Want to Annoy Republicans? Show Them This…

Every once in a while I like to use what I call “fun facts to tick off Republicans.”  Just a few facts that conservatives might argue with, yet can’t really counter without looking foolish.

I highly encourage all liberals to share this with their conservative friends.  Then watch as they haplessly try and argue against each comment.

Here we go:

    • Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we’re a Christian nation.
    • In fact, no where in our Constitution does the word “Christian” appear even once.
    • Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion—it also doesn’t specify any particular religion.
    • The 2nd Amendment actually refers to a “well regulated militia.”  While it says the right for Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the phrase “well regulated” obviously infers that this right doesn’t come without regulations.
    • Our Constitution doesn’t mention anything about our nation having to be based on pure Capitalism.
    •  A corporation is an entity, not a person, and our Constitution wasn’t created to protect the rights to entities—they have none.
    • Education is more important than national defense.  What’s the point of a strong national defense if there’s nothing worth defending?


    • There are far more poor and middle class Americans than rich.  If you continue building a society based on taking from the many to benefit the few, then we’re not going to have a nation much longer.
    • Rich people didn’t become rich by giving away their money, Trickle Down Economics is the biggest con our country has ever seen.
    • Decades ago we all paid a much higher tax percentage,  and our economic policies protected the people more than businesses.  During these times our nation saw historic growth and unheard of economic prosperity.  None of that was done by basing our policies on giving more to the rich.
    • Perhaps most news seems liberally biased because your news sources refuse to report facts.
    • Being Muslim doesn’t mean someone isn’t American. Islam is a religion, not a nationality.
    • George W. Bush actually did double our national debt, President Obama has not.
    • Bush also inherited a balanced budget.  It was his tax cuts and unfunded wars which sent us back into budget deficits.
    • Social Security and Medicare is socialism—and millions of Republican voters benefit from, and receive, these benefits.
    • Health insurance is you paying for another person’s health care—in fact all insurance is you paying for someone else.
    • We had record oil prices under Bush, not Obama.
    • The “Great Recession” started in 2008, while Obama took office January 20, 2009—you know, after the recession started.
    • If Obama is the cause of our economic problems, why do Republicans avoid, at all costs, being associated with George W. Bush?


    I’ll stop there, though I really could go on for much longer—guess I’ll just have to make another one to annoy Republicans another time.

    But I would encourage everyone to take this and share it around, I promise it will annoy the hell out of any conservative who reads it.

    And as angry as it might make them, the fun part begins as you watch them try to invent something “factual” to respond with.

    Allen Clifton

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

    Comments

    Facebook comments

  • phukk rightwing trash

    as NOT seen on FOX “news” hey!!! where is Hannity and malkin (UGGH) and palin and rove and o’reilly and coulter and,,,,,( you get my point)

  • ShoreBudMike

    “Presenting a Republican with cold, hard, verifiable facts and truth has the same effect as exposing a vampire to the light of day.”
    —Yours Truly—

    • Alan

      wrong… presenting a republican with cold, hard, verifiable facts is the same as pointing out how horrible the bible is to a fundie christian (which are frequently the same republicans)… they don’t really care how much proof you offer… they are blind to facts.

      • ORveteran

        you must live in CO and stoned. Your post makes absolutely no sense.

      • Alan

        if it makes no sense to you then apparently I’m not the one that is stoned.. fail english much?

      • ORveteran

        I’m glad you can see grammatical errors. At least you arent completely in fantasy land.

      • You mean fail English? Fall asleep in 5th grade much?

      • HarrietM

        I’m guessing you are a fundie christian? Or you have never, ever met a fundie in your life, in which case: where do you live? Is there room for more?

        The post makes perfect sense. The bible is a horrible book full of disgusting atrocities and sexual shenanigans. It is definitely not suitable for children. Try explaining that to a fundie Christian and all you get are fingers in their ears while they shriek, “LALALALALA”.

        P.S. Personally I love sexual shenanigans, but I am such a prude. I only approve of sexual relations between consenting adults. I don’t mind how many there are or what their genders are, but they all must be adults and happy with their own arrangement.

      • At the point that they say “you don’t make any sense” is the point where the conversation either becomes educational, gets ridiculous, or ends.

      • Robin Fletcher

        Yes, HarrietM! 🙂

      • Why do you oppose freedom of religion? You ridicule Christianity directly to the believers. Would you do the same to members of Islam? Or are you afraid they wouldn’t turn the other cheek (that’s in that horrible Bible you describe), but might just kick your ass instead?

      • Leah

        We do it all the time. Ever heard of Draw Mohammed day?

      • sdf

        … no?

      • Kim Ferrari

        What we oppose is the idea of oppression in the name of religion. You know, like the whole reason the people left England in the first place? Only now, there isn’t anywhere for the oppressed to go, no other cultures for us to screw up. So, yeah. We oppose the freedom to dictate that everyone else has to be YOUR religion. We oppose the making of laws and teaching of school curriculum that is based on YOUR religion. And we resent the hell out of you thinking that values such as “honesty and integrity” exist ONLY in people who profess Christianity, while showing themselves to be the most hateful, willfully ignorant, ill-informed, lying, despicable people I have ever had the misfortune of interacting with.

      • HarrietM

        I wish I could click “Like” a bunch more times. Excellent work.

      • Willow_wynn

        It’s not an opposition to freedom of religion. It’s merely an exercise in freedom of speech to be able to point out one’s own opinions about religion. By doing so, we’re not infringing on anyone’s right or ability to practice their religion, just as much as we expect them to not infringe upon our rights to speak out about how we feel about religion. The concept of freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they really compliment each other well. You can’t have freedom of religion if you can’t speak out about religion whether that is in a positive or negative manner. You can’t have freedom of speech if you’re going to tell someone they can’t say something just because you don’t like it being said.

      • Aloanstar

        70 thumbs up and 4 down…that doesn’t look like there are many “believers” on here….this must be a good place to be. One has to find sanity where ever it exists.

      • Wow are you ever fucked up.

      • motorfingaz

        LOL

      • Robin Fletcher

        Alan, your quote makes more sense than that of any who tries to argue it makes no sense because they make no sense when you do. Go Alan! 🙂

      • Further proof that the U.S. government has no business running the educational system.

      • zyuranger

        Well, since you seem to think private education is so superior then you’ll love these facts.

        1. We had a private school system in the US when it started. It favored the wealthy and instead of bolstering freedom suppressed it. Our nation created public schools to allow everyone, rich or poor, to get an education in response.

        2. The public school system is actually far superior to the private schools who do consistently worse the public schools. Public schools are also more diverse then public schools and don’t have religious classes that are mandatory to graduate.

        3. Private institutions are rife with corruption and scandals way more then public ones. It was due to this that many institutions became part of the government in the first place, to ensure that equality is truly for all.

        4. Private schools don’t tend to accept children with disabilities unless the schools themselves are designed especially for those with disabilities. Many children with disabilities wouldn’t even be educated with a private school system.

        5. A person in a public school has a much better opportunity to see diversity and a more realistic look at the modern job system as the diversity in schools more reflects the growing diversity of America which is much less white and has a growing amount of minorities.

    • To know what happens to vampires exposed to the light of day presupposes that you have had some personal experience with at least one vampire. To really know with scientific certainty what happens to vampires when exposed to the light of day requires that at least twenty vampires were exposed to the light of day and the same thing happened to at least nineteen of them.

    • I think it is more akin to teaching a pig to sing (wastes your time &annoys the pig)

    • ORveteran

      Like most liberals you are delusional. Vampires aren’t real.

      • Sacha

        Prove it.

      • Ynaffit

        I’m always disgusting at the idiocy that a person shows she he or she smugly demands that another prove a negative.

      • randomguy

        disgusted, eh? who’s the smug one?

      • Clematis

        Don’t you mean disgusted?

      • ORveteran, you have the silly misconception that it is Liberals who are delusional when in fact anyone who isn’t biased by a flat refusal to consider the truth in what people say, will recognize that it is the Republicans and the uber-stoopid Christians (you know, sheep who blindly believe what they are told to, rather than using their heads) who are the true delusional ones. Apparently this group is your club as well.

      • Robin Fletcher

        Agree with Charlotte Rowe! We atheist liberals do not force our views down anyone’s throat and we do not bully. We only fight back when embattled by bitter angry Christian conservatives who fight and belittle and bully.

      • You mean by going around demanding that any representation of the Christian faith be torn down so you don’t have to be visually assaulted by it? You’ll find that if you leave Christians alone, they’ll leave you alone, which can’t be said of the “Freedom from Religion” crowd. You’re always in the news for ramming it down someone’s throats by suing to have religion (Christian only) removed from our daily life.

      • I DONT KNOW OF ONE RETURNING SOLDIER….. IN A BOX……… THAT HAS ATTACKED THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH SO THEY LEFT THE FUNDIES ALONE YET THEY

        STILL CAME AND INSULTED THE SOLDIERS FUNERAL AND FAMILY

      • Rock Island

        You guys don’t have to worry about atheists, you can’t even get along with each other. Put a Catholic and a Baptist in the same room to discuss the best way to pray to God and they’ll be at each others throats in no time. .

      • Rob Klaers

        If you consider the 1st Amendment then you’d know the 10 Commandments shoudn’t be there in the first place. It;’s equal time for all or none at all.. It’s like when you were in grade school and you brought a snack and the teacher would ask “:Do you have enough for everyone?” .. “No.” …”Then you don’t get to have it.”
        The same goes here..

      • Liljon

        Christians will leave others alone? One example: Westborough Baptist Church… They protest against funerals, baseball games, gays, divorcees, etc etc.

      • Willow_wynn

        As an atheist, I have NEVER demanded that the symbols of Christian faith be torn down. Only keep them where they should be- in the church. Religion doesn’t belong in schools unless you’re holding a world religion class to educate students about ALL religions in a fair and unbiased way. Religion doesn’t belong in government or court. This is actually why there is supposed to be separation of church and state. Religion doesn’t need to be paraded all through a grocery store since showing only one religion’s symbols could then interfere with the comfort of people who are not part of that religion. People don’t like door-to-door sales people knocking around dinner time- Why should we then tolerate the same thing just because it’s a person from the church doing it with flyers and pamphlets about Jesus? I don’t care if they show their devotion at church, and this goes for ANY religious group in my opinion. Just don’t go trying to force it down my throat everywhere else. Trust me, If I want to go to your church, I will.

      • David Bovard

        You liberal Dumbocrats really make me Laugh. You get your news from that dried up jerk Al Sharpton and msnbc.

      • Willow_wynn

        Wow… Just… wow… You assume much here Mr. Bovard. First you’re assuming that just because someone is liberal they’re also Democrat. This isn’t necessarily so. Also, you’re assuming each of us is getting our news from the exact same source. Did you not notice we’re having these discussions on the internet? Did you never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, some of us research other news sources and compare what we get from it in order to come up with our own ideas? It’s called critical thinking skills. Try using them sometime. Just don’t hurt yourself in the process, ok?

      • Victoria Lamb

        Like many conservatives, you totally miss the point.

      • Successful troll was successful

      • Have you seen Pelosi?

      • ORvet, you were joking along with Jim Logan right. You didn’t take
        his post seriously, I hope! You did pick up on the obvious jest there
        right?! Please say yes!

    • I’ve observed the same of Liberals. Squeezing any cold hard facts out of a liberal is like pulling hens’ teeth. All they seem to have is “Bush was worse”, “You’re a racist”, “You’re a hater”, etc.

      • jllutseck

        If you had to have people TELL you that Bush was worse, odds are you are a racist and hate-filled person.

  • Thanks for making us Texans look a little less crazy to the rest of the world!

    • The shoe fits, unfortunately.

    • Victoria Lamb

      It was unintentional on my part.

  • Thanks, this was fun.

  • nashkitten

    It doesn’t “infer” anything… it “implies” it… change that or you look less than well-educated

    • soultripp

      in•fer [in-fur] – verb (used with object)
      1.
      to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
      2.
      (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
      3.
      to guess; speculate; surmise.
      4.
      to hint; imply; suggest.

    • soultripp

      nashkitten, I’m sorry, but your nit picking reveals that you are either educationally challenged (note that even the above definition uses the word IMPLY to define the word INFER…lol), the original post’s targeted disgruntled audience, or both. Whatever the case may be, for future reference, you can’t pick nits that aren’t there. 🙂

      • Sarah Thomas

        I do weep for the extinction of reason which has been replaced with the worship of the Golden Calf. It has never succeed in the history of mankind. May God or the not God have mercy on the destruction of the human? race.

    • David Lee

      You’re absolutely right on all counts. People infer, facts imply.

      The fourth definition listed below is self contradicting and was not originally intended, but has since been added because people cannot seem to grasp the concept of imply and infer being antonyms.

      Give and take are antonyms. If people use them incorrectly long enough, though, the dictionaries would be edited to match current, if originally incorrect, uses.

      I am not the intended “disgruntled population”, nor am I poorly educated, as can be judged by my command of the English language, and proper use of punctuation and capitalization.

      Any time an author fails to communicate effectively, it dulls their point.

      • Victoria Lamb

        Facts PROVE; if they have to IMPLY, they are not facts.

  • The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
    Brian T. Halonen
    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it

    • I Once Was Andrew

      What exactly do you think it means for a court to be well-regulated? Last I heard, you can’t calibrate a court. A court being well-regulated means it operates under a well-defined set of rules. The way our guns should.

      • Missed that whole “In proper working order” part, huh? Again at the time the Bill of Rights was written… “Well Regulated” had nothing to do with being regulated or controlled by the government. The government was meant to have as little power as possible.

      • A well regulated militia…. So we agree our right to bear arms is supportive if our need for a militia that is “in proper working order.” The 2nd amendment is a cause and effect statement. Because a “well regulated militia” is “necessary to a free state” we see agree that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” So where is the militia “in proper working order”? We don’t maintain the right to bear arms so we can shoot a baby because the mother didnt give us money or open fire on a movie theatre. Our right to bear arms is supportive of our need for a militia “in proper working order.” Such as, say, the military. Since we agree this is from the point of view of men in the late 1700’s, we must agree that it does not necessarily expand to weapons beyond their imagination at the time, such as assault rifles (which are much more than I need for hunting a deer or for defending myself. And I’m not part of a well regulated militia, or any other, so my right isn’t automatic anyway).

      • The founders didn’t even mean it to apply to anybody not a white person.

      • But blacks could own 3/5ths of a gun, right?

      • steve Manista

        “we must agree that it does not necessarily expand to weapons beyond their imagination at the time, such as assault rifles” and you where doing so well your understanding to. Assault rifles and their more commonly available semi-auto rifles are the exact kind of weapons needed to have a properly functional militia in todays world. For a militia to be able to be effective and therefore functional it would have to be equipped with similar weapons of the infantry of a standing army and right now the average riflemen in an army is equipped with a select fire rifle capable of fully and semi-auto fire so that is what the militia needs to be equipped with in order to be functional. Also the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and by law current federal law if you are a able bodied person 18-45 you are part of the militia but the 2nd a also states the right of the people to bear arms so therefore every one has the right to bear arms part of the militia or not.

      • “at that time”, you missed the whole point of the constitution which was that the articles of confederation (a very weak governing plan) wasn’t working and so the constitution was born. A much stronger form of government.

      • Keep Calm

        Here’s John Adams: March “To suppose arms in the hands of the
        citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private
        self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a
        state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate,
        so that liberty can be enjoyedby no man; it is a dissolution of the
        government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created,
        directed, and commanded by the
        laws, and ever for the support of the laws.” — A Defense ofthe Constitutions of the United States (1787-1788).

