liberalism is a mental disorder

      • RINOVirus

        Really? Liberalism is a mental disorder? If it is then please tell us where that is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

      • BB-Mystic

        …Aaand that has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Also, do you know what “proofreader” means? “Sweatheart.” Heh.

        You feel sorry for me? Well, that’s okay, I suppose, but really, I’m good. I, on the other hand, just think you’re funny. You fling so much poo on these threads, to so little effect.

      • drew

        100% of all deaths since the beginning of time have absolutely without question ended with a last heartbeat. We have no idea of the conscious thoughts of anyone but our own. I believe that a conscious person has an absolute right to determine their own ending. I believe that a family has a right to determine the natural ending of a loved one when that persons wishes are known.But to say that a woman or a man because of their irresponsibility has the right to end a life of an unborn child is irresponsible. If it was my daughter and she had been raped I would choose for her to abort. If my daughters life was absolutely in jeapordy because of the birth of her child…I would not know what to do. But to compare abortions to the deaths of those in war or because of their penalty as a result of a crime against their fellow humans is ridiculous.

      • BB-Mystic

        I think your comment is actually directed more towards Vivian than me, as I said nothing about war or the death penalty. But regardless, let me ask you one question: From the point of view of a pro-lifer, what differentiates a fetus conceived in rape or incest from a fetus conceived via consensual sex? It seems to me that a committed pro-lifer should regard both fetuses as lives that need to be protected. Therefore, when you say “if it was my daughter and she had been raped I would choose for her to abort,” that sounds a bit hypocritical, to say the least. Like your real purpose is to punish the woman rather than protect the fetus.

        Also: YOU would CHOOSE for your daughter to abort, but don’t want to allow anyone else the choice? That sounds suspiciously like the old saying, “The only moral abortion is my abortion.”

        Finally: “If my daughters life was absolutely in jeapordy because of the birth of her child…I would not know what to do.” I assume you’re talking about a fetus conceived via consensual sex here, but really, sir? REALLY? Do you know how heartless this makes you sound? I know if I was your daughter, I would be very hurt by your even thinking you might let me die rather than allow a life-saving abortion.

        (And, of course, if your daughter is an adult, you would have nothing to say about any of it.)

      • RINOVirus

        Yes, you keep brain dead people alive all the time. And you are one of them.

  • drew

    This article is political and like all articles like this regardless of political affiliation is…bs. Those of you who voluntarily participate in this kind of rhetoric need to check your lack of loyalty at the door and reapply for citizenship. Neither party is good for America…common sense seems to be a thing of the past. We are imploding and nobody seems to care. Good luck with your party affiliation…I hope it works out for you.

  • Sean Bell

    What an amazing amount of BS all gathered into one article–it is almost like watching a negative of Fox, the same stench, just pulled from the other side of the pile and applied to a different base.

    #1 is mildly truthful in an assbackwards sort of way.
    #2 is pure red-meat gibberish
    #3 is sometimes true, but all of the examples chosen were done by Democrats.
    #4 the first mostly true statement in the bunch. It just left out that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during 7 out of 10 of them (2 were split and one wholly owned by the GOP), and 3 of them happened within months of coming to office after a Dem left (2 of the 3 were previously wholly owned by Dems and includes the one wholly owned by the GOP mentioned above). Which begs a couple of questions–Is the POTUS mostly a figurehead? How much control do the politicians have over the economy?
    #5 possibly true with a slight problem–both parties are captured by big business interests. The only real difference on this front is that the Dems have the Green party in their camp which means they have to at least give lip service to the cause.
    #6 the only completely true statement.
    #7 makes me wonder whether the Democratic party understands any economics other than Keynes and Marx.

    • oldiugymnast

      #1. How is this backwards? The GOP is the party of “government is the problem” and they seek to prove it whenever they can. Period.

      #2 How so? There is all sorts of evidence that this is true. The Republicans have clearly made the cynical choice to hurt the country to regain power.

      #3 Democrat does not and has not always equaled liberal. In 1865, the Republicans were progressives. In 1910, the Republicans were somewhat progressive. In 1963, the Southern Democrats were conservative. Poorly reasoned argument.

      #4 Okay – this is partly true. But your response ignores reality and who was driving what made the economy work.

      #5 It is demonstrably not true that the Democrats are denying climate change or in any way supportive of dismantling the EPA. The Republicans ended the blenders credit hurting start up biofuels. The Republicans have actively opposed solar and wind projects. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt.

      #6 Good to know you paid attention!

      #7 Keynes and Marx? Why pick those two? What about Gailbraith? Samuelson (which is where most left-leaning economists fall), Hicks, and the former hero of the right, but now largely ignored Milton Friedman? What economists do you propose we should use? The completely destroyed by reality Austrians? Ayn Rand the novelist like Paul Ryan uses? Who? Who does the right agree with on economics?? I know Jim Bean is a goldbug and a mulitplier denier but how about you? And especially why Marx? What about the Democratic policy preferences do you think is Marxist? Have you read Marx?

