My 5 Favorite Conservative Hypocrisies and Contradictions

hypocrisy-meterAnyone who follows my writing knows there’s a pretty constant theme in most things I write — I believe conservatives are huge hypocrites.  They believe in so many contradicting beliefs that sometimes when debating them I literally have to fight back laughter because it’s just so completely absurd.

So I thought it would be fun, and a good discussion topic, to list five of my favorite conservative hypocrisies and contradictions.

These aren’t going to be in any particular order — and there are many more than just five — but I didn’t want to make the list too long.

Alright, let’s go!

#1 Freedom of Speech

I had to start with this one.  Following the ridiculous reaction by many conservatives about Phil Robertson’s comments concerning homosexuals and African Americans (which resulted in A&E suspending him), the idiocy and hypocrisy by a lot of these people was so blatant I really couldn’t wrap my mind around just how ridiculous it was.

The First Amendment (as it relates to speech) is pretty simple.  It protects our right to say almost anything we want without fear of legal prosecution by the government.  What it doesn’t do is allow Americans to say anything they want at any time they want about anything under the sun, without being held accountable for those comments by other entities — such as an employer or a group of their peers.

But where were these people defending Martin Bashir when he was more or less forced to resign after making a disgusting remark about Sarah Palin?  Hell, Sarah Palin herself had the nerve to actually come out defending Phil Robertson, after she called for Bashir’s punishment following his comments about her.

Also, where were these people rabidly defending Alec Baldwin when he was fired for his anti-gay remarks to a member of the paparazzi?

And let’s not forget the conservative uproar a few years ago when the Dixie Chicks dared to insult George W. Bush.  They sure as hell didn’t like free speech then.

But the truth is, the only freedom of speech they really care to defend is speech they agree with.  They’re often extremely quick to come out and bash those who say anything they might disagree with or find offensive.

#2 Pro-Life 

Ah, the never ending abortion debate.  It’s clear the Republican party is extremely anti-abortion.  They like to call themselves “pro-life” in a clear PR move to paint themselves as the defenders of life.

Ironic, considering many of these states that are “strongly conservative” lead the nation in their use of the death penalty.  I live in Texas, which is of course a very conservative state.  These “pro-life” Republicans actually brag about how often this state executes convicted murderers.

Now, I know their response, “Criminals give up their right to life by committing horrific acts.”  Which is an argument someone could make.  I’m not here to debate that issue.  I just felt like pointing out the hypocrisy between calling yourself “pro-life” while bragging about how often your state kills human beings.

Or we could go the welfare route and focus on how often Republicans push for deep cuts to programs that help feed the poor and provide health care access to Americans desperately need.  How exactly is it pro-life to support cuts to programs that put food on the plates of hungry children?  How is denying Americans affordable health care, resulting in many Americans dying far sooner than they should have, “pro-life?”

And I’m not even going to get into how many people have died due to the wars that have been started while Republicans were in charge.

#3 Small Government 

This one is really just comical.  Republicans love government.  Well, as long as they’re using the government to enforce their ideology — like denying the right for homosexuals to marry or restricting a woman’s right to have control over her own body.  Then they’re the first ones proclaiming their love for the government by passing new, highly intrusive laws invading the private lives of Americans.

Just look at how much government they now want involved when we exercise our right to vote.

And I can promise you this: if they had their way, we’d see far more laws being passed (especially on social issues) which intruded into the private lives of Americans.

#4 Christian Values 

I’m going to keep this one real simple.

Jesus Christ devoted in life (and spoke at length about) helping the poor, the needy, accepting others, loving others, being hopeful and not judging those who are different from yourself.  Oh, and he often warned against greed and false prophets.

You don’t worship someone who lived their lives devoted to those values by supporting a political party that’s constantly cutting funding for the needy; judging the poor; hating people different from themselves; being afraid and paranoid; then supporting economic policies that are built on feeding greed while everyone else pays the price.

That’s called doing the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ stood for.

It makes absolutely no sense.

#5 Fiscal Responsibility 

Another laughable claim by conservatives.  Look, you can’t go over five decades since a president from your party balanced the budget and call yourselves the party for “fiscal responsibility.”

Hell, even the “conservative icon” Ronald Reagan nearly quadrupled our national debt in his eight years in office.  George W. Bush then doubled it during his eight years.

Like with free speech and big government, they actually love spending giant heaps of money on programs that they agree with (big oil subsidies, tax breaks aiding corporate welfare and giant defense contracts) and only become “fiscally responsible” whenever that spending doesn’t fit their party’s narrative.

Well, there’s 5 of my favorite conservative hypocrisies and contradictions.  Like I said, there are many more I could have listed.