        George Washington didn’t think much of militia at first: “To place
        any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.
        Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life – unaccustomed
        to the din of arms – totally unacquainted with every kind of military
        skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when
        opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed,
        superior in knowledge, and superior in arms, makes them timid and ready
        to fly from their own shadows. — Letter to the president of Congress,
        Heights of Harlem (24 September 1776).

        Later Washington wrote this: “It may be laid down, as a primary
        position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the
        protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his
        property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and
        consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official
        exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia
        Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of
        them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at
        Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” — From a letter to
        Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783).

        Then there’s this: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to
        which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite.” — First Annual Address, to both House of Congress (8 January 1790).

        All of this speaks directly against the notion of individual citizens
        as laws unto themselves, arming themselves as they see fit, associating
        in armed bodies in any way they see fit, or placing themselves over the
        legitimate powers of law and government. The American revolution was
        justified by the king acting illegally again the ancient rights of
        British subjects. The king declared the colonies in rebellion and
        outside his protection long before the colonies declared independence.
        In short, the founders thought entirely in terms of communities, acting
        within the structures of laws, standing up to tyranny, not in terms of
        private acts of violence against government.

        The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to arms, but not without restrictions or regulations.

    • Calibrate|ˈkaləˌbrāt|

      • adjust (experimental results) to take external factors into account or to allow comparison with other data.

      • carefully assess, set, or adjust (something abstract): the regulators cannot properly calibrate the risks involved | (as adj.calibrated) : their carefully calibrated economic policies.

      Calibration IS Regulation.

      What you have just described is a tautology.

      To Calibrate something is to adjust it so that it fits with the contingencies of its environment. This is also called “regulation.”

    • While it is true that “imply” would more normally be used in the sentence, as structured, rather than “infer”, that does not mean that the latter is inherently incorrect: it is *also* correct to use that word per the internal structuring of usage, wherein the phrase referred to via “infer” (“…a well regulated militia…”) *is*, itself, making/being the inference; that is, the usage of the phrase-term is inherently inferring, itself, by its presence/usage. This is a subtle distinction for most, to be sure, and one that really only an English major (>waves<) is going to note (particularly in comparative usage with the late 1700's, where phrases/terms were allocated, in some cases, an applied "personage" of usage, a quality adapted in English in the centuries before and leading up to that time from some European languages). In Re: Adam Michaub — Matthew Bailey's response below is the other, completed side of your definition: in the late 18th/early 19th C., the applied usage of "well-regulated" included a range of meanings that were indicated *simultaneously* — by using that term, the writers indicated both that said militia should be in "working order", as well as that said participants in said militia should themselves be "well-regulated" (trained, of a proper social-balance, not prone to rash/brash action, and of a proper reasoning; all of these applied definitions were attributed to the term "well-regulated" during this time period). People's rights to bear arms are, in effect, protected by the Bill of Rights (despite some hard-lefters saying otherwise); however, such rights *were* intended by the writers to be regulated and properly balanced against the interests of the broader public, per the use of the phrase "a well regulated militia". In that context, requiring licencing/training in the use of said weapons, the registering of said weapons, and the adaptation of accessibility to (unknown to the writers at that time) the existence of mass-killing weaponry, is well within both the wording and spirit of what the BoR indicates…

    • Keep Calm

      How can a militia be in “proper working order” (your phrase) with system, organization, rules, regulatinos, and discipline?

      Here’s John Adams: March “To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyedby no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the
      laws, and ever for the support of the laws.” — A Defense ofthe Constitutions of the United States (1787-1788).

      George Washington didn’t think much of militia at first: “To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life – unaccustomed to the din of arms – totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in arms, makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows. — Letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem (24 September 1776).

      Later Washington wrote this: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” — From a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783).

      Then there’s this: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to
      which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite.” — First Annual Address, to both House of Congress (8 January 1790).

      All of this speaks directly against the notion of individual citizens as laws unto themselves, arming themselves as they see fit, associating in armed bodies in any way they see fit, or placing themselves over the legitimate powers of law and government. The American revolution was justified by the king acting illegally again the ancient rights of British subjects. The king declared the colonies in rebellion and outside his protection long before the colonies declared independence. In short, the founders thought entirely in terms of communities, acting within the structures of laws, standing up to tyranny, not in terms of private acts of violence against government.

      The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have the right to arms, but not without restrictions or regulations.

  • Soothsayer123

    The Great Recession actually started in December 2007.

    • EXACTLY and when I point that out to “them” they get this lost look in their eyes.

      • Ted Lucas

        In 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 the Democrats had majority control in the Senate and House and when I point that out to “them” they get this lost look in their eyes.

      • Jedoba

        In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 George W. Bush was president. Strangely enough, the president has to sign legislation into law. When I point this out to you, your head explodes..

      • Ted Lucas

        Still blaming Bush…eh.

    • 2007 was also the years Democrats took over Congress.

      • yea and they caused the recession on their own in less than 12 months with a republican opposition that refused to collaborate… The recession was not at all caused by the unpaid wars and unnecessary/ unpaid tax cuts that the previous republican-ruled congress has passed… smh, (in case you can’t tell, this is sarcasm) oh, and before you try to blame others for the mistakes of your own ideology, check your facts, and then change your mind because more than likely you’ll make a complete fool out of yourself.

  • Facts just have a liberal bias.

    • All birds have two legs. Men have two legs. Therefore, all men are birds.

    • Victoria Lamb

      So I have heard.

    • Nah, liberals just have a lower standard for what qualifies as “facts”. Just ask Obama or Carney.

  • You know how to annoy a Democrat? Point out that they can’t make a point. If you really want to annoy a Republican, point out something they’re actually saying. Just as NBC does not represent liberals, Fox does not represent conservatives.

  • Is the Tea Party and Right Wing Radio radicalizing Americans?

  • Pubert

    If you are STILL a republican in this day and age you are an asshole.

    • On the rare occasionsv when I have encountered an asshole, my primary concern is whether it knows where to go and if it can hold on until it gets there. Sometimes an asshole will get in your face just to show you it doesn’t give a shit. Other times, an asshole can unload more on you in a New York minute than you have encountered in your entire life up to that point. When faced with a really big asshole, you might want to get on the good side of whoever it belongs to and stop trying to annoy the shit out if him.

      • Victoria Lamb

        Why?

      • asdf

        who would want poop on their hands?

    • Amen

    • LMAO. So, how do you really feel about Republicans? ;).

    • And if you’re a Democrat who has a job, pays his own way and doesn’t work for the govt; you’re an idiot. The Republicans represent Business and the people who work there and the Democrats represent the guys with their hands out. If you truly believe that a subserviant, hold your hand out existence is a great lifestyle; then by all means you should be a Democrat.

      • Jenn Kanze-Eaton

        I am a Dem, or rather I tend to vote Democrat, as generally our principles align. My family take care of ourselves and the social compact we agree to is that we are happy to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and we trust that if we are to fall on difficult times we will receive that the help we need. It is idiotic that think that we can live in society and think only about and care for ourselves, and to hell with everyone else.

      • I agree with you Jenn. And I don’t know any Republicans who would deny a hand up. What we stand against are the hand-outs that breed the culture of dependency. There are people who choose dependency as a way of life; and there are leaders who encourage that dependency because they can then control them… and their vote. That was the basis of the above post… one party realizes that it is not compassionate to feed the bears; the other uses it as an excuse to gain votes; and the vast majority don’t even recognize it. I should have used the word ignorant as opposed to idiot.

      • There is a culture of dependence in industry being dependent on the government for low or no taxes and free land and labor.

      • Not sure what you’re saying Chris… If you are referring to the tax incentives that govt provides for job creation; I’d argue that proper or not; it’s not a “culture”… it’s a one-time event. Some of these incentives turn out to be a great deal for the taxpayer; others (Solyndra, etc); not so much. One thing on taxes however; and many don’t get it (or refuse to accept it); the govt not taking my money is not the same as their handing me a check. Not sure where you go to get that free land and labor… I’d say sign me up for some; but I know that nothing is “free”.

      • HAHAHA Solyndra was a drop in the bucket compared to the ongoing ‘benefits’ that Big Oil gets when they rake in tens of billions in profit (that’s profit mind you, post-exploration and development expenditure) every quarter. But then you people like to pretend climate change has no anthropogenic component, too. Stoopid is as stoopid does.

      • Yes, big oil makes a lot of money… and pays billions in taxes and great wages. The govt gives them tax breaks (like every other industry) for research, development and capital investment. Their stock is decent but nothing special… their earnings are good, not great. The govt makes FAR more money on the taxes related to fuel than the oil companies ever will on that same gallon. Solyndra did none of these things, but that’s okay because they were “green”. By the way, if the climate didn’t change, you’d be living under 3000 feet of ice. 1 degree in the last 100 years in a 200 year history on a billion year old planet and you think you’re smart enough to know what the temeperature should be? HAHAHAHAHAHA

      • jllutseck

        Greg, let me explain this concept called arithmetic… It says that if you pay me $100 in taxes, and I give you $500 back in a refund, then you didn’t actually pay any taxes, you got subsidized.

      • jllutseck

        “One time”? Lmao… Sure, one time every year for decades.

      • As I read Greg’s post, I thought to myself that I was going to say what you just said, you know great minds…….

      • Can we get the government to cut spending to support industry and apply it to something like job creation? Wait-industries create jobs!

      • And those who choose to take hand-outs are overwhelmingly Republicans. Look at the statistics. Red states are far greater in welfare numbers than Blue. Sorry to burst your self-important and self-delusional bubble.

      • 12 out of the 15 poorest states are prodomantly republican voting states. And 9 of the 10 most uneducated states voted for Romney, the 10 most well educated states voted for Obama.

      • That just proves that there is a profound difference between education and intelligence.

      • Victoria Lamb

        Really? Please cite a study–preferably several–that prove it.

      • Prodominantly? Do you have anything to back those “statistics” up? 78.5% of all statistics recited by liberals are pulled directly from their posterior region.

      • You’re looking at total federal expenditures in those states, which includes Social Security & Medicare (snow birds move South). I guarantee that your implication of “welfare” in the Red states is incorrect. Welfare (in the common definition) disproportionately goes to Democrat voters (D for Dependent… who also live where it’s warm). And notice how I’m able to continually respond without the use of insults?

      • Al Cleverdon

        How can you guarantee these “facts” of yours?..Republicans are great for spewing their “facts” but when asked to back them up, the room goes silent.

      • jllutseck

        Smh, Greg, bless your heart, I don’t think the word “insult” means what you think it means, because your posts are hardly free of it.

      • jllutseck

        In fact, I was beginning to wonder if you knew how to do anything besides attack people for not being born with the same privileges and LUCK you’ve enjoyed. I truly hope you never have to find out how it feels to be treated the way that you treat people who fall on hard times.

      • Maybe you should check the research on this ages old republican lie. First of all there is no research that suggest those who receive a hand-out (your words) breed the culture of dependency. In fact just the opposite is true. If you think the republicans are working for the people in any form obviously you have not ever checked out the types of laws they have passed which hurt workers. And really since you know so much about your party what is their obsession with females? They have already passed 698 bills regarding women’s reproductive healthcare this year and the year has just begun. It might be different if they were at least doctors but the bills that have been passed have been stated to be based on falsehoods and requiring doctors to also carry on those falsehoods. Also, medical doctors have stated these bills are dangerous to women’s health.

      • Thank you for being civil Tina; it’s appreciated. As for research; how about simple cause and effect… Has poverty increased since the “war of poverty” was declared? Yes. I believe there is a connection (as do any number of studies readily available in a Google search). I’d need some examples of Republican laws that have hurt workers in order to comment (we can debate right-to-work laws). As for women; we love women. I’ve been married to one for 29 years and we’re partners in every sense of the word (that’s her in the picture). I paid for her birth control (insurance never covered it) and I expect others to pay for theirs (though I’d happily provide it for the poor). I question your 698 bills passed as that would be an average of 10 per day this legislative session… Congress has never been that productive (and it couldn’t be searched). And which ones have the Doctors stated are dangerous for women’s health? I will admit that Republicans generally don’t support abortion (there are pro-choice Republicans)… we stand up for the rights of unborn females as well as the born ones.

      • I am afraid the lady is correct, and as usual, you are in error. But she is talking about State legislatures mostly. As for laws that hurt workers. if you don’t see that, you are too Fox mush headed to discuss anything As for the “War against Women” Any time you put planed parenthood out of business, thousands of poor women no ;longer have needed medical care..Despite the lies from the right, that is mainly what they do. Pro life means care before and after birth BTW.

      • Planned Parenthood does upward of 300,000 abortions a year by their own statistics. An abortion involves sucking out a living being a piece at a time and reassembling the baby to make sure they got it all, then throwing it away. If we did that to pregnant dogs & cats, there would be no end of hell to pay, yet we accept it for our own people. Abortion is not healthcare. Planned Parenthood could concentrate their efforts on providing birth control and instructions on how to use it, but they won’t. They could quit doing abortions on the principle that it’s disgusting and barbaric and focus on actual healthcare like prenatal care and cancer screening and parenting classes, but they won’t.

      • Thanks for telling Tina what she was talking about. I’m sure she is glad to have you speak for her. As Abigail said; if Planned Parenthood had anything to do with “planning parenthood”; I’d support them… But 97% of what they do is provide abortions. If they did their job; 10% (or less) of their services would be abortions.

      • Well Greg, the ‘war on poverty’ never really took hold. In fact, it simply converted into a ‘war against the poor.’ And it’s not very intelligent. You may think starving or killing social programs somehow ‘weeds out the parasites’ or forces them to get jobs, but the fact is that our economy is based on spending money. And as long as an enormous segment of society makes poverty level wages or lower, then less people are spending money. And even the people who are working become dependent on those social programs which more than anything, tend to benefit children through food assistance. As far as republican anti-job legislation, simply look up the House GOP voting and filibuster record. Kill The American Jobs Act which offered tax breaks for businesses keeping their employment base in the US? Check. Kill a bill to reverse tax breaks for businesses who outsource jobs overseas? Check. Kill the veteran’s jobs bill? Check. And this list goes on. My research yielded 17 jobs bills killed by the GOP during Obama’s term. As far as the GOP’s obsession with female reproductive rights and gay marriage, those are dog whistles for the evangelical base that are blown repeatedly when they can’t win based on fiscal policy. Gay marriage is not a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue, and they won’t win that fight. And I’m not going to dignify the collective opinion of a cabal of elderly male CINOs (Christians In Name Only) obsessed with regulating female genitals on principal. But your single biggest problem that the republicans may never be able to fix, was absorbing the Tea Party to expand your base. Reasonable, traditional conservatives are now officially a dying breed because displaying any reasonable considerations for the purposes of compromise and governance are now seen as being a weak leftist RINO by the lunatic extremist fringe that now owns your political party. And the new breed of liberal that is rising up as a backlash against that extremism is not your grandparents democrats. Forget your country for the time being, take back your party. Democrats are dying to talk to you, but we’re sick of having to yell over an ocean of misspelled signs and racist rants to to be heard by you. Once you take down the Tea Party, reps and dems can work on taking down the plutocrats together.

      • If the hand-out doesn’t come with any means to make money yourself, you’re going to just sit with your hand out. You need to be able to do better than the handout on your own. The handout should be a short term means to get back on your feet.

      • Victoria Lamb

        Rubbish.

      • Thank you for the thoughtful reply. lol

      • If she had a brain, she’d take it out and play with it.

      • motorfingaz

        Lord you’re ignorant.

      • Bobby Treat

        The worst kind of dependence is a wage that working people can’t live on. They have to have it, but it’s not enough.