      • Thebob

        Both parties are the same and have the same goals in the long run. To steal as much power from the people as possible and create a massive government where the people are dependent on them for most of the basic services, food, water, medicine….If you can’t see that then you are a sheeple go ahead and fall in line to the slaughter house…..Idiots are all I see on here touting this side is that, that side is this….All in the plan this is what they want…..Dems and Rebs don’t run this country they are all both beholden to their money hungry handlers……

  • Michael Siever

    Have you ever noticed that the Tealiban complains about government spending and waste, while they always drum up how much they love the military, which is government-run and funded? I have a proposition for them: If you love the military, but hate the government and believe government entities should be abolished/privatized, how abut you start with the military, if you love it that much? Make Big Oil and defense contractors pay for the wars, since they make so much profit off of them, instead of taxpayers. This way, war can only be declared when it is absolutely necessary, as opposed to whenever the hell the GOP feels like declaring war.

    • Thebob

      The one of a few things that our Federal government has a RIGHT AND MUST DO is defend our borders…That is the Fed’s primary JOB not giving money or food stamps to poor people….Yes there are important aspects to this, but Spending on our DEFENSE should be just about number 1 above anything else first and for most…..Idiots have no idea how the Fed should be run or what they are even allowed to do. Most of the policies and government agencies are bogus and unconstitutional. Fed’s Job by the Constitution….Keep peace between states, interstate commerce…..Keep and maintain a national defense, border security….The Constitution DOES NOT GRANT POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ALL THE POWER IS HELD BY THE STATES…WITH THE STATES GIVING SOME OF THAT POWER TO THE FED. The Federal Government exists to server the States, not the other way around. 90% of the issues you all deem the fed responsible for are stupid and for stupid people. It’s really simple. The States pass laws for their state. If one State want abortion fine let that state vote on it, but that shouldn’t affect the choice of my State that doesn’t want abortions. If you truly feel that killing your unborn children is a good thing then so be it, but I don’t want to live in that State so I move…..Same thing for voter ID laws…These ARE NOT FEDERAL ISSUES……Most of you need to go back to school and learn the Constitution again and the purpose of the Federal Government, State Government, and Local Government……Giving all the power to the Fed severely limits our freedom and our rights granted to us by God, not the Government. The Constitution protects those rights it DOES NOT GRANT THEM…..NOR DOES THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    I’ve written a note on Facebook called, “NOW HEAR THIS! NOW HEAR THIS!”
    In that note, I warn people off of thinking that the Fascist GOP Cons are stupid. Conservatives are NOT stupid…I repeat, CONS are NOT STUPID….
    They’re Fascist psychopaths. Psychopaths are intelligent but use that intelligence to mask their mental defects and manipulate the stupid. The GOP Cons know EXACTLY what they’re doing.
    Now, as for the rest of the Republican Party, there are three other groups of people within the party: Tea Partiers (Fascist sociopaths), Libertarians (“Firebaggers”; Fascism-suborning sociopaths) and Progressives/Moderates. You should know that the Cons consider those other three groups within the party to be “Useful Idiots”. And, when Non-Con GOPers vote for Republicans, they prove the Cons correct.
    If you’re a GOP Progressive or Moderate, don’t be a Useful Idiot by voting Republican. Vote for Democrats, who truly represent you, anyway.

    • Thebob

      You are a sheeple…..

  • Michael Potts

    Unfortunately the Republican voters are too stupid to notice these things. They are very much in the “OBAMA HUSSEIN SADAM IS EVIL, OBAMACARE BROKE OUR ECONOMY” mindset – while they don’t know much about the people they are voting for… Not pro-republican but anti-obama. Sure Obama isn’t perfect, but for every ‘terrible’ democrat there is an even more incompetent republican.

    • Thebob

      Actually I would say same is true for you libtards….Big D next to their name Okay vote for this scumbag…Screw the 2 party system. Remove corporate donations, all donations for campaigns should be from private citizens. Or keep corporate donations but open them up for public viewing…So we can see who truly runs this country….It’s all about money and both parties are exactly the same, with exception for 2 or 3 issues that have nothing to do with how our government is run.

  • Joe Kerr

    so many lies…like “almost the same” etc etc only the uneducated would accept this nonsense as legitimate !

  • miketothad

    Never underestimate the stupidity of the Republican voter.

  • 1NedSprockethead1

    I think it’s just so cute that you all can come on a socialist craphole site like this and blabber on about how unthinking and stupid conservatives are, but when the time comes to actually debate, for example abortion against Mike S. Adams, there are no takers. That’s really sweet kids, but don’t you think it’s time to grow up?