Feel free to add yours to the list.

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

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    Transparency to Conservatism is a Machiavellian one-way-mirror!

  • Alan Foxman

    The top hypocritical position in my book has to be their stance against the ACA. Considering it was their idea in the first place. That one is just the ultimate in “If Obama is for it, than I’m against it,” hypocrisy.

    • It’s not just Obama but the other party in general. Both parties will disagree against each other to the point where they don’t do anything productive because they’re bickering at each other.
      That’s why I consider myself non-partisan. I think this two party system is counter intuitive.

    • Mandating the purchase of insurance is not a conservative ideal. Maybe somebody had an idea for a healthcare exchange, but certainly not one with penalties and mandates attached.

      • Larry Greenwell

        Actually, one of the key features of the proposed HEART (Health Equity and Access Reform Today) legislation, written primarily by republicans in the Senate back in 1993, was for an individual mandate. Just sayin’.

      • Larry Greenwell

        Not too mention “Romneycare”, which passed in Massachusetts in 2006, also penalizes those who do not purchase health insurance. Now, I must admit that I am no fan of government mandates wen it comes to personal spending and decision making about one’s own life, but to be fair, let’s keep it real here. No one is screaming at Romney for doing essentially the same thing. In fact, “Obamacare” is nearly a carbon copy of “Romneycare”.

      • Conservative and Republican are not interchangeable terms. Romney specifically is not known for being very Conservative. Think about the difference between Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Ted Cruz is a conservative Republican, John Kasich is progressive Republican.

  • sickoflazywriters

    I wish people who write serious articles for the internet would actually manually proofread their work instead of just trusting spell check. There are two sentences in this article that have typos that render the sentences hard to understand.

    • Alisi

      You should say which two so he can correct them.

    • tbob

      WOW Didn’t know there was going to be a spelling test. OOO OOO can I go to da batroom teach??

    • Guest

      Hard to understand? For you? Using common sense and a bit of intelligence helps. Try it.

  • Jbass

    This list is dumb. #1 obtaining a job doesn’t mean you give over your right to free speech. #2 pro – life applies to abortions. Children who havent had the chance to make the right or wrong decisions in life, unlike a murderer who had their chance and used it to kill someone. #3 asking for someone to show an ID when they vote isnt racist or hateful. It just makes since. IF your an actual citizen of this country you can vote, if your not…you can’t vote. Whats so crazy about that? #4 christian values…I dont see anything wrong here. Christian values have been in practice for over 2000 years and things have worked just fine. And finally #5 my favorite one. Doesn’t anyone care or even know about the fact that Obama has spent more money in his 2 terms than the 43 presidents before him combined. And now this idiot wants to raise the debt ceiling. This is simple. Taking on more debt doesn’t create more wealth or help us get out of debt in anyway, and it definitely doesnt fall under fiscally responsible.

    • Alisi

      #1 has nothing to do with free speech. (Seriously look it up.) #2 you don’t get to redefine the meaning of pro life to fit your narrative. #3 it is racist. People have been voting for the majority of this country’s history without a picture ID. The fact an expired gun licence is acceptable but a college ID is not is all need to say on that. #4 maybe if you believe that particular faith. Not so much for everyone else. #5 You’re just plain wrong. Turn off FOX news. As for raising the debt ceiling. You do realize that we are one of two out of all the other industrialized countries that even have a debt ceiling? It’s pointless and it’s only used by the minority to extort the majority. If we don’t raise this imaginary line to pay for the spending congress approved (then doesn’t want to pay for) we default. That is the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. Hell they should be brought up on charges of treason. (Yes really. Look it up.)

    • MiMg

      Republicans always call something dumb when SCIENCE and FACTS prove their position WRONG! Regarding item # 1 – we can certainly debate whether an employer should have the right to deny your 1st amendment rights without retaliation, but in this case, due to the type of job Robertson has, what he says NEGATIVES affects his EMPLOYER and their ADVERTISERS DIRECTLY!
      Item # 2 – First point I would make is are you a MAN? If so, you shouldn’t even have a SAY in the abortion topic, because YOU do not have to put YOUR life on the line to give birth! Also, it’s REPUBLICANS that LOVE to START and CONTINUE Wars for YEARS on end which KILLS THOUSANDS of people!
      Item # 3 – Unless society is going to provide the ID’s for FREE, you can NOT require it. Also, UNLESS you can PROVE that requiring it does NOT EQUALLY affect ALL people, you STILL can’t require it! (Blacks and Hispanics are THREE times more likely to NOT have the required ID)

    • Pipercat

      … and your list is Parrotese. Canned, factually challenged, answers that miss any nuance or create a decent counter argument. Tomato, tomatoe; potato, potatoe; let’s call the whole thing off!