      • If there is no food for the bear then it is in fact compassionate and wise to feed the bear. Especially if you also depend on the bear for your survival. It is actually foolish not to do so, since someday the bear may in turn eat you out of hunger.

      • You mean like in the National & State parks where they caution you NOT to feed the bears because they will stop foraging for food themselves and expect the tourists & campers to feed them?

      • Actually, that’s exactly what the bear does when you stop feeding it… but it does it because you’re now mean for not feeding it and it’s mad at you. Sort of like Occupy Wall Street.

      • jllutseck

        “I don’t know any Republicans who would deny a hand up”

        I know dozens.

      • No, that is what you have been brainwashed to think Democrats want. it is a lie and always has been. No one has ever wanted a free hand out. We simply want an even playing field.

      • Jim

        I tend to vote Democratic, have a two million dollar mansion, own a business and hold two college degrees. I used to be primarily Republican, then realized to legitimately gain more wealth and enjoy my life, society needs to be healthy. Wake the hell up, stop watching Fox for information and use the brain God gave you.

      • Sounds like you’re part of that evil 1% to me… Your new party vilifies that… it’s only we evil Republicans who are supposed to be rich. You my good man are a hypocrite.

      • Jenn Kanze-Eaton

        We do not vilify those that do well- better than well! It’s those that take, and do not give back that are the problem. Those that make their millions and then use their wealth to avoid the social compact of our society. Jim knows that his success is due to more than just him alone, and that a strong middle class is what stabilizes this country.

      • So, is he voluntarily spreading his wealth around? Us underachievers want to know.

      • No, Greggiewoo, actually YOU are a hypocrite. Because you are a selfish pig who pretends to be a Christian.

      • Well… more insults… aren’t you special! Might I ask what I said that was hypcritical? I don’t recall bringing my faith into the conversation; but you clearly are not qualified to comment on it. And I’m selfish? And how might you know what I give to charity? It’s a shame you don’t use that education you brag about to form a cogent argument. No Charlotte, I think you just have no ability to form a counter-point so have no choice but to make fun of names and call people names.Of course that’s just my observation based upon your writings.

      • I have wondered how it is that Obama’s supporters hate the 1%, yet he is part of the 1% and likes to schmooze and rub elbows with the 1%. He hosts $40k/plate fundraisers where I guarantee 99%ers are only allowed in through the servants’ entrance. He gets $1000/hr golf lessons. As much as he and his followers vilify the rich, he sure spends enough time living the lifestyle right along with them.

      • Day

        Greg, do you realize that recent republican leaders have been protecting a system that provides endless hand outs to the over class and richest Americans? Google the Liber Scandal. You’ve been brainwashed to misinterpret who the guys are with their hands out. Over 80% percent of Americas income goes to only 1% of the richest Americans. Even if a man struggling to put food on his table wants a handout while billionaires are getting richer through loopholes and corruption maybe a handout isn’t such an unfair thing to give. But I wouldn’t call that a handout, i’d call it a bone. Minor research can reveal these facts. The truth is that Republican LEADERS (not your everyday misguided republican) have fronted a movement to protect the over class. Moreover, many Democrat leaders are no better. Unfortunately Republicans have been far more aggressive and blatant about their support for a class divide and outlaw nation.

      • You really need to start reading… everything… and stop watching MSNBC. Our country is about to go over the fiscal cliff and the Republicans finally woke up to that reality; the Dems prefer to keep their heads in the sand. If you want to judge a party for pathetic actions; look no farther than immigration. The last thing the Democrats want to do is stop illegal immigration. You see, they are what I refer to as “the patient party”; they are more than happy to have illegals here, living a subsistance/dependent lifestyle as that aligns them with Democrats. In 18 years their anchor babies become a new generation of dependent (aka Democrat) voters. Republicans want people to be independent, the Democrats want you dependent. “Do not feed the bears” applies to people too… for the exact same reasons.

      • If you’re referring to the Libor Scandal… that was market manipulation based in Europe and illegal under US law, so I don’t follow your point. There are as many (if not more) rich Democrats as rich Republicans so you can’t point at just one Party. I’m inclined to think that more rich Republicans are self-made; but I have no data to back that up. Rich people pay most of the taxes… you may want them to pay more; but their the ones who create jobs (except for the Hollywood elite). I hope to someday be one; but I’m not willing to take the risks required to get there.

      • LIBOR is used by US Banks, so the fraud is transferred overseas to cost Americans more in interest, even though the rate was being manipulated in London.

      • Jedoba

        The “Rich” don’t create anything unless “consumers” need or want it! If they did, there should be plenty of jobs. We had about ten years of Bush tax cuts for the rich, with the claim that the rich, who were also saw the largest gains from the cuts, were going to create JOBS. So, if you’re correct about the “rich” creating jobs, where are they?
        You will be unable to answer without BS, so I will say it again: Consumers, i.e. you and I, create the demand for products, NOT RICH PEOPLE.

        Look at the latest numbers; 70%+ of the American economy is driven by consumers simply buying necessities.

      • I’m fairly certain that the only people doing the representing should be our elected officials – some of whom are Republicans who get paychecks from the government. IF you are saying all Republicans represent business … I want them to stop taking payments from the citizens of this country and solely feed off the hands that are paying them (Big Business). If you believe that this behavior is acceptable, then by all means, call yourself an asshole.

      • You should have that condition checked Phi…

      • Perhaps you can use your Ph.D in trolling to illuminate me on what sort of “condition” you think I have? That sort of thing saves me a few minutes at the doctor’s office…Not sure why you want elected officials to get paid by big businesses but whatever floats your Democracy I guess.

      • Oh, Greg. You think you’re being supremely clever in parroting the latest Fox News paranoid conspiracy. Something to remember when speaking to a Democrat, and this will help you go far in future discussion. FACTS are things that have actually happened. Facts are things that are proven by pictures or clinically researched data or by being there to see it in person. This “hand-outs” thing makes you sound like a stern disciplinarian who has determined that the little kiddies have been naughty at school and won’t get their allowance this week. Oh and dependency, nice one. We’ve never heard THAT before. Because, of course, all people who are dependent on the welfare state are lazy no-good hooligans who use their welfare to buy crack cocaine and knock up another unwed mother. All of them. Every single one. Oh and finally the fiscal cliff. I thought we fixed that problem when A GRAD student proved that high debt nations DON’T actually experience periods of low growth. In point of fact, high debt doesn’t seem to affect growth one way or the other. Please do try to disprove this. I would dearly love to shower you with articles written about this.

      • Sorry John, I work for a living and unfortunately don’t have time to watch Fox News. My opinions are based upon economic observations. When you refute facts; might I suggest you offer some? Poverty has increased since the misguided “war on poverty”… that’s a fact. “Do not feed the bears” is a park service policy because in the animal kingdom, providing for the animals makes them dependent… that’s a fact. The American Indians are great examples of the government “caring” about a population and they’re trying to similarly imasculate the blacks… that’s a fact. The Dems don’t want to stop illegal immigration because it’s a ready pool of dependent anchor baby voters… that’s a fact. Your party is pathetic; they disguise tyranny as compassion and the sheep don’t even recognize it. And the popularly described “fiscal cliff” is still appropriate. We’re driving off a debt cliff and you dummies are screaming faster! faster! I do not defend the Bush administration because it lacked fiscal discipline; but just because it sucked fiscally doesn’t mean it’s okay for Obama to double-down.

      • Greg, most Democrats work for a living, are far brighter than you (clearly!) and are better people because they recognize that being in a society and taking advantage of its characteristics that allow for success also come with a responsibility not to be simply a crook, thug and sociopath but to also help in making sure the society functions for everyone’s benefit. It’s soulless, childish and self-centered pigs such as yourself that bring down societies and ruin nations. Hope you’re proud. The rest of us, who have postdoctoral degrees, work hard for a living and treat others well, will be happy to show you the door, let you live on an isolated island, no water, no roads, no Internet – no more freeloading for you!

      • Why aren’t you just precious; bless your heart! I guess you’re referring to rich Republicans like Mitt Romney who donated more than 15% of their wealth to charity. And let us not forget the study upon study that show Republicans are more generous with charity than are Democrats. The difference is you believe the govt should steal our money, take their cut and then dole it out to help the poor. Republicans believe that charity should come from us and that only dependency comes from the govt. And if you want to see somebody who is a self centered pig who destroys nations; look no farther than the patron saint of Liberals; George Soros. I might also suggest that once you’ve read a thoughtful post with which you disagree; that you counter the arguments rather than simply hurl insults. When an argument turns to insults I know you’ve run out of anything to say and must retreat to the Liberal standby… insults. It means I won. Have a nice day!

      • I’ve been reading your comments, and wow, you are one rude fella!

      • I hope not Mo; I make an effort to keep my postings civil and fact-based. I don’t respond terribly well to insults; but I’m more likely to respond to them with a touch of sarcasm; RARELY an insult. For instance, the response to which you called me rude… Did you read Ms Rowe’s post to whom I was responding? I was called crook, thug, sociopath, stupid, soulless, selfish, and a pig. Then the writer went on to tell me how much smarter she was because she had advanced degrees. I don’t judge people based upon their level of education (especially when I don’t know what it is). Lovely Charlotte had another post where she questioned my faith (and I didn’t bring up faith). When the debate turns to insults; I’ve won. I seem to win a lot of debates with Liberals.

      • James Ingram

        Greg: You are about the most uninformed person I know. Don’t you realize thst donations for tax writeoff are not donations. Those people are not generous. When you give more money than your writeoff’s, then you are generous. Churches thrive on tax writeoff’s. As far as the government stealing your money, the thngs you take foor granted have to be paid for by someone and that someone is the Government.

      • Oh James, you seem like a bright guy; look at the entire picture. Until the tax rate is 101%; it’s generous to give to charity. I can afford to give more to charity than I would otherwise because the govt allows me the deduction. It’s like the mortgage deduction; I’d rather my house be paid for and give the govt 25 cents than give the bank a dollar and have the govt give me back 25 cents. It’s just math James.

      • James Ingram

        What you say is really no different whan what I said.

      • Except you stated it was not generous to give to charity… I disagree with that. Possibly you’re saying that “if you give, only because it’s deductible, you’re really not giving”… There may be a grain of truth in that; but the fact remains that you get a deduction; not a credit for those contributions. If I’m in a 25% tax bracket and I give $1000 to charity I get to deduct that $1000. It means I lower my income by $1000 so I lower my tax bill by 25% of that $1000. Giving $1000 really only cost me $750. If a rich guy gives 10 million to charity, he gets a deduction… let’s call it 30%. So his 10 million dollar donation really only cost him 7 million. Do you think it’s better that he keeps his 10 million and gives the govt 3 million in taxes? Financially it’s clearly better for the giver to not give; but I think society loses. I’m not certain that you understand the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit… they are very different things. Did I miss your meaning?

      • I think you have it a bit backward: Tax writeoffs are given for charitable donations. How you interpret the motivation behind the donations is in your own head. You’re painting Romney as a stingy rich Grinch because he donated 15% of their money to charity, when the government OFFERS those tax deductions freely and legally. Meanwhile, your benevolent president who has the backs of all the poor & downtrodden lives like trailer trash that just won the lottery.

      • So Dems are pro-undocumented immigration because the “anchor babies” (created by the 14th Amendment) will vote Dem, but on the other hand Reps are pro-undocumented immigration because they need cowed people to work for slave wages with the constant threat of deportation looming over them. One is a civil right protected by our Constitution, and the other represents the rapacious wage-slavery that actually causes illegal immigration.

      • I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the 14th amendment. That amendment was created to overturn the Dred Scott decision. Anchor baby was created in a footnote in a 1982 decision by justice Brennan (Google it). There may well be some truth that rich people (both Parties) want cheap labor (think of the Hollywood elites and politicians that have been brought down by their housekeepers); but I know the Democrats are patient and even Jay Leno referred to illegals as “Undocumented Democrats”. The left encourages them as they want their dependent anchor babies growing up to vote Democrat. So one is not a civil right protected by our Constitution (any more than Dred Scott was) and the other is criminal; regardless of your politics. (By the way… I use the word “criminal” in a crime-against-humanity sort of way)

      • Since, by your own words, victory isn’t achieved through correctly-constructed arguments, but by evoking a negative response, we can assume you’ll be here “winning” all day.

      • While you may disagree with my citation of the 14A, it is that Amendment that makes children of foreign citizens born on our soil automatically into US Citizens. Who cares whether it was originally about Dred Scott? He is long gone, yet those “anchor babies” as you R-types refer to them are still used in rhetorical combat to support your anti-immigrant stance.

      • And what is it that makes you believe I’m anti-immigrant? Anchor babies are the children of (mostly) illegal immigrants. And yes; I am opposed to illegal immigration.

      • Because it’s ILLEGAL, right? I can’t believe that even the president doesn’t understand that.

      • Interesting spin of my words… What I said is that when the debate turns to insults; I know that I’ve won. Lady Thatcher said it first and she was correct; it means the other side has exhausted their “facts”, so they must shift to insults. I see it from both sides, but I tend to see it more from the Left. Take Ms Rowe above; she doesn’t know me or anything about me, yet her first comments to me were insults.

      • According to you, if you say “2+2=5,” and I call you a “fucking dolt”, then you’ve won. How? You haven’t advanced an argument, you’ve elicited a negative response. So, yes, you and Margaret Thatcher are both incorrect as to what constitutes winning an argument. I’ll let you mull that one over for a bit and see if you can understand your error of logic. Left or right, the same rules of argument and logic apply. Claiming victory through butthurt isn’t a valid logical stance.

      • Your example is of course bogus because everything I’ve said is accurate; however if you disagreed you’d prove to me why 2+2 =4 and at the very least you’d say “sorry dude; I just can’t help you”. But in the exchanges for which you’ve gotten your panties in a wad I explained the position and offered examples. Until now; you and I have had differing views, but the exchange has been civil. I never called you to task for declaring me rude; but I’d love to know; just what was it you considered rude? I was even polite to that stupid b**ch Rowe (to whom I’m no longer polite as she deserves no courtesy). Democrats want anchor babies so they’ll grow up and vote Democrat; TRUE. Anchor babies were created in a footnote from Justice Brennon: TRUE. George Soros is a nation destroyer through currency manipulation and also worked for the Nazi’s; TRUE. Now if you’d like to counter this with FACTS; knock yourself out. Or would you just rather change the subject (liberal strategy 1… which is a concession) or just call me names (liberal strategy #2 which is also a concession)?

      • 🙂 Back to my first point, you really are a rude fella.

      • Ah! You chose #1. I do prefer that to name calling. Have a good day.

      • The best thing about my day so far was re-reading your posts and seeing exactly how you attribute changing subjects and name calling to liberals, while simultaneously doing both. It’s very instructive, but not very surprising. At this point in our discussion, I’m very familiar with your penchant for obliviously railing against other people conducting themselves in the exact same manner as you. Let me guess, you ‘win’ something and declare ‘victory?’ Just for the record, are there any other ways to win an argument without bringing anything other than a martyr complex to the table? I’d just like to know in case I run into you, so I know when I’ve ‘lost’ by whatever arbitrary and illogical standards you set for yourself.