  • Paul Burt

    Low tax rates have contributed to stagnated wages for the working and what is left of the middle class. The rich don’t seem to mind. See Thom Hartmann’s “Who Stole the American Dream” for details.

  • Thebob

    I can agree on the wage stagnation being an issue, it’s actually lower now under Obama, than when Bush was in office. Again even lower than when Clinton was in office. The big issue with wage stagnation is Minimum Wage…..period….Wages have been stagnant since the 1970’s when the minimum wage was first introduced….A butcher use to make a decent living in this country 40K a year, now they are lucky if they make 20 – 30K a year. Why well who really wants to be a butcher….not to many kids grow saying yeah I want to be a butcher….So lets just pay them what the government says we have to pay them. Hell even sewage worker’s use to make decent money why cause nobody wants to rumage through sewage all day, yet they still make minimum wage…With out a minimum wage; wages would be dictated by market and job type…a shitty job will pay more than a not so shitty job like flipping burgers….Also minimum wage was never meant to be a “Living Wage” two different types of wage earning. Hell I make decent money a year, but I can barely get by to support my family wife and 3 kids….Just another example garbage truck guys sanitation, unless you are union, you paid shit for a really shitty job..

  • VetTeacher

    Best article I’ve seen on the sclerosis of this nation in quite some time. Now, if we can just get it front of the people who are all three of the “See, Hear, Speak” No Evil primates personified incarnate, we’ll get somewhere. Until THEY see the problem, the problem just putrifies.

  • Libs love gov but care NOT about the obvious waste? If you BELIEVE in Gov. U SHOULD FIX THE WASTE. ~ T.E.A. is working for constitutional Limited Gov. Not a “Give-away” BONANZA.

  • youse

    Far left liberal progressives are a hard bunch to understand. Only after I watched the Grace Lee Boggs documentary AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY/THE EVOLUTION OF GRACE LEE BOGGS did I begin to dig in and find out whatever I could about Progressives. Now I understand. Yet, still I wonder why a group would want to destroy a free country, one which others come in by the millions to flee their oppressive governments. This oppression the Progressives want to establish here in America. President Obama is a Progressive, he ran on HOPE and CHANGE. Non Progressives had no idea what he was talking about. Please search the web for James Boggs THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; NOTES FROM A NEGRO WORKER’S NOTEBOOK. Written in 1963! You can see the pattern the Progressives are following today. Destroy this government so you can rebuild. Destroy the education so you can indoctrinate, destroy capitalism, because Progressives do not believe that people should have to work to be equal, get rid of the military, turn the country you are taking over into a one party and slander the other party. Take over the media that only your ideology is promoted and any other is slandered with lies (this is why Progressives want a black President, so they can scream RACIST whenever we serious disagree with the Constitution beings trampled. Many Americans cannot believe what appears to be such ineptness and inexperience for an American President to not represent the people and their Constitution. However, he is experienced as a community organizer which is what Progressives do. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but oh how clever of the Progressives to groom a black, so that those who honestly want us all to be equal will be afraid of being thought a racist. This way your guy can get away with executive overreach, refusing to work with the other party. I encourage you to study this out, but then, as your man Gruber said, the American people might be too stupid, because the Progressives took away the education that would tech our kids again about what our Constitution is all about, and how this country was set up with safe guards so this very thing never happened.

  • Hailey

    Ok well I’m a conservative. I believe that gun control keeps this country alive. Obama is soon going to take everything we have. The constitution clearly states in Amendment IV that he is not allowed to enter homes without a search warrant. According the Amendment II the Right to Bear Arms. We can have guns to have self defense. If the Government would do its job, criminal would be locked up and out of the way.

  • J.E.Escoffier

    The Republican Part is owned by the Koch Brothers, which means oil, chemical, fossil fuels, bio, and manufacturing, among many. The agenda of the GOP is almost exactly what David Koch’s political agenda was in 1980 when he ran with Ed Clark against Reagan. Again, with “smaller government” they have been touting for nearly 20 yrs, it has been and is easier to get their agendas passed at the state level than at the Federal, but now that they own the senate and the house, the Republicans are passing these bills. Read below and when you’re finished read the USA Today interview with Charles Koch. He said it’s not about their bottom line, it’s about a government that needs to service the people better ( insert the word wealthy here). It made me ill.
    In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

    Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

    Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

    “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
    “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
    “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
    “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
    “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
    “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
    “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
    “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
    “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
    “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
    “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
    “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
    “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
    “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
    “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
    “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
    “We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
    “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called “self-protection” equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
    “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
    “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
    “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
    “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
    “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
    “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
    “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
    “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

  • chris968

    The Republican party stands for small government, when it involves their precious guns. Otherwise they are all about big government invading people’s private lives and controlling what everybody does. They are hypocrites in every sense of the word. They insist that President Obama is “ruining” the country when in fact he has actually brought us back from the brink of disaster and those pesky facts prove it, but they don’t listen. Every time one of those GOP clowns opens his mouth in regards to 2016 it just brings us a step closer to handing Hillary the presidency on a silver platter. Now just to win the House and Senate back and we will be good. It’s unfortunate so many Democrats have been complacent about voting, because conservative voters come out of the woodwork on election day and every single one of them votes, which is why we got screwed last November.