    • surfjac

      “Christian values have been in practice for over 2000 years and things have worked just fine.”
      Yeah baby, how the indians and hawaiians were treated, slavery, the inquisition, witch trials, torture…yeah, love the way that christianity works for white folks with bibles.

    • Steve Reynolds

      Christian values are great, the point is the right claims to be christian, but does the exact opposite of what jesus taught ie feed the hungry, heal the sick, practice peace, the jesus i red about would vomit if he saw yall beny food stamps for kids, take away medicine for sick, worship guns n war, and give tax money to the richest. The far right is closer to radical iislam

  • Michael Komlos

    How about only people who do what Jesus said to do call themselves “Christians”. If you love Leviticus more than Jesus’ teachings, call yourself something else.

    • preesi

      Leviticus is for Jews anyway. The OT is only for Jews. The NT is for Christians

      • jelun

        Then why do Christians use their version of the Jewish Bible to attempt to prohibit the practice of homosexuality?
        Jews do not need the OT, they have their own books.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Wrong. It IS the book of the Jews; the Old Testament label comes from the Christians. Lewis Black said,” …the Old Testament…the book of my people…the Jews. And that book wasn’t good enough for you Christians…was it?”

      • jelun

        Try paying attention when you read rather than the focus on being able to respond. What do you suppose “their version” means?

      • cgallaway2000

        So, when Jesus said that he wasn’t here to change God’s laws,which laws were he referring to? I might be wrong in assuming that he was referring to what is now called “The Old Testament”, but I don’t think so.

      • Jesus said he wasn’t here to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Many of the laws were to purify the people, set them apart from the surrounding countries, and test their obedience. By trusting in Jesus we are pure, set-apart, and obedient. He is the fulfillment of the laws.

      • Altreg01

        Guess we can toss out the 10 commandments….

      • chief_warrant

        First of all the first 10 commandments were thrown out by Moses ….golden calf and all that ….plus there are about 400 commandments …My personal favorite is the females of the family have to stay outside the house during their period

      • The people in this thread are not very theologically savvy it seems. The OT is actually super important to Christianity and we don’t just get to toss the whole thing out.

        Instead, many of the laws in the OT were meant to set Israel apart from the surrounding nations, atone for their sins because they didn’t have Jesus, punish them for turning their backs on God repeatedly (despite God doing miracles for them), test their faith/obedience, put power and reliance of the people in the hands of the priests instead of needing a king, and compensate for lack of medical practices and clean production technique.

        So there are actually a lot of reasons the laws in the OT do not apply to many of us, especially if they were intended specifically for Israel. However, Jesus reiterated and reinforced the 10 commandments in one of his speeches which means they definitely do apply to us.

        In addition, the OT is a collection of historical accounts and timeless lessons to draw from them. It is actually amazing how relevant many of these stories are for us. It isn’t a collection of commands for us to follow, but a collection of stories of people making mistakes and falling short of God’s expectations.

        You really have to understand the context and the purpose of the passages before making judgments about the morality of the passages.

      • chief_warrant

        Jesus said not 1 iota of the old law is changed

      • Larry Greenwell

        Then why do so many Chrisitans espouse Old Testament doctrine?

      • The people in this thread are not very theologically savvy it seems. The OT is actually super important to Christianity and we don’t just get to toss the whole thing out.

        Instead, many of the laws in the OT were meant to set Israel apart from the surrounding nations, atone for their sins because they didn’t have Jesus, punish them for turning their backs on God repeatedly (despite God doing miracles for them), test their faith/obedience, put power and reliance of the people in the hands of the priests instead of needing a king, and compensate for lack of medical practices and clean production technique.

        So there are actually a lot of reasons the laws in the OT do not apply to many of us, especially if they were intended specifically for Israel. However, Jesus reiterated and reinforced the 10 commandments in one of his speeches which means they definitely do apply to us.

        In addition, the OT is a collection of historical accounts and timeless lessons to draw from them. It is actually amazing how relevant many of these stories are for us. It isn’t a collection of commands for us to follow, but a collection of stories of people making mistakes and falling short of God’s expectations.

        You really have to understand the context and the purpose of the passages before making judgments about the morality of the passage.

    • Larry Greenwell

      Well put! Leviticans?