      • You don’t counter Mo; except on the 14th Amendment and my words were “I respectfully disagree”… and suggested you Google Brennon’s footnote. Discus frowns upon attaching links or I’d have done that for you. Arguments can be won with facts and/or reason; they can’t be won through changing the subject or insults… both tactics are concessions. And sometimes an argument can’t be “won” simply because we’re wired differently and view the same facts differently. That’s where it’s okay to agree to disagree… but you still have to lay out your rationale or I won’t even offer that concession. I’ve asked you several times exactly what it was that prompted you to call me rude and you never offered an example… “copy/paste” is not that difficult. I even asked if you’d read the post to which I was responding that elicited your “you’re a rude fellow” comment. You commented on neither and just repeated your charge. By the way, you might offer an example of where I “changed the subject”… I called you on it (incorrectly I’m afraid) immediately. (You were actually able to combine #1 & #2 in the same sentence!) Oh… and you can’t use the “got your panties in a wad” comment as an example of my being rude… that was after your first “rude” and after the “f***ing dolt” comment. No, I suspect I’m “rude” simply because you and I disagree on the subject matter… Meaning it’s not the comments; rather the body of work.

      • Look up the definition of rude, dude. You’ll find that the name-callers on your side of the fence fit the bill pretty well.

      • Why are there so many undocumented (illegal) immigrants around? My people didn’t come from here, but they did the paperwork to come here legally. Is it just that the paperwork is too hard or something? Living her illegally has to be a sucky way of life, yet the liberals are advocating it right and left. Is it possible that a good share of the illegals can’t go through the process and need to fly below the radar because of criminal activity and connections? Maybe the run of the mill illegal isn’t a great guy with a family that only wants to work hard but isn’t willing to do the paperwork. And, it’s possible that granting amnesty to the illegals would bring a huge criminal element into the country by your own choice.

      • Lonelystoner

        Immigrants come here illegally because the waiting times and amount of processing are absolutely ridiculous and they can’t make enough money to support themselves and their families in their own country. So it’s either starve to death in poverty conditions or try to sneak into America. What would you do?

      • James Ingram

        Greg: ou haven’t checked the budget lately. It has been going down steadily now for quite a while. If we keep going as we are now, the budget will be balanced by the end of 2015

      • Oh my… You don’t really believe that do you James? We’re adding over 1T per year to the debt through deficits. The world was about to end over a 180 billion sequester and you think we’re getting close to eliminating 1 trillion? There would have to be revenue increases and cuts that add to this and NOBODY is even suggesting this will happen. Even the tax increase we on the Right were crying about is only expected to raise 800 billion over TEN years… By the time they’ve raised their 800 billion they’ll have spent another 10 trillion.

      • We have a budget now? When did that happen?

      • Isn’t it cute when they assume we watch Fox like they watch MSNBC, with their pencils & paper, writing down new clichés to recite and drooling on the paper every so often?

      • unimpressed in South Texas

        I think that Republicans are screwing us, violently…without consent. While Democrats are lubricating the shaft and whispering soothing platitudes. Our one party system allows us one outcome: endless warfare, a constantly accelerating redistribution of wealth to defense contractors and other cronies, longer work days, less pay, no hope of secure retirement, perpetual indebtedness. Capitalism doesn’t work for me or 100% of the people I know.

      • What an ignorant, FUX-generated remark Most highly educated, intelligent and employed people are actually Democrats. But you go on pretending otherwise, it makes you proud of your trailer trash brethren.

      • Wait a minute, earlier you said we were all greedy rich people. Which is it? And again; I don’t judge people by their education; intelligence is far more important. It’s obvious to me that all you gained from your “Piled Higher and Deeper” was indoctrination and not the tools for critical thinking.

      • Your tasteful and well thought out response is characteristic of the tolerant, loving left. And you wonder why we think you are all bitter hate-filled intolerant jerks. You go right out of the gate hurling insults and making generalization. I now know that my impression of the left is inaccurate. You are actually more obtuse and intolerant than I had previously believed.

      • Victoria Lamb

        Single mother; Masters in Health Administration earned while working full time; thirty years experience in my professional field. Retired and reaping the benefits of my investments in Social Security and Medicare, as well as the stock market. Plenty more like me. Kind of ruins your theory, doesn’t it, Greg?

      • No it doesn’t Victoria… I know a number of hard working, thoughtful, intelligent Democrats. I just don’t find a lot of them on this wall. Your comments have been thin; but not insulting.

      • You have NO idea what you are talking about, but phrase it pretty well with few errors, and I found no spelling errors. So at least you probably are not a bagger. Most Democrats believe in the constitution.. the whole constitution. Not just the second amendment is important to us.
        Republicans legislate to destroy the middle class and enable legislation that allows companies to move off shoe with tax benefits, and then call those put on the street takers. Democrats try to crate jobs and conditions for the poor to pull themselves up. But you are correct, the Democrats represent the the people your policies have put on the street.

      • I won’t tease you for “crate”, because if you looked long enough you’d find a miss-key or outright spelling error in my posts… But I am Tea Party as I believe in smaller govt and reduced spending. In my opinion, Republicans are the only party looking out for the middle class…. The policies of the left have been chipping away at it for years… They have devalued the family unit so the parents never even need to get together; let alone stay together because “the govt will take care of you”. The war on poverty has been devastating to the middle class and these constant minimum wage increases are killer. The Left cannot accept the unintended consequences of rising unemployment and lost work-experience opportunity that comes with over-pricing labor. We don’t oppose minimum wage (and hikes) because we’re greedy; we oppose it because it kills opportunity. I can assure you that if minimum wage was $20/hr that you’d be keying your own order into the McDonald’s screen. Always think of the unintended consequences of well intentioned goals (like home ownership for all leading to the mortgage meltdown)

      • motorfingaz

        Congrats! You’ve proven to the world that you’re an ignorant a**hole.

      • Rock Island

        Republicans care about “business” alright, they just don’t give a crap about the “little people” who actually do the work.

      • If you really believe that is true, and not just trying to be nasty, you are one misinformed and screwed up dude. If that is just your opinion, you are entitled to that in your ignorance. Generally, progressives represent small business, labor, the disenfranchised, ethnic groups, and people in general. The right seems to represent Corporations and old white men.

      • For starters Mel, mine was a snarky response to a guy who called Republicans “assholes”. But I do believe exactly what I said… The Republicans don’t believe any ethnicity is inherently stupid and thus don’t believe that they must have “govt help” to succeed. The Left represents those with their hands out because they want to own their votes.

      • jllutseck

        LOL, tell that to the Marine who worked his way through law school while supporting a wife and daughter, then built his own successful small law practice over 30 years. I call him “Dad,” and he’s never voted for a Rethuglican in his life.

    • Funny, seems like liberals are the ones going around these days trying to create laws to tell everyone how to live, and oddly enough when and where they can pray…. whatever happened to separation of church and state? You people need to keep your “state” out the the church.

      • Maybe stop telling people who can’t can/can’t marry?

      • steve Manista

        The church as a private institution has every right to deny who ever for what ever reason. The issue doesn’t lie within the church but in the state saying who people can and cannot marry.

      • While I totally believe in the church’s rights to who can come into their building in order to wed, I am judging from the voters in those states that they are using their religion to subjugate the love lives of others. Keep it in your own church.

        As a resident of CA, I am highly appalled by the number of non-Californians willing to come here with their bodies and monies to maintain the “sanctity of marriage.” California is not a church.

        When the church starts meddling with politics, it takes away freedom from religion. I don’t tell you which god to pray to, but when you start telling me your god says I can or cannot do certain things…It’s like having a monopoly on hypocrisy.

      • You need to go back and read some more, because you have a really skewed view of what is really going on. Better yet, since we are talking facts here, why don’t you try to get some.

      • Jedoba

        I may be incorrect, but it appears to me that phi was attempting to say that the church, and it’s members (possibly the Mormon church specifically) had meddled in politics in California with respect to Prop 8. (the prop 8 portion entirely supposition on my part, but it is hinted at in the post.)
        I am as straight as a board, but I agree with phi if that is the meaning of the post.

        Shame on Kathryne for the unnecessarily negative response.

      • Maybe stop telling churches what they can and can’t believe and forcing them to support activities they believe to be wrong. You wouldn’t legislate that Muslim schools have to serve pork for school lunch, but expect to force Christian churches to perform same sex weddings?

      • Nonprofit churches don’t have to perform weddings of any kind – gay, straight, ugly, skinny, black, white, pink… not sure why you want to upset yourself for no reason. Happy Sunday.

      • Are you even in the real world. It’s not the Liberals that are telling everyone how to live and where and when they can pray. That’s all Conservatives.

    • Victoria Lamb

      and illiterate.

    • motorfingaz

      Bingo!

  • mr b

    The great republican Ronald Reagan supported and signed gun control measures in California as governor and supported the Brady bill. And it was his hand against the air traffic controllers union the weaked the power of unions and led to the lessening of rights for the American worker.

    • More facts to irritate the right. Of course, facts that don’t fit the right’s ideology are defined by them as lies.

    • LaPiere supported the Brady bill back in the day.

      • Victoria Lamb

        What LaPierre did in the past is irrelevant. What have he and his evil organization done lately?

    • 1776Mariner

      So, Mr. B, why do we need more gun laws? The fact is we don’t. We just need to implement the gun laws already on the books. Also, we need to implement our immigration laws, not pass new ones to “legalize” people who have come to our nation by breaking our very good immigration laws. If they insist on legalizing these law breakers by giving them amnesty, they should not be allowed to vote for 25 years….oh, that’s right. They already vote. Without voter ID voter fraud is rampant in this nation. Illegal foreign nationals vote, the dead vote and Democrats vote multiple times. The liberals are the oppressors with their over regulations which are taking away our freedoms. But they will blame everyone but themselves. If you find the Democrats accusing Republicans of something, be assured that they are the ones committing the misdeeds. Bet on it.

      • You just go on down, Honeybooboo, and drink that water coming straight from your toilet. Have yourself a nice dinner from bute-tainted imported horsemeat (packaged as ‘beef’) and let your kiddos snack on lead paint chips. Then come back and tell us how regulations are such a bad thing. God, you twunts are stupid.

      • Charlotte my dear; you are just vile. You can’t make a fact based point so you just insult whatever was said… You offer no facts, no resources, no links, no counterpoints; just insults. I’ll bet I was correct when I guessed your advanced degree was either sociology or womens studies. 8 years of worthless degree and you’re bitter about your choices.

      • Jedoba

        Wow, I thought you didn’t attack people? I did see several issues she mentioned that were factual and quite apt for the post. She discussed ‘regulations’ which affect everyone in a positive way, while ‘1776’ was acting as if regulations are a bad thing. Two points: It is clear to me that 1776 got his ‘facts’ from FOX “News”, Limbaugh, Hannity, or another of the talking heads (it should be “flapping mouths” if you ask me. Secondly, I have read your postings today for the first time. I do not know you from Adam. However, I can clearly see how you attempt to manipulate the conversation with your “calm” demeanor – which is quite the cover for the simmering going on below the surface. Poor guy, you and your opinions will be seen as deeply flawed by everyone soon enough.

      • Read Charlotte’s posts a little closer… She never offers fact, counterpoints, or frankly even her opinion. She’s goes straight after the person with pure insults; nothing of substance (did she refute even one thing 1776 said? No). I tried to be semi-polite; but she’s not worth it. And underneath this calm demeanor, is a very well informed calm demeanor. I rarely get mad as I’ve learned there is no point… it raises my blood pressure and just causes hard feelings. So when I appear calm; it’s because I am.

      • Wow. That’s brilliant! Did you think of all that by yourself, or is there a handbook of witticisms liberals refer to when they have nothing intelligent to say?

    • Unless the workers’ rights include the right NOT to join a union. And then there’s the contractors’ rights to CHOOSE whether to hire union or non-union labor without being harassed and having their business damaged by disgruntled union leaders.

  • 238 years ago, the battle cry was, “The regulars are coming!” British troops were known to be so well regulated that they were called “regulars”. When I went through Basic Combat Training and Advanced Infantry Training with the US Army, the serial numbers of those who had enlisted voluntarily began with the letters “RA”, which stands for “Regular Army”. The serial numbers of those who had been drafted began with “US”. We were all extremely well regulated, which meant not that we were indoctrinated into the complexities of constitutional law, but that we were learning how to wait quietly and motionless in anticipation of any command and then immediately do exactly what we were ordered to do or else our lives would become even more miserable. The Second Amendment acknowledges the need for a “well regulated militia”, but its authors knew all too well what happens when any element of such militias or perhaps the entire well regulated military is commanded by tyrants such as King George. Thus the purpose of the Second Amendment supports the right of average citizens to protect their property, their person, and their progeny from such tyrants, whether they be rogue lieutenants or the chief executive of the government. The Declaration of Independence speaks clearly to this as the reason for the Revolution. Long after the British regulars had been driven out of the colonies, the Second Amendment to the US Constition was adopted to grant citizens of the USA the legal right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from tyrannical government forces, not to join them. Most arguments against the second amendment seem to imply that it is OK to carry a gun as long as you can show a badge to go along with it.

    • R A Hartman

      Hmm…I remember from my history classes as “The Redcoats are coming!”. Paul Revere is turning over in his grave with “patriots” like you, those that would twist and distort even our well established history to justify self-serving opinions. For shame, Mr. Logan.

      • Keep Calm

        Actually, it was “regulars.” “Redcoats” “Lobsterbacks” and even “Lobsters” were sometimes used as slang terms for regular soldiers.

        They definitively did not say “The British are Coming!” as they all regarded themselves as British, and fighting for respect for their British rights. It was not until a year later that they gave up their “Britishness.”

      • They did not shout “The Redcoats are coming!” because they were in an area with many supporters of England and Paul did not want to alarm the British supporters. According to eye-witness accounts, he did in fact shout, “The Regulars are coming!”

    • yeah and the tyrannical government forces they were referring to was NOT our government but that of King George as you point out…

      • cowcharge

        Baloney. The tyrannical government the 2nd was written to protect us from was our own future government.

      • Keep Calm

        Baloney. The tyrants were the future rebels against the laws and the government that might one day sieze power in violation of the laws. This is what they thought the King and Parliament had done: violated the laws, and their rights, and thus lost the status of legitimate government. Read the Declaration of Independence, read the John Adams quotation in my other remarks. As long as the law of the land is respected, all citizens have the duty to protect the laws and obey the duly elected government. The Founders hated being called rebels, because they thought rebellion against an elected government was treason against the people. See the Whiskey Rebellion.

      • cowcharge

        You can’t be both a rebel and a tyrant.

        “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

        “History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.” Thomas Jefferson

        “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” Thomas Paine

        “We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts–not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

        “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.” Theodore Roosevelt

        “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” Daniel Webster

        [T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

        “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. … Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” –James Madison

        The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

        “When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

    • Keep Calm

      You’ve missed it on several counts. The right to bear arms was an English right, and according the founders a natural right. The 2nd Amendment did not grant that right, it acknowledged its existence.

      The right was never intended to come without responsibilities or restrictions. The idea was to ensure that the community had the power to oppose that rogue lieutenant, sheriff or king, but was not intended to make every man a law unto himself, or to oppose DULY enacted laws by individual acts of violence. Listen to John Adams:

      “To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyedby no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.” — A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States (1787-1788).

      It is absurd to imagine that John Adams thought that individuals or private groups were to determine what that laws were and what they meant. That could only be done collectively, by the whole people, or by their duly chosen representatives.

  • I put this on my FB page and ask that anyone who respond do it with facts – Not what FOX, the neighbor, the guy at work thinks or what they “think” might be the right answer but proven, facts if they want to refute any of it.

  • The military, supported from the Right, is the most expensive Socialist Insitution in the U.S.A.

    • Scotty

      Do you really think the money gets down to us Joes? Ha!

      • If you’re employed it does-it’s called wages.

      • Rob Klaers

        Too bad that’s not how they mean…Besides the wages don’t go up because a company does well.. The CEO’s get bonuses. The average Joe like you and I are lucky if we get a 10% raise every 3-5 years..