  • bach_on

    One bedrock principle of Conservatives is that progress on social issues should be VERY gradual so society has time to adjust. Many of the bills and amendments proposed by Conservatives are grounded in slowing or rolling back social changes. Oddly, this principle does not apply to economic principles – particularly when business is concerned. Any trick is accepted as smart business. Conservative think tanks are continually providing proposals to cut the cost of government. And when the GOP gain majority control at the state or federal level – they rush to apply these economic as quickly as possible.

    So it’s slow down on social principles but fast as possible on economics.

    And society and labor has no chance to adjust.

    It just seems ironic to me.

  • Sarvepalli

    This is in keeping with my contention that the GOP has been waging a low level Civil War against our nation since it adopted its Southern Strategy, which in essence represents the neo-Confederacy. The signs are all there and the first two items on the list above only corroborates their tactics designed to destroy our government and nation.

  • Stephen Sachs

    I saw picture of a Teabagger walking around with a sign that said; “GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE”…so they have a real good understanding of things…LOL

  • dsadlowski

    The GOP has been a Fascist movement since they elected a B movie actor who was trained by GE no less to destroy the country.

    All because the ME GENERATION BOOMERS who gave us the culture of narcissism…..”self-realization” and “self-fulfillment” and cultural aspirations were far more important than social responsibility.

    Believed the BIG LIE and now they are finally waking up to what they voted for and why Tea Party Patriots those Grumpy boomers today are now in the streets they denied they had anything to do with the BIG LIE

    Trickle down trickle down repeat after me trickle down the GOP Polices that destroyed the country…….

    .All because the BOOMERS the Generation of ME believed the lies Reagan told them on their TV’s that they to would live the life of Dynasty.

    All you have to do you see is give the rich everything for TAX FREE. but did not tell them this you see …….we will drain the treasury..


  • dsadlowski

    Reagan Revolution just a Fascist Movement .

    Reagan’s Morning in America became the Mourning of America.

    Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Reagan communicated to Americans after the failure of Vietnam Nixon and the mess left to Carter by the GOP Nixon…….that we are EXCEPTIONAl they love those Mottos In god We Trust, One Nation under God all wrapped in a Commie Chinese made American flag they bought at NON Union Walmart as they are clinging to their bible and guns fearful of those desert dwellers in the middle east. .
    Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights The Party gave us torture back and GITMO. Mandatory sentences for pot.

    THE PARTY has their scapegoats they have a list of them. How the southern strategy has worked for them for the last 30 plus years now. Blame and project what you are actually doing on that scapegoat. Goebbels would be so proud.

    Supremacy of the Military …THE PARTY claims we are broke but always seem to find the money for WAR BUDGETS.

    RAMPANT SEXISM …THE PARTY has a war on woman and gays .

    THE PARTY has their own propaganda news FOX NEWSPEAK were they make the lies BIG repeat them often the other 5 corporate owned media pick it up it becomes truth in the eyes of the people. Again Goebbels would be so proud.

    THE PARTY’S Obsession with National Security gave us the Patriot act and NSA the rights to spy on us. First they went after them muslims most Americans did not care yet they were always spying on us.

    THE PARTY courted the religious right now they act against the basic tenets of that religion. No food for you no shelter for you and damn sure no health ace for you……….Compassionate christians now say you can do it we will give you moral support and pray that you do now be like the little train that could I think i can I think I can.

    THE PARTY Protects that CORPORATE POWER .ALWAYS they are now PEOPLE with souls and morals they defend in courts and claim will have to in heaven.

    THE PARTY started union busting during the days of ST FASCIST REAGAN and 1984 came right on time. Right to work for less one GOP state at a time.

    THE PARTY has a Distain for the educated and why THE PARTY is trying to destroy education with their Christian reconstruction creation bull and making profits off student loans and then making good Patriot serfs of them and not good citizen. .

    THE PARTY’S Obsession with crime and punishment gave us the drug war 3 strikes laws mandatory sentences and our shoot first laws.

    Rampant Cronyism and Corruption with Five Radical Male right wing social engineering judges to make it so for them.

    And how can we forget THE PARTY STEALING of elections 2000 and suppressing the votes and selling arms to Iran to hold those hostage just a few more days gutting voting right act.

  • RabidVT

    #8 Jesus is neither white or a Republican.