  • charleo1

    In many ways it is a strange new place, full of unanswerable contradictions.
    This unexplored, and until recently, mostly uninhibited place one arrives at,
    by heading due Right. On past old deserted outposts established in previous times, by such explorers as Barry Goldwater, and camped in by Ronald Reagan. It’s where one winds up, when their journey begins at the outer edges of recognizable Conservatism, and heads deep into the untamed wilderness, and declares to all the World, “We proudly proclaim this settlement, Center Right!” “We are finally home!” But before a single log can be cut, and laid, rumors of Left Wing collaboration, sweep through the camp
    like wildfire. And once again, like vagabonds they are back on their journey. But, this time with a bold new leader, urging his followers onward. Assuring
    them, he has seen Center Right in a vision, and the American people are
    there, waiting. And have been waiting for far too long, just beyond the blue horizon, in a valley, over that mountain, and down the other side.

  • joecooling

    Fact: Reagan presided over the largest Government expansion in the history of mankind and the greatest spending spree this earth has ever seen.

    • Name

      Wrong. Most of the expansion was for the military, which had been neglected under Carter. He believed in a strong military to deter malfeasance. As for the “greatest spending spree this earth has ever seen,” I would like to see you prove that exact statement. Good luck. HINT: compare to FDR’s New Deal; spending in USSR; expansion of Roman Empire, etc. You may also want to take a few courses in economics to realize that Reagan’s policies created one of the greatest economic expansions this nation has ever seen. WARNING: if you are foolish enough to challenge this point, note that I have the data to prove it.

      • jdsahr

        The original point was that Republican claims of fiscal responsibility at the national level are completely contradicted by the actual record.

        Nobody disputes that the economy worked well for Reagan, but contemporary Republicans who worship St. Ronnie quietly overlook his massive budget deficits.

        It is the Democrats who are fiscally responsible: They like to spend, but they’re willing to tax. The Republicans, on the other hand, love to spend, but hate to tax.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        You have yet to prove the statement that Reagan presided over the “greatest spending spree this earth has ever seen.”

        “Nobody disputes that the economy worked well for Reagan, but contemporary Republicans who worship St. Ronnie quietly overlook his massive budget deficits.” Wrong again. Truly knowledgeable fans of Reagan know that his efforts to cut spending were thwarted by the dirty Dems in Congress who offered $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. Reagan signed a tax increase for businesses, giving the Dems their taxes, but – what a surprise – they reneged on their promised spending cuts.

        Reagan and many other Republican presidents naturally wanted to cut government spending, but Dems quietly overlook the role of Dem lawmakers who stopped such efforts.

        “It is the Democrats who are fiscally responsible” This is one of the funniest political claims I have ever read. Thanks for the laugh.

      • jdsahr

        If fiscal responsibility means “attempting to make income match expenses” then my statement is true. Democrats are willing to tax, Republicans are not. But both are willing to spend. Thus the Democrats are more fiscally responsible, especially when they are in the Oval Office.

        Over the last fifty years, the record plainly shows that the National Debt has grown far more during Republican Presidencies than Democratic Presidencies. One of the reasons that the National Debt did not increase substantially during JFK/LBJ/Nixon is that we had a very different tax structure. Reagan blew that up with his tax cuts, creating huge deficits — stimulating the economy, of course, but racking up huge defecits. That stimulus (as we now know) wound up largely in the pockets of the wealthy.

        Bill Clinton managed to run a budget *surplus* by the end of his two terms, and handed over fabulous economy to Bush/Cheney … who proceeded to (a) start two preposterous, expensive, unsuccessful wars (without paying for them through taxes), and (b) presided over the destruction of the economy — because they refused to regulate it.

        It is the Democrats who have been fiscally responsible executives for half a century.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “If fiscal responsibility means “attempting to make income match expenses” then my statement is true. Democrats are willing to tax, Republicans are not. But both are willing to spend. Thus the Democrats are more fiscally responsible, especially when they are in the Oval Office.” Bad premise, thus bad conclusion. Fiscal responsibility means spending public money wisely, limiting waste and fraud, and keeping government limited. The only Dems who believe any of these things are the moderates, or Blue Dogs, or Reagan Dems. These are virtually extinct in public office as the Dem party has moved so far left that your two POTUS candidates are competing to see who is more socialistic. Many, many Republicans want to cut government spending but are stymied every time by Dems, who will spend every dime and then some so they can raise taxes and spend even more. There is nothing responsible about that.

      • jdsahr

        Okay, so what you’re saying is that *you* get to define fiscal responsibility, not me? Let us go with your definition then. Shall we look at Reagan? A basic principle of fiscal responsibility is that you borrow to invest in infrastructure; you do not borrow to make payroll.