      • moomba

        what kinda dream world do you live in where you get a 10% raise?

      • Kim Ferrari

        It’s actually a .8% increase annually for the cost of living, and promotions are certainly NOT 10% raises.

      • Mike Williams

        With promotions come higher wages, otherwise what is the point? “Congrats, your lead grunt. It does not pay more. but your head is on the block for the success of your team.” yup that’s a bone us.

      • Rob Klaers

        I was being gracious with the raise.. CEO’s get far greater percent for bonuses, which for some equate to 300% of their pay. Yet they can’t give their employees even a 10% raise or even a living wage.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Yeah, I saw where a worker at Taco Bell would have to work 24/7, 365 days a year for 30 years in order to receive what a Taco Bell CEO receives in 1 year. That is pretty pathetic.

        & while they were blaming all the Hostess workers for their Twinkies going down the drain, the CEOs were pocketing the employee pensions & voting themselves 300% raises. Then they blamed the employees & the unions for closing the company.

        We ought to be pissed off, but we denigrate those who are & are trying to tell us the truth.

      • ReadFirstCommentLast

        Don’t forget stated that they blamed worker’s unions were being uncompromising, with conditions that were retractions on the all ready existing agreement.

      • Raymond

        You know what is even funnier is the working poor blame the other working poor for the situation. To hear some people mean mouth the auto workers union makes you wanna throw up. These people think that other people don’t deserve the money they make as if they know the value of someone’s labor. I really love how the working poor tell the working poor that flip burgers that their labor is not skilled enough to warrant higher pay. A fast food joint can generate 1 to 3 million a year in profit. And then the working poor says that the rich earned the money that the working poor generated.

      • Ed Perini

        Umm… I actually got a 12% raise in July. But then, I live in Nebraska, which happens to have one of the best economies in the U.S. – and I am very grateful.

      • Mike Williams

        Ed’s buying drinks.

      • Mike Williams

        Ceo for hostess.

      • ReadFirstCommentLast

        Its a known fact it statistical review that wages in comparison to inflation flat-lined starting in the 70’s, while during the late 80’s to present day jobs simply have been exported.

    • It is socialism for the Military Industrial Complex, and the rich concerned . I am not sure what one it would call for the troops.

      • dcdingo

        yeah.. blaming the soldiers is like blaming the Walmart cashier for Walmart having crappy salaries and benefits despite being incredibly enriched. blame the congressmen who write those budgets, saving hundreds of jobs in their districts and sinking the ship collectively.
        Just like trickle down economics works great.. there’s tons of precipitation in China!

    • Bobby Treat

      I’m retired USAF myself, and Dilling is right. We were taken care of in every way, at taxpayer expense, and all we had to do was EVERYTHING we were told.

      • Jose L del Risco

        Bobby, although I appreciate all of what you have done to protect our freedoms, 1. It was your choice, 2. It was you job. You were paid to do a job you chose and you were paid at tax payer expense.

      • Kim Ferrari

        And proudly done. However, the crap coming from the people who didn’t choose to serve is UNREAL. I actually had a chick tell me once, “Well, I didn’t have to join the military to pay for MY school, because I’M not stupid, like you!” That was one of the more “nice and tactful” things I have heard since separating from service.

      • David Bovard

        I hope You told her that her Right to go to school was because of the Men and Woman that served in the military and gave THEIR LIFE for Her FREEDOM. If you can read this, thank a Teacher! If you can read this in english thank a SOLDIER!

      • Guest

        If he lost hearing, as did I, you can get a partial disability.

      • louis

        your an idiot. period. name one time our country has been in jeopardy of being taken over? you cant, thats because the answer is never. we speak english cuz our founders were british dummy. the military had nothing to do with establishing public education. why dont you go back to school before you attempt to educate anyone. (by the way, people like you are the reason this country is in the shitter)

      • Kim Ferrari

        Wow. You claim to speak English, and that OTHER people need an education?

      • Raymond

        Louis, I don’t think the country is in the shitter. Doom and gloom are not the order of the day. All service people did not go to the middle east. They all do not carry guns or tanks. You know I am wondering what happened to the peace talks. Why haven’t we sat down with these people and discussed their issue. Prior to G Bush we did this even if people like Jesse Jackson had to do it without the permission of the Reagan.

      • robingee

        *you’re – you + are

      • sfromana

        well, you’re dealing with a moron. anyone who is in the armed forces should be respected. they basically have sold their soul to the nation, and the nation should take care of them, regardless of politics. NEVER cut a soldier’s benefits. NEVER. and don’t treat the vets like scum. I also take offense at conservatives assuming all liberals hate the military. I am a military brat 2 fathers served (step and real fathers.) the shit the veterans get now is shameful and they should not be pawns in the political pie cutting.

      • Kim Ferrari

        Proud Vet, and VERY Liberal! 🙂

      • aliciaelaine

        me too!!!!

      • Tuli Reno

        Me, too.

      • Willow_wynn

        My own father is a Vet, doesn’t get jack squat from the government for it though. Oh and he’s liberal. Very liberal. He worked hard, lost a good portion of his hearing doing what he did. Both my in-laws are Vets, also not getting government assistance for it. Thankfully they’re doing well on their own at least. Oh and they’re both liberal too…

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Why aren’t they getting gov’t assistance? These days, the reason might be because the GOP does everything it can to cut vets benefits and pay. Don’t blame the liberals for that. Look what happened during the shutdown, totally the fault of the GOP in the House: vets and disabled veta getting nothing! Remember, it’s Congress that votes the funds…and with a House controlled by the GOP and a Senate subjected to constant fake filibusters, the Dems can’t fix things.

      • 1JudgeNotLestYeBeJudged1

        Cynical as usual, I just want to throw this out there. It’s interesting that most service members who are deployed (not regular ’employee’ type service) are reservists. Don’t most come from very rural areas that are economically depressed? Lights go off in my head… is it possible? these conflicts are by design…I mean…who benefits from war? The contractors, right? So who are the pawns losing their lives? The poor people who aren’t given any other opportunities b/c employers give our jobs to foreign countries and then they contract with the military and profit from Americans..We not only give these huge and powerful corporations tax breaks that in combination with unfunded wars, have bankrupted our country. .I see a “pool” of people who are giving their lives to keep the fat cats rich. America, wake up!!!

      • RandomPoster

        With Republicans blocking any and all jobs bills…with them allowing the student loan fees to soar…it makes me wonder if their primary goal is to force kids, just leaving high school, into a branch of the military. They have no job and cant find one…join the military…you can’t afford college and you can’t borrow from your parents…join the military. If you make it home alive…we will send you to school. By pissing off the entire world, they need to bolster our military. By keeping the economy tanked and rewarding themselves with bonuses and pay raises, the rich can afford to send their over privileged brats to college and not war. While our underprivileged poor kids, fight for these up and coming, possible future leaders. So many of your kids are coming home in body bags, while they are grooming theirs to take over this country and repeat the sins of their fathers.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Send you to school, maybe….we won’t make it easy. My daughter served & she ended up owing Sallie Mae for a lot of money. When she went to work for a state entity, she did pay them back, because her salary was garnished until she did.
        So that give you money to go to school isn’t as secure as it once was.

      • Raymond

        Not sure how long your daughter served, but I think she has to go like 4 or 5 years to get 100%. They don’t give you a lot unless you stay a long time.

      • Margaret Mills

        I believe that the “pro-life” crap is about having future soldiers also.

      • Debbie W.

        Exactly! Well said.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Suppose that is why Republicans voted against incentives that would bring jobs back to America & jobs that would employ our Veterans???

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Judge, there is nothing new about this. Study some history. Wars are almost always started by the rich and powerful, but fought and paid for by the poor and middle class. Democracy eased off on this a bit; but we hardly live in a democracy anymore, we live in something that’s become more and more a plutocracy every minute.

      • louis

        Anyone who is in the armed forces should not be respected. let me get this straight, i am supposed to respect someone who is willing to go out and commit mass genocide at the request of some other idiot? and they do this without question, for a partial ride to a shitty college and some free healthcare. I am not saying everyone in the military sucks, but lets be honest, their supposed to protect and uphold the constitution. In my opinion, anyone that went to iraq and killed people at the behest of george bush, deserves zero gratitude. The last Vets i have any respect for are the the ones that went to Vietnam and WW2. Anyone that is willing to kill other people without significant proof of that nation trying to harm us, isnt worthy of that uniform.

      • Flo_C

        I’d think that you would at least give the Vietnam vets a break. Weren’t a large percentage of them drafted into service? They had a choice between serving, going to jail, or leaving the country.

      • Mike Williams

        When you join you do not get to decide what wars to fight. How your going to fight them. You just go, you do what you said you would do and that’s all there is. None of this crap about the president is an idiot so I won’t do this. So you can take your freedom that a vet ensured you have and kiss every vet’s boot. Your what I would scrape off the bottom of mine.

      • Keith Brisbane

        I don’t believe you have to fight for freedom especially when you invade a country to ensure it. The only way you protect freedom is by keeping your troops at home and rebuilding your nations infrastructure and if harm should come to the nation on its own soil the defensive action should be taken. Using the military to support and promote private interests is not in defense of freedom but of the pocket.

      • Mike Williams

        So, you believe that protecting freedom is about defensive actions at home only.

        How would you feel if our government could have prevented a military strike on our soil that killed everyone you loved but did nothing because you decided that a nation should only protect itself after it has been attacked.

        It is always better to wage war as the visiting team.

      • Keith Brisbane

        The thing to do is not provoke action in the first place. if we initially sent food instead of bombs or let countries like Iraq nationalize their oil fields and simply minded our own business in the first place their would likely be no need for anyone to die. And if soldiers on both sides of the battlefield decided that every life is precious even an enemies then we wouldn’t have hundreds of caskets being shipped home. If they could have prevented it I would hope that the billions of dollars they spend on DEFENSE would be ample enough.

      • larry

        How’s that working?

      • Mike Williams

        When you join you do not get to decide what wars to fight. How your going to fight them. You just go, you do what you said you would do and that’s all there is. None of this crap about the president is an idiot so I won’t do this. So you can take your freedom that a vet ensured you have and kiss every vet’s boot. Your what I would scrape off the bottom of mine.

      • MeOMy

        So I’m guessing we should disrespect you too. After all, I bet you paid your taxes the entire time the war was going on. You helped fund those people that went and killed people in Iraq. How much did you do while you sat on your lazy rear end and watched TV while you faked being disabled so you could live off the government?

        Before you blast me for making assumptions about you, don’t forget you started it by pretty much saying that anyone in the military is stupid and could never get into anything but a “shitty college”.

        You also might want to look up the meaning of genocide. I know some people who have escaped from genocide in their country. I’m sure they would be pretty offended by the way you throw that term around.

        I was against this country going into Iraq, but still have a level of respect for anyone who has served in the military.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Yep. One of the things about the shutdown that made me grind my teeth was that while Cruz and Ryan were complaining about not enough clean towels in the Congressional gym, disabled vets were not getting their checks. Guys who had been permanently injured in the line of duty…”too damn bad you’ve got no money, suckers!” That was the attitude of those who oh-so-piously proclaim, at every opportunity,that they “support the troops”!

      • Bruce Greenhalge

        LMAO,You know so much that isn’t true. Obama and the Dems have been shitting on our military for 5 years now.

      • modera8

        One of my exes faked an injury and received a discharge as well as benefits from the military. I reported him ten years ago. He’s still receiving benefits. Wonder how many other times that happened?

      • Mike Rodgers

        Of course she didn’t, daddy did. Oh, and thank you for your service.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        Hope you kicked her to the curb…not because of her statement (which was rude) but because she really WASN’T intelligent & you don’t need to surround yourself with stupidity.

      • Aiman Jarrar

        No offense to anyone in the Military, and I respect the hell out of those who serve, but that is a HUGE reason why teenagers join the military. I’ve seen a lot of teenagers join the Military because they were not accepted into college also.

      • colliegurl

        Conservatives think liberals are poor, don’t serve in the military, are lazy, are the cause of the Great Recession, have no morals, that republicans are fiscally responsible, etc… People have all kinds misinformed opinions.

      • robingee

        Well, that chick was a dumb bitch. There’s always going to be THOSE you have to deal with!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Not all ‘smart’ people are smart.

      • gman

        People who served deserve what they have earned. Police, fire and other public servants get pensions. Yes, those of us who joined the military chose to do so. It doesn’t mean veterans should be tossed aside if they were in to earn a pension, twenty-plus years or were medically discharged. Obama has done more for veterans than any president I recall.

      • JOHNNYBFITT

        Jose I think you misunderstood Bobby, he’s basically agreeing out of social philosophy and what the tradeoff was to dedicate and risk his life for this country regardless of any abuse that occurs within the armed services and not all vets are as lucky as Bobby some still struggle to get many issues covered that should be !

      • David Bovard

        If we, America did not have a military we would be speaking Russian. It may be expensive,but its a neccesity for freedom.

      • zyuranger

        lol, I beg to differ. The cold war nearly bankrupted the US as it was, and we only won because the Russian economy fell apart before the US did.

        Hell. a majority of our deficit is due to military spending associated with both the cold war and W’s wars, so I guess we should also thank soldiers and the military for a $14 trillion dollar deficit. And while Russia has recovered from the cold war, the US is still trying to recover from it.

        Also, on a side note about the deficit, during both the Democratic president’s times in office, not only has the budget ended up balanced, but the deficit gets paid off whereas every time a Republican has been in office he has doubled or tripled the deficit.

      • spookytooth

        That’s because by the end of a democrat president ‘s second term the people have become so disgusted as to elect a republican congress. You do realize who holds the purse strings in our government, right? The president I’d an administrator. Bill Clinton was dragged to a balanced budget kicking and screaming.

      • feralman

        Um, no, that’s not it. There were moderate republicans during the clinton admin who were willing to work with democrats. Not hardly any of those left anymore.

      • Mike Williams

        What cost freedom? If it becomes too expensive for you then maybe you don’t really want it.

      • bruce

        LOL,WOW You drank way too much Kool-Aid.

      • Stephen Barlow

        And never admit the truth about it of be labels and tried as a traitor.

    • Dave Burrows

      I find the remarks made by people who don’t support war about military personnel to be both callous, and uninformed. whatever you believe about war, you cannot be more against it than I am, but the men, and women who fight in them do so for the future, and the benefit of all Americans, and free-loving people.

      These are our heroes. They leave well paying jobs, some, and put their lives at risk, sustain life-changing injuries, are all too often killed. Our government lies to us (remember Pat Tillman?), cheats our military out of the benefits they were promised, and deserve, and uses military action to stimulate economic growth, and presidential legacies.

      Our government uses these men, and women like pawns in a game in which they have no intention of playing fairly. While these heroes have been off fighting for what they believe, our lawmakers have been sitting in Washington signing those freedoms to oblivion with names like Patriot Act.

      Our government was designed with the people in mind, but it wasn’t very long before politicians called early warnings about the loss of our government to corporate giants.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        No one disparages the men & women who fight for our country. I also think they should be paid more than the dumbass congress people who put them in harms way & only work an average of 3 months a year & don’t do much then. The facts are that Congress gives the military more money than the military complex asks for. When you talk military, you are actually not talking about the men & women who serve but the complex….Also, education should be more important than the military complex. We are the only industrialized nation that spends more money on the military complex than we do on the future of our kids.

      • 1JudgeNotLestYeBeJudged1

        I’d say that who benefits from war also benefits from owning legislators…Super Pacs, special interests…making money from military government contracts…

      • Mike Williams

        Giving the military money, and paying the people in are two different things. What that money is supposed to be used for is payroll, tools of the trade, r&d and pensions. What congress does is shameful. The military does not decide the pay a soldier receives, That is set by congress. Officers can make some pretty good buck , but enlisted make crap till you get to more senior ranks. As for no one disparaging our military. Half the comments here are about making sure someone is kicking them in the crotch. Congress and especially the GOP right now is throwing a fit and to prove a point they are doing nothing. The result is my sons unit is deployed without the needed equipment. Partial body armor outdated radios so they can not communicate with other units. Meanwhile a unit not deployed is sitting back here in the states not only with the correct gear to deploy with. They have two of everything. Why? Because someone in congress decided that that is what was needed to be done to get ACA repealed even though that particular retard voted for it.
        Want to cut military spending find out which programs which politician is pushing for and find out how much they are getting from it. Then we don’t have 10mil spent on an empty never been never will be used facility while our troops can’t get a hot fresh cooked meal because the mess tent doesn’t have a stove.

      • louis

        they do it because they view themselves as having no other options. period. like i said anyone that is willing to go off and kill other people in their native land at the request of someone else, is a weak minded person. My children will never join any military branch unless we are invaded. This pro military just because you were dumb enough to join, just doesnt make sense.Our military hasnt fought for freedom of this nation in decades. I am against sending poor kids off to 3rd world countrys to kill people for the benefit of the very rich.

      • Dave Burrows

        We come to many of the same conclusions, but I think we get there rather differently, Louis. The pro military as I see it is based on a high school mentality that has been spawned by the manufacturers of military machines, and it’s embraced by the lemmings in front of them.

        There seems no willingness, perhaps no ability to look at a topic like war from perspectives that aren’t our own. The high school mentality to which I referred couldn’t be better illustrated than it is by the conservative cheerleaders who stand on the side lines, cheering on the home team.

        Military personnel are neither the decision makers, nor are they universally pro war. Wheat they do have in common is bravery, courage, and a willingness to put life on line because they believe something is bigger, more important than their own lives. They are victims, not due to gullibility, ignorance, hate, nor fear. They are victims due to being true believers in freedom, and of the manipulative hand of legislators.

        While agree that we may not have been in a just war since WWII, the Korean conflict probably did prevent the take-over of the South by the North. Rwanda exemplifies that the reason we enter war is about our interests, most especially monetary, because we stayed complacent while some of the news actually reported what was happening there as nearly a million people lost their lives to genocide. Where were we then?

      • Mike Williams

        “they do it because they have no other options.”

        Explain this then .

        Pat Tillman. deceased, Killed in Iraq War 2004. US army. Army Ranger, corporal.

        Prior to that the same Pat Tillman

        Pat Tillman:

        Pro football Player:

        At one point in his NFL career, Tillman turned down a five-year, $9 million contract offer from the St. Louis Rams out of loyalty to the Cardinals

        In May 2002, eight months after the September 11 attacks and after completing the fifteen remaining games of the 2001 season which followed the attacks (at a salary of $512,000 per year),Tillman turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army.

        I guess he had no other options.

        He just had to do what he felt was his duty.

        Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • Tuli Reno

      I was in a room with a group of retired US Army sergeants when the Obamacare debate first came up. We were all looking at each other and shaking our heads since we are the recipients of socialized medicine and had been during our Army service.

    • Kim Qitqat Brechtel

      The “military industrial complex” is supported by the right. The troops themselves…..mnot so much. Get it correct.

    • Jack Brinkman

      The military not socialist. They’re not a business. There are no “means of production” to control. Not that I would have a problem if they were, but it’s simply not what “socialism” means.

    • Stephen Barlow

      AMEN to that truth!! Defense contracting IS welfare.

  • Gretchen West

    There are 3 kinds of Republicans: Billionaires, Millionaires & Suckers.

    • Yep… George Soros, Hollywood celebs and you. Oh wait… you thought you were describing Republicans? hahahahaha

      • Dave Burrows

        When someone mentions George Soros, I know that their major / sole source of “news” comes from FoxNews. People who watch FoxNews for other than comedic purposes are the suckers Ms. West was talking about.

        Everything you’ve heard about Soros could be more succinctly said about Ruppert Murdoch who decides what the torch-and-hand-farm-implement-wielding-mob who listen to him will hear.

        Here’s the difference between FoxNews, and the liberal media. The later has field reporters, and correspondents who are out there observing, and reporting about what’s really happening. Fox has designer automatons with uninformed opinions, perky breasts, and a need for something more effective than Preparation-H.

      • Lori Fleener-Powers

        Soros is dead…has been for quite some time.

    • There’s one kind of Liberal.. the idiot who believes he understands everything.

      • Captain Blackbeard

        There’s one kind of Republican, too. One that responds with “nyah nyah” to everything. I still haven’t seen any facts. Just bullshit. What about Soros? I know, you’re about to feed us the Fox propaganda. Don’t bother. Acorn? The drum is still being beat and it was all debunked by “facts” ages ago. Damage done. I’ve heard it, read it. Let me save you a little more trouble, my Fox tape recorder friend. You’ll call me a “sheeple” that’s been drinking the “libtard kool-aid”. Sound bytes don’t cut it any more.

      • Victoria Lamb

        Nor does Kyle Jarvis Chan Wu’s attempt at insults. Grow up, buddy.

      • oooo, is wittle Kyliepoo calling names now? Wittle Kyliepoo doesn’t have any rational facts so he gets SO MAD and then calls names because that’s a convincing argument. Isn’t that cute??

      • And HE’s the one who needs to grow up?

      • Kim Ferrari

        Well, yeah, I mean, everyone knows that facts have a Liberal bias…

      • motorfingaz

        Try again fool.

      • Willow_wynn

        A liberal doesn’t automatically understand everything. However, seeing as it is statistically proven that they tend to be more well informed than your average Faux News watching conservative, it is reasonable to deduct that they would be able to contribute more rational arguments to any politically based discussion they’re in. As opposed to the Faux News group who are shown to know even less about what’s going on than those who don’t watch news at all.

      • Dave Burrows

        The report I remember said that people who didn’t watch the news at all answered more questions about domestic, and foreign interests correctly than those who watch Fox. You know, Fox; the entertainment channel who employs no field reporters, and no field correspondents. Where do they get their news? Ruppert Murdoch.

    • That’s a brilliant and narrow minded as “How many liberals does it take to change a lightbulb?”
      “No one knows because none of them are willing to work that hard.”
      Keep propagating the stereotypes and promoting ignorance.

      • Rock Island

        I’m sure I work much harder than you, Abby. You couldn’t do my job.

      • lynchie

        No pumping gas is pretty easy/

      • rl

        How many republicans does it take to change a light bulb, None they’ll just blame the room for being black!

      • GoFig

        LOL!!! That’s great!

  • Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, Cantor and all the rest need to be arrested and tried for treason against the United States. They not only violated their oaths of office, they have tried to overthrow our duly elected President through their bullshit, they have enforced the will of the rich over the will of the majority and have caused incredible harm to our economy, our lives and our way of life.

    They should be tried and upon conviction, beheaded and their heads put on pikes in front of the Congress.

    Yeah some will think beheading them is wrong, but that is your opinion.

    • Victoria Lamb

      While that might be satisfying to some, I think it would have an unfortunate effect on the tourist trade in DC.

  • Love this, but let’s use correct grammar: Social Security and Medicare ARE socialism.

    • Keep Calm

      How do they involve the public ownership and operation of the means of production? — Unless you are ONLY making a grammatical point!

      You want socialism? How about a resource that everyone contributes to according to their means, no matter how little personal benefit they get from it, when everyone can use it as much as they desire, no matter how little they contribute to its operation? Does that sound scary? Well that would describe public roads, public parks, and public libraries. And yet great capitalists have always favored these institutions!

    • Victoria Lamb

      The word “socialism” has nothing to do with grammar.

  • Steve

    While I do agree with a few points (I don’t blame Obama for everything that has happened to our country economically and they are correct in their recitation of the constitution; although, I think a further reading of the founding fathers other writings would help us all to better understand their heart in the writing of the constitution), what I don’t agree with is the divisive tone set in the article. If we are to have unity and a respect for each others ideals then a sarcastic poke in the eye will not do us any good; and that goes for everyone, not just this writer. he very hateful and negative replies to this article
    prove this point.

  • suprafastmafc .

    big deal… let’s focus on the puppets, not the real issues, or god forbid solving them.

  • Well, I really like the facts, and agree with them. But I really don’t think President Obama said them. Though I am sure he could of said them with conviction. So I could post these if they were listed as “facts that anger Republicans”, but I can’t re post as “facts that President Obama says to irritate the republicans” Just sayin’

  • Administering medicine to the dead.

  • As is often done with all sides in the race to fail. They took a lot of opinion to spin the few “facts” they used to the view the wanted. #Remembernomatterwhowinswealllose.

  • “Regulate” in the 2nd Amendment is probably closer to the sense of “maintained” than “under rules” — but even that is way beyond the point. For real fun, point out to a Republican than “shall not be infringed” means that ex-convicts cannot be barred from having a weapon. See how they react.

    • I keep saying this. We killed the rights in the second amendment a long time ago. We’re just fighting over a corpus now. might as well say it’s the privilege to hunt.

      • Keep Calm

        The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was, at least in part, to require the government to rely upon private citizens, not professionals, for law enforcement and national defense. So you have a point.

    • “shall not be infringed” DOES mean exactly that – that laws, rules or regulations that prohibit the keeping or bearing of arms is in contradiction to the second amendment.

      Then again, incarceration prior to trial is in violation of the 9th, warrantless wiretapping is a violation fo the fourth, the breathalyzer is a violation of the fifth… shall I go on?

      Jefferson said that the constitution, as a governing document, was not meant to be like the ten commandments, carved in stone, but revisited, rewritten, even revoked, about once every 20 years. We are LONG overdue for a new Constitutional Convention.

      • Keep Calm

        Incarceration without charge was banned, and once charged incarceration for more than 12 months without trial was forbidden. No where and no when was it ever illegal to hold a prisoner prior to his trial.

    • Keep Calm

      The Founders denied whole classes of people the right to bear arms, as did their successors. The people as a whole have that right, not every single individual. In the 19th century, the carrying of a concealed weapon was barred through most of the United States as cowardy and unmanly. As most adult men were expected to be part of the militia, it was necessary for the state-appointed militia officers to know what guns each man had. It was several times ruled in the 19th century that small pistols and bowie knives, having no military purpose, could be banned. We have always had the right to bear arms, even before independence. The constitution guarantees that right, but did not create it. But the bearing of arms has also always been regulated. Some arms allowed, some forbidden, some required!

      The Left is crazy if they thing citizens don’t have the have weapons for self-defense, and/or public service under legally authorized authority.

      The Right is crazy if they think the above means the right of own any weapon of any kind, or that the legislature has no power to regulate and limit such ownership.

      • Keep Calm

        Ooops. “have the right to have weapons for self-defense”

  • Not ALL Republicans are willfully ignorant, and it does us all a dis-service to paint them with so broad a brush! MOst I would agree are, but not ALL!

  • boot55555

    hey, you omitted gas prices. I guess it wouldnt suit your purpose. You utterly fail in basic math too. 4 to 8 is double, and 8 to 14 is……………….not double. So, 6 is less than 4 I guess. Wait til 2016………that 6 will be 12.

    • Jeff

      You obviously missed the part where it said “We had record oil prices under Bush, not Obama.” As for the debt, a lot of that is interest charged on what we already owe. If you bothered to search around the internet, you would see that spending under Obama has grown at a much lower rate than many previous presidents, Bush included.

  • Tom Bl

    If we didn’t have SOME regulations on weapons, some very unfriendly persons would possess nuclear weapons – – including “suitcase” nukes.

    • the spirit of the second was to make sure that the people would have enough fire power to overthrow a government that turned on it’s own people.. cough cough England cough… sorry. If you don’t think you can stop a tank, jet, nuke or even a foot solder you have missed the point.

  • Im fed up with both parties. Im going libertarian, win or lose, shot or no shot at winning, Im done with the two party system

  • Looks like someone is trolling for an argument, can you logically deduce any other rational reason why this guy keeps bashing on all Republicans?

  • davidsherr

    “the phrase “well regulated” obviously infers”

    The correct word is “implies,” not infers.

  • LadySady

    Stupidity does not discriminate. Just didn’t think anyone wanted to put theirs on display!

  • Reading this as an Independent, I cant help but wonder if we are laughing about the same thing. So much anger in these comments. Who is it really annoying 🙂

  • Sixpoint08

    Haha all these things are such common knowledge it amuses me that you think it would even annoy us Republicans. Every bullet listed is true, but it is so superficial it clearly shows a lack of depth in understanding and critical thinking ability. This reminds me of the guy from The Anchorman who says, “I love lamp.” Yes, I love the lamp too, but we’re so far beyond that its hard to even communicate with you. I think its great you have an opinion and are passionate about it, even if its different than mine – but at least communicate it in a scholarly way instead of stating a bunch of obvious facts that no one is disputing, at least know one that has the ability to use their brain for more than transcribing excerpts from the Constitution and well known truths to a poorly written internet “article.” Show some thought and analysis at least. Congratulations, I love lamp too. We’ll go over shapes and colors tomorrow.

  • terry

    What bothers me is Congress thinking more of them getting home than Americans dying of Cancer because of their sequestration. That should be considered manslaughter by our(?) Congressional Representatives(?)!

  • Interesting… Much of it isn’t necessary to refute; a simple response of “and your point is?”; pretty well shuts down the conversation. Many of these views are opinions that the Left has assigned to the Right as opposed to being fundamental to the Right. And by the way; there is no “Freedon from religion” in the Constitution. And Bush did inherit a generally balanced budget and he did in fact nearly double the debt in 8 years by adding 4T. So how is Obama’s adding 6T in four years somehow better? “Your guy sucked too” is hardly a “gotcha” statement. But our guy sucked less.

  • cowcharge

    It’s only annoying because of its 4th-grader tone and its complete misunderstanding of what real conservatives think. Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for conservatives any more than (I hope) Bill Maher doesn’t speak for liberals.

  • In the comments I see–

    ad-hom, ad-hom, strawman, strawman, appeal to authority, loaded questions, bandwagoning, and a whole host of other logical fallacies. I could continue, but I wouldn’t want to annoy you Democrats any further. 😉

    • Keep Calm

      Or republicans either.

  • Your mom

    Who said anything about christianity? There are numeRous references related to “God” in the founding of this country. Where is cristian coming from specifically? This author is making stuff up from what they hear dem radio… “the RIGHT to bear arms” enough said idiot… Bush doubling the national debt. Um yes $4 trillion is a crazy number over 8 years. What about the $6+ trillion in four from your savior Obama? You are all brain washed morons. Move to france and collect your government checks there please.

  • LadyCAD

    So, maybe whats wrong with this nation is that we spend so much time tearing down and trying to annoy other people. Isnt sad that this is suppose to be funny when all it is, is sad. Im not Republican, nor am I Democratic, not Liberal or Conservative. I am however an American born and raised.

  • James Stearns

    Just a point of clarification,”Decades ago we all paid a much higher tax percentage, and our economic policies protected the people more than businesses. During these times our nation saw historic growth and unheard of economic prosperity. None of that was done by basing our policies on giving more to the rich.” Never existed

    • Jedoba

      Really? If you’re suggesting that tax rates were not higher, you should look at the data. Tax rates were as high as 91% in post-WWII United States until around 1970. They fell even farther under Reagan, and look where we are now, economically speaking. Income disparities between the top and bottom have grown faster and faster as a result. The message and facts are clear; when the rich take a larger share, and leave less for everyone else, the American Dream suffers.