        What infrastructure investment is Reagan known for? What is an example of wise investment by Reagan — does that include the money and effort spent on Iran-Contra? how about (far larger) expense of SDI (aka Star Wars)? Reagan famously could not bring himself to even utter the word “gay,” slowing the Nation’s response to HIV/AIDS which blossomed during his administration.

        While one might argue that investment in SDI caused the Soviet to fail, one might also argue that the Soviet Union was already on the ropes by the time Reagan got to office, and that its fall was due more to realists like Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The fall of the Soviet Union also helped enable islamist terrorism by the loss of control of its central asian republics. It’s possible to assert that the fall of the Soviet Union was, on the whole “good” but there were, and remain, bad side effects. Remember where the Boston Marathon bombers were from?

        If Reagan was permitted (by the Democrats) to spend money to stimulate the economy, why wasn’t Obama permitted to spend more, earlier? Obama invested in our automobile industry as well as the banks, and would have liked to have spent more. Our slow recovery can as easily be blamed upon Republican obstruction as upon Obama’s ostensible limitations. It wasn’t Obama who shut the government down for three weeks, was it; it was the likes of Cruz (who remains unrepentant about that). Of course, if you’d like to lay blame for the government shutdown upon Obama (for failing to cave in to the Tea Party Wing of the GOP), that’s fine — we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Okay, so what you’re saying is that *you* get to define fiscal responsibility, not me?” No. You don’t get to define it any more than I do. It’s not a subjective thing, contrary to what liberals believe. There is a definition, an understanding. Fiscal policy means policy on taxing and spending. Responsible should be obvious – prudent, not reckless, showing good judgment, etc. Your approach doesn’t address WHAT should be spent; it only says whatever you spend, tax to pay for it. Where is the responsibility part? At what point do you stop making taxpayers pay for whatever you spend their money on? Should they pay for iPods, jewelry, gambling, exotic dance clubs, and $13,500 steak dinners? $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties? $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job? A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, including “over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold. Is that fiscally responsible? The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades. Is that fiscal responsibility? Find me the Republican who doesn’t object to all of this. It is the Dems who try to block efforts to cut spending b/c they know it means less pork to throw around. You are somehow oblivious to the fact that historically it is the Dems who want to spend ever more public money, not the Reps. The rest of your post is self-serving as it assumes your assertion is correct that fiscal responsibility involves borrowing to fund infrastructure. Where exactly did you get that hare-brained idea?

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “one might also argue that the Soviet Union was already on the ropes by the time Reagan got to office, and that its fall was due more to realists like Gorbachev and Yeltsin” Evidence?

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Remember where the Boston Marathon bombers were from?” Are you actually arguing that the fall of the USSR is in part responsible for the Boston bombing? Are you serious?

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “If Reagan was permitted (by the Democrats) to spend money to stimulate the economy, why wasn’t Obama permitted to spend more, earlier?” Wrong. Reagan did not “spend” money to stimulate the economy. He CUT TAXES to stimulate it, and it worked. Every time we have seen this approach at work – 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, it has stimulated. It only makes sense if you understand economics. Putting money in private hands for its most efficient use – the market approach – is the best way to make an economy grow. This has been proven around the world wherever attempted. China’s explosive growth is due to increasing the market’s role in the economy, not the govt.’s.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Obama invested in our automobile industry as well as the banks.” Invested? Be serious. Obama has NO IDEA how to “invest” money. He has spent his career “organizing communities” and despising the private sector and its “evil” profits, even referring to the private sector as “the enemy.” Public spending is NOT investing.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Our slow recovery can as easily be blamed upon Republican obstruction as upon Obama’s ostensible limitations” This statement shows a total ignorance of economics. Prove it. (HINT – I have given you a fool’s errand, as it’s not possible to prove a false statement.) In your attempt, lay out the ingredients for a strong recovery. It will help to understand past recoveries, every one of which was stronger than this one. Once you answer this correctly, you will understand why this is the slowest recovery on record.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Over the last fifty years, the record plainly shows that the National Debt has grown far more during Republican Presidencies than Democratic Presidencies” Wrong again. The Obamunist has added more to the debt than any previous president. Why are you ignoring that?
        Moreover, why pick the last 50 years? Because you well know that period excludes FDR’s enormous expansion. Cherry picking doesn’t help your fallacies.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Reagan blew that up with his tax cuts, creating huge deficits — stimulating the economy, of course, but racking up huge defecits. That stimulus (as we now know) wound up largely in the pockets of the wealthy.” Apparently you don’t use new information very well. I already addressed this when I said the Dems double-crossed Reagan by promising $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase, then reneged. That stimulus helped everyone, not just the wealthy. One indicator is the number of middle class who moved UP in to the ranks of the wealthy. How is that a bad thing? You need to let the facts lead you to a conclusion, not start with a conclusion and only look at the facts that support it.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Bill Clinton managed to run a budget *surplus* by the end of his two terms, and handed over fabulous economy to Bush/Cheney.” And what were the drivers of this effort? The 1994 Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich’s efforts, plus the explosion of the Internet, which led to huge productivity gains and a stock market surge. When Clinton cut capital gains taxes (at REPUBLICANS’ URGING), there was a flood of revenue into the Treasury. You cannot use Clinton as a model of modern Dems because none were as fiscally conservative as he turned out to be, save perhaps JFK who also understood the value of tax CUTS.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “Bush/Cheney … who proceeded to (a) start two preposterous, expensive, unsuccessful wars (without paying for them through taxes), and (b) presided over the destruction of the economy — because they refused to regulate it.” So you think Bush STARTED these wars? Apparently you are unaware of what happened on 9/11/01. As for your ridiculous second statement, prove that Bush’s refusal to regulate the economy CAUSED the crisis of 2007-8. (HINT: I hold a BA in economics and MBA in finance, so good luck.)

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “It is the Democrats who have been fiscally responsible executives for half a century.” You can keep repeating this, but that doesn’t make it true. You may as well say the sun rises in the west.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        You STILL have yet to prove the statement that Reagan presided over the “greatest spending spree this earth has ever seen.”

  • MiMg

    So true!

  • Ryan Sebrasky

    this is fukin awesome

  • rossbro

    Hypocritical sonsobitches ! And the ‘ Party of No ‘ puts blame on President Obama for everything not done because of them. Kiss my fat ass, Repubs !

    • Name

      You are clearly challenged in critical thinking. Most of this blog is opinion born of stereotypes (“being paranoid and afraid?” Get real) and offers very little in the way of evidence. What we blame Obunghole for is trying to do things that would make this country even worse than he already has done. Obamacare is only one example (most ppl do NOT support it. Folks have lost doctors and plans b/c of the ACA, not b/c of Republicans. Of course we said no to that). Further, it is Obunghole who says no to everything we ask for, so this is a classic case of projection – blaming someone else for the sins you are committing; a classic liberal move. It’s all embodied in Obunghole’s reply when McCain tried to object to certain parts of the ACA proposal: “The election’s over. I won.” Now THAT’s the party of NO.
      As for you, rossbro, I’d rather not kiss your “fat ass,” since any contact with your foul posterior might disrupt what little brain activity you have left. F u c * i n g ignorant moron.

  • FD Brian

    Reagan also was a proponent of letting migrant workers cross the borders easily, some would say he was for some type of immigration reform.

    • preesi

      ALL THE RIGHT WINGERS LOVE THE IMMIGRANTS!
      Cheap labor and DEVOUT CATHOLICS!

      The USA population is declining and so the NEED more CHRISTIANS….

      They just wont admit this

  • Stephen Barlow

    I think the BIGGEST Red Party hypocrisy is “corporate welfare”. At least the ‘small government’ myth, the ‘pro life’ scam, and the ‘christian values’ cons are laughably indisputable.

    Subsidizing the businesses who victimize workers with no benefits, unionization persecutions and “food drives for your underpaid co-workers” needs to STOP. It’s one kind of criminal act to give $20 Billion to Energy profiteers, it’s another to cut the food and medical programs of Walmart employees made dependent on public welfare. I mean WALMART could pay a fair wage and NOT FORCE THE TAXPAYER to subsidize their non-living wage employees @ taxpayer expense WITHOUT losing profits.

    Look @ Costco. Then add up ALL the retail and fast food employees on SNAP, TANF and Medicaid. The COST of raising the minimum wage AND indexing it to CORPORATE PROFITS will be the HUGEST POSSIBLE spending cut next to gutting pentagon Contractor waste. @ up to $900,000 per store for Walmart alone, 3000 x 0.9 MILLION = $27 Billion ALONE from the Profit Giant. Then add in Target, KMart McDonald’s, Burger King etc, corporate welfare disguised as “entitlements”.We are looking at saving a almost $2 trillion dollars in less than a decade by raising the minimum wage to where a family of 4 can get of SNAP & TANF.

    All it would cost Walmart is 6 cents a transaction. it affects their bottom line ZILCH. because if they pay $12/hour, the Feds can CUT their tax rates… because WE the people WON’T need all that revenue to pay for all those TRILLIONS in no longer necessary subsidies.