  • wonder how many people understand that the US *IS* a corporation.

  • stunatra

    I’d send this to my Republican uncle but I’d only get hell from my
    aunt…he’d drive her crazy after reading it, punching his computer and
    desk and throwing things and yelling…

  • 2nd Amendezznuts

    You can banter all you want about “A well regulated Militia” but you cannot mess up “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

  • Matthew Petersen

    All this debate.. the issue is simple:
    Do you believe you have a right to the wealth of others?

    If you said no, then accept the fact that corporations became wealthy from VOLUNTARY trading you participated in with them (like buying all those iPhones?)

    No company can achieve wealth without providing SOMETHING the world valued enough to trade them money for

    Welfare is not voluntary trading, it is a claim on the wealth (time spent working) of others

  • ORveteran

    Your points don’t annoy me they make me laugh at you. Your points are laughable. President Bush did raise the debt by $5 trillion in 8 years but Obama has raised the debt $7 trillion and hasn’t even finished 5 years yet.
    The idea that taking money from the rich benefits the poor or middle class is just plain idiotic. When you let the rich kerp more of their money they hire more people snd wages go higher. The more money taken from the people with money the less goes to creating jobs and raising wages. If you really wanted real facts you would do some resesrch and keep an open mind. The fact that you will never do that is what is annoying.
    Speaking to your point about the fact that the Constitution not mentioning Christianity it was on purpose. The Constitution is about freedom of religion, but the country was founded on Christianity.
    You really should think before you post messages. I will leave the rest of your points for another time.

  • trickle down economics works just as well as trickle down government. :).. Also if government wasn’t breaking it’s back trying to find new ways to waste our money, we might not need painfully high taxes to cover it. If you don’t work hard enough to afford what you need to make your family happy, well that’s your problem not mine. It’s not mean, it’s just life. Put in the hours necessary to make ends meet, make the best decisions for your family and when things work out then take pride in what you have accomplished. Also the 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. I don’t know how you could be more specific or clear.

    • Victoria Lamb

      Is 16 hours enough for you? That is what many people in this country now work, because they have two or three jobs each, none of which have benefits or overtime pay attached to them.

  • Cynthia D Estes

    I’m definitely not annoyed! Just LMAO at the stupidity of the left!

  • S

    Wow, this whole article and comment section just highlights how pathetically polarized our country has become. Yet it shows how fantastic the US actually is. We have the time to be so concerned with ourselves that an article like this gets attention. NO point, NOT helping to get both sides to work together toward a coherent solution, from a party of ‘tolerants’ (as long as you agree with their opinion) meant to continue the polarization of a party that has let it self get ridiculously stereotyped (and continues to let the fringe idiots solidify the stereotypes) My first and last time on this website or paying attention to this author.
    Seems to fit in with the idiot fringes that are making their money helping to keep Amercia polarized, the Rush Limbaughs and Micheal Moores (two fat ugly men who can only get attention by crying wolf and that the sky is falling over any/all issues) and the Glenn Becks and Bill Mahers (who continually sprew hatred of anything that is not in thier specific narriow-minded view-points)

    Sadly I actually took some time to see if people were as dissappointed as me in the continued attacks on each others party, which will not help progress anything at all.

    My generation will have to try and clean all this up, I can only hope that all of you, along with the baby-boomers (who screwed up current society) go quietly in the night as soon as possible, and let those of us who can actually live and respect other peoples views, and just want to get shit done, focus on getting shit done!

    Now all the commenters and author go back back to your cheeto stained white tee-shirt, sitting on the couch watching your polarizing idiot of choice above and live in your bubble of stupid. I’ve got work to do.

  • teach2man

    Speaking of facts, I was looking for them but only came across distorted opinions. The liberals continue to lower our standards and call declining moral values “progress”. You think l am crazy? Well here are a couple of my “opinions” that demonstrate my point.

    Sucking the brains out of babies so you don’t have to call them human, just to justify murder under the disguise of choice rather than encourage responsibility.

    Bringing in a new healthcare package (we will read it after we pass it said Nancy p.).that is proving to be way more expensive than any of our ‘informed’ politicians would tell us. Then modeling it on a ‘successful’ European plan. Which, BTW, does promote early death for seniors through forced neglect. What is .my basis for this? I lived in the. UK for over a decade and my wife worked in the national health care system and witnessed this.

    I could go on, but it is impossible to converse with ostriches.

  • Dave

    These “facts” are all nonsensical. Especially the ones concerning the 2nd Amendment, Social Security and Medicare and health insurance. If we were to discuss them in the absence of the Democrat and Republican labels, it would take little effort to display their silliness.

  • No vision, all rhetoric, my grand daughter could provide a better argument than that. You bounce around like a football bat, & expect us to think you’re some kind of profound. Typical leftist hack. Heh-heh-heh.

  • rlstum

    I find it amusing that someone thinks that these “facts” are disconcerting to Republicans. I found myself responding to many of them with “So? What’s your point?” That doesn’t mean that what i believe to be right and best is wrong. We may disagree, but little if anything in here proves anything.

  • “Implies”…not “infers”?

  • captainconfuzzled

    My only comment as a moderate is that inferences claimed as obvious by one extreme may not be so obvious because none of us were there to see the debate to assume anything is obvious.

    Just like always, barking from one extreme at the other…

  • BERo

    As a Republican, I find this list annoying only because it is a list of Republican stereotypes that aren’t true. For example, I’ve never heard a Republican say that the word “Christian” is in the Constitution. They will bring up the fact that the Declaration refers to rights “endowed by their Creator.” The Declaration is not a legally binding document. But it is the root of our national philosophy of government. Which, if not based on Christianity, is at least based on the Lockean concept of natural rights. You have no idea what we believe because you aren’t listening to us.

  • This article is a fine example of the strides liberals are making every day to create unity in this country through bipartisanship. This article is not an example of inspiring division and reinforcing conservative stereotypes. This article is not an immature, “I know you are, but what am I?” piece with no redeeming quality or purpose but to ration out a little masturbatory pat on the back for each of us. For us to go around en mass posting this to facebook is not an example of typical liberal credulity. Obviously not a win for partisan rhetoric. Clearly not a win for those forging never-ending dialectical chaos. Clearly we liberals are always right, I mean just look how smart we are. Republicans are all the same. A self-congratulation is in order for me. How do these morons live with themselves?

  • When have facts EVER gotten into the way of a t-bagger?

  • Albin

    Ticking people off? Now that’s progressive.

  • Let_It_Burn

    This has got to be the most intellectually vapid piece I’ve come across in recent weeks. Most of these are either misleading or total strawmen. But in the echo chamber that is the Liberal blogosphere I gotta say it’s more depressing than anything. Have any of you actually met or spoken to a Conservative, or are they all just ghouls you check under the bed for before you go to sleep?

  • slaryanahn

    Watching everyone fight on here is hysterical to me. Who cares if we believe different things? Why is it that no one can ever disagree with one another in a civil manner? Why must we always attack each other? In my opinion, the Republican and Democratic parties are both seriously flawed and filled with intensely cruel people. That’s the perk of being independent–I don’t have to associate myself with the disgusting behavior coming from either side.

    • robertct

      Haha! Love this… and it’s so, so true. Disagreeing with a person is one thing, but attacking the character of that person because their opinions don’t line up with yours is ridiculous. There is so much hate between the American people these days, and it’s a shame that the only time we’re a united people is in the midst of tragedy.

    • Victoria Lamb

      If you are attracted by dissention, aren’t you part of the problem? What can you do to help the situation? That is what you should be asking yourself.

  • Bazu

    I don’t mean to be a Debbie downer and rain on your parade of congratulating yourself by kicking other people in the pants, but you know that conservatives (and republicans, for that matter) are just as diverse as the “liberals”, having one end of extremism (on the leftists side) being the nazi party to the more rational end being the deomocratic party of Bill Clinton (which was really very centrist, and good for him). I understand you want to do the same thing as all the BushReaganCheney supporters (of which I am most definitely not) and scream and shout “hooray for us, and anyone who questions us can go to Guantanamo” but it makes you look like a bunch of, well, I was going to say jerks, but really, it makes you look just like the neocons, which is more insulting.

  • Ursadabear

    Some good points. Not many, and most of those you should really be able to counter yourself if you’re not blinded by either side of the political spectrum. I wish liberals would stop patting themselves on the back and start confronting some of the horrendous things being done by Obama. Drone warfare. Indefinite detention. Expanded assassination protocol. It’s funny to me, because I know if it were Bush doing these things, you would all be up in arms, but since its a guy from your camp it seems like most of you would rather brush all the real issues under the rug and focus on how great we’ll be doing economically in the future thanks to obamas fiscal policies. In essence it makes all of you sound just as arrogant and conceited as the republicans did. Really a bummer.

  • damn liberals are stupid

  • complete and utter bull shit…every bit of it

  • SoCo

    “Well regulated” does not mean “under regulations”. In the context of the language at the time it was written, “well regulated” means “well operating” or “working properly.”

    So much fail in these items, because they require you to be intentionally stupid to use them.

  • It would be a much more poignant article about facts to tick off Republicans if it weren’t for the problem that 20% of the “facts” are not even “facts” by definition. Another 30% use loaded statements with incorrect correlations. However, other than that it’s an excellent article.

  • steve Manista

    “The 2nd Amendment actually refers to a “well regulated militia.” While it says the right for Americans to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the phrase “well regulated” obviously infers that this right doesn’t come without regulations.”

    That argument would be valid if you look at the word regulated with a modern definition but it seems that you forgot that over time the definition of words sometimes change and at the time the constitution was written the word regulated meant “in proper working order” Example a person might say “My watch is broken I’m going to go have it regulated.” So using the definition of the words the second amendment states “A properly operated force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency, being necessary to be free from danger or threats to maintain a free State,THE right of the people to have and carry weapons and ammunition, shall not be broken, limited, or undermined.” That seems pretty clear to me whats to argue about?

    • Victoria Lamb

      Nice try.

  • Glorifying the problem

    None of this solves a single problem, it only glorifies and amplifies the reasons we are falling behind as a nation. A Nation (judging by the comments here) of middle-schoolers.

  • landonthegr8

    Some of these are true. Some of it is slanted at best. Obama still is really just as bad as Bush though. Worse in other ways. But hey, there are like 2 or 3 differences that are good. So I am still being nice.

  • They fogot to say that President Obama is President of the United States of AMERICAN

  • anonymous

    Second amendment bit is stupid. Stop saying this. The language protects the right to bear arms so that the right to form a well-regulated militia is protected. Both sides should stop arguing about guns entirely because neither side has any decent points to make on the issue. Both sides misquote the second amendment. Both sides have stupid beliefs and views. I’m sick of reading these ridiculous and frankly outright stupid arguments about guns and the second amendment when neither side seems to be intelligent enough to comprehend the issues.

  • PanikaMCD

    couple more notes:

    1) the constitution does describe where and who decides what is a well regulated militia: Article I Section 8 (the rights of congress)

    2) when militias are federalized (or, really, when they cross state borders) they fall under the Commander-In-Chief’s authority: Article II Section 2

    3) Medicare Part D did its fair share to explode the national debt.

  • What was it Bobby Jindal and countless other republicans said about them needing to stop being the party that appeals to cretins.

  • Dominic

    Some false statements here Obama’s defiantly spent more, and the democrats are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to most policy’s…..

    • K Go

      PLEASE show me the facts that back this up.

  • This exercise is probably fulfilling for the author, and gives those on the left a smile, but I suspect from my dealings with a few family member, they are fox mush headed till facts are of no use. They live in their own bubble with their own facts. History means nothing to them, as they have their own.

  • I used to have ‘fun’ with conservatives on Facebook by serving up all those tidbits of factual history.. it was like my train set . Of course, they would just get mad, stand up and try to kick the trains off the track by insulting and then not responding. Good times.

  • Bobby Treat

    The Great Recession started in December 2007, and where you say “infer”, you meant to say “imply” or “suggest”. Otherwise … a LOT of good points.

  • Nowhere in the constitution does it say that freedom of religion equals or includes freedom FROM religion. That is a huge stretch. Let us each have whatever religion we adhere to and leave us alone.

    If Obama is such a great president, why do Liberals immediately head into the way back machine to deflect to what Bush did or didn’t do? Can’t Obama be held accountable for his own actions or inaction?

    Why is everyone who doesn’t agree with Obama’s policies or like his personality automatically a racist according to you? Racist would be pretending to agree with him just because he’s not “white”. Racist is not holding him accountable or questioning his actions for fear of being called racist or bigoted by the insecure people who voted for him purely based on his skin color without a thought to his character, values and policies.

    Islam is a religion, true. It seems that the left is ok with the practice of Islam, but not the practice of Christianity. Christians gather on Sundays & sing songs & enjoy a sermon and some fellowship. You don’t have to go if you don’t want to. Oh yeah, and we don’t generally go around yelling for death to our opponents or bombing people.

    Rich people didn’t become rich by giving away their money. True enough. However, many rich people and rich corporations employ LOTS of Americans and provide their benefits. If you tax the hell out of them, jobs go away. If you put money into the hands of the ultra poor, they will pump it right back into the economy, which is good. Once that money is gone, they will still be ultra poor and that is bad. A path toward full employment and financial independence would be preferable.
    Then there’s the conundrum of how the left cries for shooting victims and tries to fix it by penalizing the legal gun holders who have committed no crime, while advocating for the murder and butchering of millions of unborn babies. Yeah, I know-conservatives love “fetuses” and hate people. That just may be true. Fetuses don’t go around killing people. BTW, “fetus” is Latin for “little one”. A pretty good description of an unborn baby with a heartbeat, brain, fingers, toes, its own genetic makeup, all the traits of a living human being. And, the old “You oppose abortion but aren’t pro-life when it comes to the death penalty” argument doesn’t wash, because unborn babies have not committed a crime meriting the death penalty. They are being sentenced to death without due process in exchange for money.

  • Rob Klaers

    For your first two points, I’ve had Christians attempt to tell me .. “Well it says Creator in the Declaration of Independence..” ..To which I answer “Yea, so..? That was essentially a declaration of war and has nothing to do with how our government was formed.. The Constitution does..” … “Well, our laws are based on Christian values..” …. “No, they weren’t. They were based on values common to most societies..”… “But there are laws against murder. and Thou shalt not kill..”…. “Japan has laws about murder and they’re not a Christian nation.”… then they begin to stutter.. LOL

  • American

    you know what annoys me? Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, your all fucked up and sick, pointing the finger and arguing instead of working together to solve our nations problems…

  • mu_linlin7

    Before I say anything, let me state for the record that I am quite liberal, and constantly get into fights with my conservative family over these very issues.

    That said, I would like to point out that while these may be facts, you haven’t backed any of them up with sources. Some of them are self-explanatory and don’t require backing up – for example, the wording of the Constitution – but it would lend a great deal of credibility to your arguments if you did. For instance, you should site sources documenting the higher tax percentage that was paid decades ago, and the contributions Bush made to the national debt and the recession. People lie and twist facts to their advantage. Reputable sources help negate that.

    Second, the phrase ‘well-regulated’ does not ‘infer’ the right to bear arms doesn’t come with regulations, it ‘implies’ it. WE infer it. PLEASE use correct grammar and syntax, or you will completely invalidate your (and our) arguments because you will seem uneducated and ill-informed.

  • Frank Bailey

    “DIVIDE AND CONQUER” This is what has happened to this country. The us vs them concept must stop. Deck chairs on the Titanic anyone?