    • Conservatives DO NOT support corporate welfare. Not sure where you got that from, but it isn’t true.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Then again, maybe the BIGGEST hypocrisy is “Terrorism” ripoffs. Think of the damage the NSA has done to the Constitution. That was the only thing separating America from the Soviets, and Bush so has Sovietized the US Government that Snowden is victimized as Sohllzenitzen was by the Russians. Just for telling the TRUTH!!!

  • Rambo4Roger

    Phil Robertson may have quoted from the Old Testament. Jesus in the NEW Testament overturned much of the Old Testament by condensing the Ten Commandments into Two: (in Luke 10:27) He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

    Methinks Mr. Robertson is still stuck in the Old Testament. That is his choice. He can stay in Louisiana and I’ll stay here.

    • preesi

      EXACTLY!
      The OT isnt even for Christians

      • cgallaway2000

        wrong, at least according to Jesus.

    • buricco

      By clinging to the Old Testament they are essentially saying that Jesus died meaninglessly.

      • cgallaway2000

        Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws or the prophets.

      • buricco

        “I did not come to destroy them, but to complete them. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not the dot of an i or the cross of a t shall be lost from the law until all things shall have been carried out.” (Matthew 5.17b-18) The point at which “all things shall have been carried out” is debatable, but I believe it is when he died (“It is accomplished”, John 19.30).

      • Shinjo Dun

        Actually, what he said was

        “”Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

        Context matters. You only quoted half the verse in question. It is referring to the prophecies of Isaiah, about him.

      • cgallaway2000

        Somewhere in one of my other comments I provided a link that had the different wordings from the various versions of the Bible, I still interpret the entire passage as saying the rules of the old rules before Him will be in effect, even by the quote you provided “until heaven and earth shall pass away”, which we can clearly see that they have not passed away. Particularly as most consider that we await the 2nd Coming.

    • cgallaway2000

      So, Jesus basically made the 10 Commandments obsolete? I question this as just about every Christian church displays, teaches and expects their flock to follow those 10 commandments.

  • Jim Bean

    (1) Many believe freedom of speech is a socially beneficial concept, not just a technicality of law. (2) Many believe it would be the a group (Progressives) who claims to be on the cutting edge of human intellectual evolution who would be demanding something a bit more sophisticated than the barbaric and primeval practice of abortion as the solution to problems caused by reckless sexual behavior. (3) Even if conservatives got into law all the social legislation they want, it would require less than one tenth the expansion of government that is required to administer just one the things that liberals wanted and just got – Obamacare. (4) Every one of the people that comprise the “1%” are atheists regardless of what they may proclaim to be. That they have no fear of some final judgment is obvious. (5) Obama is more liberal, and has presided over a greater expansion of public debt, than all the of the 43 Presidents who came before him. To leave him out of a comparison of presidents and debt they’ve created is hypocritical and contradictory, not to mention intellectually disingenuous.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    But we all know an $11trillion dollar debt magically materialized out of thin air the moment Obama was inaugurated.

    • Cole Raney

      He never said Obama didn’t cause some debt as well. Plus, there was a recession. That is why there was a lot of spending during the last year of Bush’s term, and the first part of Obama’s term.

      The recession aside, he wasn’t claiming that Democrats are the fiscally responsible party. He was saying the Republican party isn’t very good at balancing a budget either. We haven’t had a president from either party balance the budget in a very long time.

      • False. The president drafts a budget, the Congress votes on it(also proposes amendments which are also voted on), then if the president agrees he signs it. That’s how we got into the government shutdown mess. The POTUS drafted a budget that included funding for ACA programs, the Congress bickered over it, and the president held our government hostage until they agreed on it.

  • Joreymay

    “Hell, even the “conservative icon” Ronald Reagan nearly quadrupled our
    national debt in his eight years in office.” Not quite true. The combined administrations of Reagan and Bush Sr. nearly quadrupled the national debt in their 12 years in office. Reagan merely tripled it in his 8 years. Still, an impressive bit of hypocracy.

    • TELLEMENT2000

      “Reagan merely tripled it in his 8 years. Still, an impressive bit of hypocracy.” You may want to research how much Reagan grew the economy in his 8 years. HINT: it was more than triple.

      • Joreymay

        I have, and you are WAY off. Under Reagan, the economy grew by 75% over 8 years (which is WAY less than “more than triple”). By way of contrast, Carter grew the economy by 54% in just 4 years. Specifically, GDP in 1977 was $2.030 trillion, in 1981 it was $3.127 trillion, and in 1989 it was $5.482 trillion. for your claim to be true, the 1989 figure would have to have been more than $9.38 trillion.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        My apologies, you are correct. Nonetheless, several things to note: (1) debt growth under Reagan was driven in part by reviving a neglected military. National defense is the prime function of government, so this expansion was justified; the expansion of food stamps under Obunghole are not; (2) cutting govt. with a Dem House the first few years was not possible, even less so once Dems took the Senate; (3) comparing Carter’s economy to Reagan’s is so absurd it’s like comparing a Chevy to a Benz. Take a look at unemployment and inflation during both presidencies. Real GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, is the key. Carter’s economy was crap, and every sane person knows that.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        Consider this also: even with the Reagan defense buildup, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.2% in 1989. Nondefense discretionary spending fell by 17% from 1981 to 1983 and never returned to 1981 levels for the rest of his terms. The Reagan expansion from Nov 1982-Jul 1990 was the longest peacetime expansion ever. Ever. The poverty rate fell every year from 1984 to 1989. Stocks more than tripled from 1980-1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade. Those who just note debt increases under Reagan when talking about his economy are ignoring some very powerful facts about his policies, and of course Obunghole is doing the opposite, in the process presiding over the weakest recovery in our history.

      • Joreymay

        You are trying make those reductions in investment look like something good. They are not. They play a part in the slowing of the growth rates of the economy and net job creation. You are also playing a transparent game by starting from a time when GDP was depressed (by the Reagan Recession) and using “as a percentageof GDP” as your measure.

        Now that you think about it, if you have to play such games to make his record seem at all worthwhile, what does that really say about your faith in his “accomplishments”?

        The “Reagan expansion” was NOT a “peacetime expansion” – Grenada interrupted it. And it was the least robust expansion in decades. The Obama expansion was both longer and more robust. Yetanother disingenuous game.

        The stock growth was a result of the tax changes, and was fueled by people taking money out of job-creating businesses and into passive “investment” in the markets. Once again, not a good thing for the Country.

        It is true that those who just note the debt increases under Reagan are ignoring some very powerful facts about the economic and social disasters created by his policies. But that fact doesn’t exactly help your cause.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        “reductions in investment?” Spoken like a true BS artist from the left. Government spending is not “investment.” It’s clear you’ve never studied either economics or finance, while I have degrees in both. So go back to school, and come back when you have a viable knowledge base from which to discuss economic policy. This statement spotlights your ignorance and willful blindness better than any: “The Obama expansion was both longer and more robust.” No economist would agree with that. Grow up and stop lying to yourself.

      • Joreymay

        Tsk… you do know that your descent into ad hominem, self aggrandizement, and “those don’t count” schoolyard games just make you look desperate, don’t you?

        Government spending in things like infrastructure, education, research, workforce training/retraining, disaster recovery, and so on most certainly are examples of investment. And anyone who cares to look can find that the majority of “mainstream” economists (as opposed to Cato fringe elements) support the characterization.

      • TELLEMENT2000

        What schoolyard games? When you say something like “The Obama expansion was both longer and more robust” you look like a child entering a man’s argument. But since you make the point, prove to me, using valid economic indicators, that your statement is true. Good luck, you’ll need it.

        While you’re at it, prove this statement: Reagan’s expansion “was the least robust expansion in decades.” I can’t wait for this entertainment. BTW, the facts I presented are from Forbes magazine and are based on actual govt. economic data, so be sure to use similarly qualified sources, i.e. YOU are not a source. Good luck, you’ll need it.

        Just saying that govt spending is “investment” doesn’t make it so. Again, it’s like someone who never went to medical school criticizing a surgery. You just look foolish. The term “investment” has been hijacked by the left in recent years b/c of the stigma associated with “spending.” yet it’s still “spending.”

  • The Democrat party maybe the party of fiscal responsibility, but Obama doesn’t reflect that. During his first term Obama spent more into the debt his first term than Bush’s two terms combined.

    Also Bush’s second term, he had the market crash to blame. Since the recovery is supposedly under way, we should be paying that down. But Obama keeps using George Bush as an excuse. It’s his scapegoat. Even though Bush was a crappy president, our country wasn’t a horrid wasteland under him.

  • These are some important paradoxes to note. That’s why I’m a Libertarian. We have values and we stick with them.

    One point I disagree with is the Jesus one. Jesus did not like government force. There are numerous points in the Bible that discount government and teach about the harms of following governments rather than God.

    He advocated taking care of the poor out of your own expense, not the expense of others.

    This is why the idea of taxing the rich is so fun to people. THEY don’t have to pay for it.

    Besides, Conservatives have the highest charitable giving when it comes to giving to organizations that provide food and shelter to the poor. This is undisputed fact. This is what Jesus wanted. He wanted us to give to the needy out of our own stuff, not take the stuff of others to do it.