  • I live in Youngstown, Ohio which after the last census was rated as the fastest shrinking mid sized city in america. What this post industrial city really needs most are good paying jobs which have the greatest likelihood of happening through businesses where the employees own at least a 50% controlling interest. Something like this is also what america needs most to improve it’s current overall culture and economy. Sure folks can find a “job” or two or three these days but in most cases they still aren’t able to afford to maintain their castle providing that they can afford to own one.

  • Lori Alayne Weber Miller

    Social Security and Medicare is not socialism . It is supposed to be an insurance policy. If the money People paid in was invested at the market rate,. most people that have paid in over the life time would have more then enough to cover their expenses. But it is not invested it is given to the government that spent it unwisely as usual. As it stands Social Security and Medicare is a far bigger ponzi scheme then Bernie Madoff ever dreamed of. Since a large percentage of people do not live to collect there is no cause for it to be in trouble except for the fact that it has been grossly mismanaged and also primarily due to government regulations regarding the delivery of health care , the cost of health care has inflated 1000% in the last 40 years.

  • jrdale

    This pos so called president is the worse ever he hates our country hates our military never did gas get over 3 dollars gallon not even close when bush was in office he wants to weaken our military so we won’t be able to defend this great nation that he hates why is that Islam kids can take time out of class go to a private room and pray to the evilest religion in the world but our kids will get suspended if the mention god in school is oboma gonna pay the fines when you flippin liberals don’t get your insurance welfare will probably pay it I’m so tired of hearing how great this puke is he didn’t apologize to the people that died in the twin towers like he did to the middle easterners no he bowed to them its not the rich peoples responsabilty to pay my way well I didn’t use .?’!, so who ever doesn’t like have a good day GOD BLESS AMERICA

  • pudwhistle .

    Dude, please learn the difference between “imply” and “infer” and employ the correct one.

  • Miles to Code

    The fact that you relish in ticking people off rather than having a discussion of ideas is sad. 99% of what you said is correct and it doesn’t bother me one iota as a conservative.

    I’d beg to differ on the second amendment point though. The second amendment refers to the ability to have a well regulated militia, therefore the people have the right to keep and bear arms. That way they’re able to form said militia should the need arise rather than go to a dispensary to be armed.

  • spookytooth

    I think the only reason an article like this might upset a tea bagger is because it is entirely made up of half-truths and outright lies?

  • johntalleos

    as a conservative all I can say is that your arguments are against something that doesn’t exist ie: strawman

  • Grandma Jan

    The truly sad part is that in order for this to annoy conservatives, they would first have to be willing to read it.

  • Christopher Boudewyns

    I agree with your points whole-heartedly. I wish this had a different title, because I would share it on FB without hesitation. Instead of working for a compassionate political culture where we can actually get something done, titles like this only polarize, and sadly, as much as I agree with the content of this article, I don’t wish to continue contributing to alienating factors in the political scene. So I’ll enjoy it privately instead. Possibly consider republishing this with a less polarizing title, I’ll bet you’d get a lot more traffic.

  • Tony Bartlett

    Each one of those silly “points” can be easily refuted and many are straw man arguments (one of Obama’s favorite logical fallacies!). Here is one very simple fact that will annoy all the left-wing socialist liberals like Obama:

    Practically all the wealth we have as a nation comes from profit and/or profit motive.

    Without profits there would be nothing; No jobs, no money for the government, no government jobs, no social programs, nothing! The whole country would become Detroit! Private sector businesses ultimately have one primary goal: Profit. If you are anti-business you are anti-profit. If you are anti profit, you are anti-American. Therefore, if you are pro-Obama, you are anti-American!

  • maljazur

    “…the fun part begins as you watch them try to invent something “factual” to respond with.”
    And boy have I seen some amazing acrobatics done with “facts!” LOL! I always enter conversations with Right wingers with an ice pack to offer them at the end to soothe their neck after straining so hard away from reality. It’s really not nice to play with them like that…

  • Emeraldeyes

    There is nothing to fear with SOCIALISM: “(Noun) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Capitalists, however, would have Americans fear the term because it serves their interests [CONTROL AND MONEY MAKING] and the majority of Americans confuse socialism with communism. Socialist policy, for example, Healthcare, would be administered by the people [i.e. represented by the federal government], cutting out the capitalist insurance companies and overall, would be more economically feasible.

  • Dave Gomez

    If we could get all these statements annotated/citations to their supporting facts, this would be even better! Nothing like bulletproof facts with back up support

  • WoodTiger

    I really tend to stay away from these kind of posts but after reading one of your points must jump in. The 2nd Amendment is about the people’s rights-as is the rest of the Bill of Rights. The constitution gave congress the right to form an army for national defense, however they provided for the people in case the military under a tyrannical government ever tried to take our freedoms. To incorrectly say that ” a well regulated” then had anything to do with regulations would indicate that you know little about the actual constitution and founding fathers of this once great nation.

  • katherine norton malek

    Military recruiters are paid bonuses for getting young ppl to enlist. They have been found to be less than scrupulous in the promises and assurances they make to potential enlistees to boost their own numbers. No one ever got rich by going in the military. And most don’t get anything the recruiter told them they’d get. It’s a practice driven by greed. You don’t see military recruiters in wealthy area HS’s. You see them in malls and the poorest areas, for a reason. If they complete their service, IF they come home alive during wartime, the backlog to obtain what they were promised, is at least 9 mos. It’s a disgrace, and it’s only the most desperate & poor fall for the scam. I’m sure there are a small number of patriots, like following 9/11, whose enthusiasm was whipped up by the media. But once reality set in and they found themselves on some base in the middle of nowhere, baking cookies for the officers club, waiting to be deployed, they make less than $1,000/mo. to live on minus what the mikitary makes them purchase out of their measily paychecks. While I admire anyone who enlists & actually fights for our country, our governments treatment of them, post-service, is an absolute disgrace.

  • Harpist327

    Our country was based on Biblical principles purposely so by even the most liberal of our founds fathers. The constitution mentions we are endowed by our Creator. Also, the principles of our government set-up were many times taken right out of the Bible. Belief in God should not be shelved to the church and kept out of the public arena. The 10 commandments of the Bible are a great basis on which to establish a nation and its laws. When you toss God out of your private and public lives, you invite evil in.

  • Atheist Loki

    I love it when people who have never served one day in any branch of the military, tell us vets exactly how it is.

  • Jason Bolton

    “There are far more poor and middle class Americans than rich. If you
    continue building a society based on taking from the many to benefit the
    few, then we’re not going to have a nation much longer.”

    Exactly, end welfare and EBT.

    Both parties in this country are equally guilty of taking away from the middle to feed the ends.

  • Mike Guadian

    My favorite dumb ass moment was that guy with the sign that said “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” I have friends who are conservative and aren’t stupid, but the super right seems to make it a prerequisite that you believe the earth is flat before they’ll accept you. Oh and just for the records, vet here. Not exactly a liberal but no god damn way you could call me anything close to a conservative

  • ReadFirstCommentLast

    “Well Regulated” is taken completely out of context. Read the actually amendment, and then study the historical background that led to the debate and subsequent compromise in the creation of the 2nd Amendment during the Continental Congress.

  • Enrique

    All true statements. Here’s another fun one: Obama let the NDAA pass, which not only institutionalizes the government’s domestic spying program’s the Patriot Act created, but added the fun little detail that now the government can legally arrest and imprison ANYBODY indefinitely without trial.

    Obama may have removed our forces from Iraq, but he escalated the war in Afghanistan and launched illegal drone strikes on Pakistani territory.

    Obama has been straining our relations with Russia because they refuse to release a man to be tried as a traitor whose only crime was informing his fellow citizens that our government is secretly and unconstitutionally violating our privacy rights.

    And, most importantly, Obama, like every democrat, supports the financial capitalist system of fractional reserve banking- Where banks manipulate the monetary system to make money out of more money, where loans are issued which effectively create money out of thin air with no collateral put up by the banks, while the loan recipients must pay the loan back, with interest, out of principal. A system doomed to ultimately burden our entire society in unrepeatable debt to the banks before the bubble bursts and it collapses entirely.

    If you honestly believe Democrats are ANY better than republicans in issues that are actually important you are deluded.

  • RCAKB

    I disagree with a lot on here and it isn’t as factual as you think it is. I am not going to bother to argue because it is highly unlikely to change either one of our minds. It is important to keep an OPEN mind to what the other side says it will help. There are things that I do agree with on the democrat side but I favor the republican side. I do have real facts but I would be wasting my breath if I started anything more than this.

  • Mike Williams

    Talking point to the author of the article:

    I agree with most of your statements and understand the lol’larity of their intent. However, I disagree with your definition of “Well regulated”.
    In the time our constitution was written “regulated” meant something particularly different. When used in the context of the 2nd, it refers to the individual citizen. As in “He is a Regulator” “Mount up Regulators”.
    Militia also meant something completely different than Military.
    Militia is meant to be the town’s primary defense and made up of the town’s citizens. It should be noted that at the time of the writing there was no such thing as a policeman let alone a police force. Had there been, I believe our founders would have included them as part of the militia not as part of the Military.

    In my opinion the 2nd ensures that there will be the ability for a given population to defend itself. Limitation on weapons, firearms or otherwise, is to not be restricted.

    Yes, I believe if you can afford a tank why not? I do agree with people losing this right through conviction of criminal activity, or their through court proceedings. I do not think the insane should have weapons of any type.

    I do not agree with “carpet bomb legislation” that restricts a citizen from gun ownership without due process. (carpet bomb legislation is legislation that targets a problem and hits everything else and sometimes the problem) Such as the assault weapons ban. It did not stop criminals from getting a semi-automatic and converting it to a full automatic, nor did it stop the criminals who wanted a gun. In fact even places where hand guns are banned, the hand gun is still used the most in most gun involved crimes.
    So basically the only thing we can do, constitutionally, is make the citizen prove he or she has the right to own a gun. Note I keep saying citizen.
    As in our constitution applies to US Citizens not people who just happen to be in the US for whatever reason. So I do believe in “gun regulations” but not in way most people think of it. Perhaps it is easier to think of gun control as 5% laws + 95% enforcement= 100% gun control.

    To everyone: Thank you for your time, have a great weekend. Yes even you.

  • Michael Morris

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given corporations the same basic rights as citizens through various cases dating back to the 1870s, using the Sixteenth Amendment as their tool of choice. You are correct in saying they have no such rights according to the original Constitution.

  • Rolle Diaz

    We want more……

  • jeepsrule98

    Obama is not the vacation President that conservatives like to claim he is. The designation belongs to Goerge W. Bush with 1020 days of vacation.

  • TeeMitch50

    Totally on your side. But please learn the difference between “imply” and “infer.” The writer or speaker implies; the reader or listener infers.

  • Michael Eck

    I agree with most of your points except for one. The words “well regulated” in the second amendment does not mean what you think it means. I am not saying that there shouldn’t be reasonable laws to control the guns in our country but using this as an argument is ignorant and disingenuous. When the phrase “well regulated” was used in the Constitution and in other writings of the founders during the eighteenth century it was used to mean functioning properly not to imply a form of control.

  • muhfugger

    Pathetic looser Clifton thinks all Republicans are christian. That is like asserting that all Democrats are Satinists. What a moron.

  • jj

    whoever wrote this “article” is just as ignorant as the ignorant “Republicans” who have created the false association between the Republican ideals and Christianity…among many of the other “nouveau-Republican” ideals, as I like to call them. The Republican party’s original and historically established ideals are not addressed in almost any of the above bullets. Who these bullets DO address, however, are the ignorant pseudo-educated radicals who have so attempted to bipolarize America’s political institutions that false reputations have become engrained in the people’s understanding of “Republican” and “Democrat”

  • not a republican

    this is such a worthless attempt lol. shame on you Allen

  • INFIDEL

    Lets start with all the movie stars and sports figures and Gov officials, lets take all their millions and Oprahs Billions and redirect that cash along with all the Big businesses and raise minimum wage to $30 hr !! Lets start there. Can we get Sharia implemented ASAP, my wife needs covered from head to toe .

  • Scaramongus

    There does not seem to be a proper troll in this conversation – only a few baby trolls

  • Cathryn Sykes

    One of my favorites myths: “Bush kept us safe.”
    No, he did not. On 9/11/01, he had been President, not for 9 hours or 9 days or 9 weeks, but for nearly NINE MONTHS. He was actually warned that Al Qaeda was planning something big in the US and he shrugged this warning off.

  • Liberalgunowner

    I’m a liberal, but I’m not full of shit about what 2nd ammendment means like the author apparently is. just because thats what most of our fellow liberals tell him it means. Let me break it down for you geniuses: The first clause outlines the DUTY of the STATE, to recruit a volunteer militia for security purposes, today we call this the national guard and the police. The PEOPLE are given the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of keeping the police and military IN CHECK. the PEOPLE are not the MILITIA they are SEPARATE.

    In short, the army and police are necessary to keep the peace and fight off invaders. If they become corrupt EVERYONE ELSE has the right to own the same hardware they do to stop them and restore order. The PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms is a CHECK AND BALANCE against the MILITIA.

    Also “Well Regulated” means “Well Armed and well trained” not “you can have this weapon but not here or there or not that type of weapon”. so even if well regulated applied to the PEOPLE and not the MILITIA, he still wouldn’t have a point.

    • Rus Shore

      And we’ll now wait for your to cite your sources.

  • Barbarosa

    pssst. Look up “infer” vs. “imply.”

  • Phil J Malloy

    well regulated in 1776 doesnt mean “regulated by the federal government” it meant well armed. other than that I agree with quite a bit of what you said on everything but that, and on the taxes and the so called rich

  • BkDodge42

    Lets start off with the first one, hopefully you wont look so foolish. The US Constitution did not establish this country. So to say that the US Constitution doesn’t say that we are a Christian Nation is a straw man argument. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation that established the governing process that the states worked under before the Constitution. The Constitution established the form of government that we currently work under.
    Some people look at the Declaration of Independence as the document that established this nation, and while Christian is not mentioned in that, it does say that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

    • Rus Shore

      Actually, a constitution is the founding document of ANY country. Creator could be generically applied to any religion and or no religion.

      • BkDodge42

        So Rus, between 1776 and 1791 there was no country called “The United States of America” since the Constitution was not written and implemented? The Constitution did not create the country, it established the form of government.

  • Brian Bevins

    I love to annoy republicans as much as anybody, so I enjoyed the article. One criticism though. “A well-regulated militia…” IMPLIES that gun ownership is subject to regulation, not INFERS.

  • robingee

    These things won’t piss them off because they will simply choose not to believe them. Even if it’s in writing, in photos, on video, in front of their faces they just go “Nope nope nope NOPE NOPE NOPE” and plug their ears.

  • Stephen Barlow

    If the truth could kill, we would have an actual REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT because the Redpubicans would be DEAD.

  • rossbro

    It all goes back to the saying, ‘ The Truth Hurts’ .

  • jeffsalzberg

    I’d love to repost this, but can’t, with the “infer”/”imply” error.

  • sue

    While I like all these points, I would like for you to change the word “infer” to “imply.” You infer by listening so a phrase can’t infer.

  • summer

    I gave this list in its entirety but in small doses to a older republican once without knowing the existence of this list. Every time, his response was the same and didn’t make him look stupid. Quite the contrary, it made me look stupid. He said “I think all of those points are valid except that they are wrong and make you look like an idiot for saying them. You may have to read more!”. That is a fantastic rhetorical comeback however bad he may be and I applause him for being rhetorically smart. Unlike some republican fools who just appear and are foolish.

  • Your factual words I agree with. The rest – simply your POV and mine is, you are off.

  • RyanTee82

    I’m just here to see the racist comments from high school dropouts. 🙂