Part Two: 10 More Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican

1527913_10152106482212489_1222865289_nAlmost a month ago I wrote a fairly popular article called 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican, and at the end of that article I said I would most likely be doing a sequel.

Well, here it is.  If you haven’t seen the first one, I highly recommend you click the link above and check it out.  The basic premise is to ask questions of Republicans to get them to explain “why” they believe in something.  Because it’s easy to regurgitate a right-wing talking point, but it’s quite difficult for most of them to express why they believe that way.

So here we go — ten more questions that you should ask every Republican.

1) If this country was indeed founded to be a “Christian nation,” could you please explain which denomination?

2) If our sexual orientation is a choice, can you explain to me when it was that you chose to be straight?

3) If you’re outraged over the news of the NSA spying “scandal,” why weren’t you upset when George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans passed the Patriot Act to begin with?

4) What year did the Great Recession begin, and who was president?

5) Can you name a Republican president since President Eisenhower who’s actually balanced the budget?

6) When was the last month the United States posted a negative number for private job creation?  How many months ago was that, and who’s been president ever since?

7) If Republicans in Congress were responsible for the balanced budget under President Clinton, why did that same Republican-controlled Congress return the country to massive deficits the very first year when a Republican (George W. Bush) moved beck into the White House?  Shouldn’t a Republican president have created an even larger budget surplus, instead of ruining it?

8) If all forms of socialism are so terrible, why do tens of millions of Republicans salute our military while enjoying their Medicare and Social Security benefits?

9) Since abstinence isn’t a realistic way to prevent unplanned pregnancies (the leading cause of abortion), wouldn’t it make more sense for the party that’s against abortion to support contraceptives instead of opposing them?  Won’t the lack of contraceptives only lead to more abortions, the very thing your party opposes?

10)  Do you enjoy weekends off?  Paid vacation?  Benefits?  Holidays off?  Safe working conditions?  Overtime?  Workers compensation?  Sick leave?  Then why do you oppose unions?  They’re the reason why we have all of those things.

And that’s a wrap for this edition of “10 questions every Liberal should ask every Republican.”  I really think I might make this a monthly installment.

I hope you enjoyed it, and by all means share, print, and repeat these questions to any conservatives you encounter.  Let me know their responses — they’re usually fairly entertaining, if nothing else.

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

  • corwin02

    There you go again using logic an reason against the “MURICA FU*K YEAH” mentality of the Republican fan base. These people will not rest until the ‘black guy’ is out of the white house and there is a republican one in it.
    You can tell them over and over that the things they depend on (Medicare, SNAP etc etc) are what they are arguing against with their “No socialism” rally cry they will not get it.

    • kevin d

      Calling people racist doesn’t make your argument. The federal government has no business in the benevolent department. See 10th amendment, it’s pretty clear what their role was intended to be.

      • corwin02

        Where do I call people racist ? Apparently you feel attacked because I use a term that has become rather popular among the republican fanbase (and I modified it since it is actually the N word) does that make me racist or does that make you racist ?

        It is the task of any government to look after the well being of its citizens.
        Something republicans appear to forget (unless they get medicare,snap and the like because that is a ‘right’ they ‘earned’ and only they should get it and not those liberal democrats)

        The Tenth Amendment has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment “added nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified.

        So what is your point ?

      • Stan Hall

        You called people “racist” when you claimed that they want the “black guy” out of the White House. Actually by saying that it is you making the racist remark, not the conservatives. Just another liberal lie.

      • Retrodude

        How many liberals would you see at any given KKK rally? How many signs have I seen about that “Nigger in the White House” or “It’s called the WHITE HOUSE FOR A REASON” or “Go back to Kenya”….. yeah, that’s not racist thinking whatsoever.

    • Sal

      well loud moth,first off people were forced to pay into medicare and social security so they should get something back. We also support contraceptives ,we just don’t think we should pay for others to get them,you know like for Sandra Fluke the professional student. Also the republican congress did balance the budget,however they dropped the ball with Bush and that was wrong. You are nothing but a cry baby who thinks ther should pay for you.

  • Gracies_dad

    1) Who said all Republicans think the country was founded on Christian Principles. Many of the founding fathers were Deist.

    2) I unaware that the broad characterization that all Republicans believe sexuality was true. I must not be Republican.

    3) Horrific things create knee-jerk reactions which lead to bad legislation. Did you support all new gun-control following Sandyhook?

    4) The recession started under Bush, but do you think people like Barney Frank and Dodd aren’t somewhat responsible with the legislation they created and pushed?

    5) Can you name any president who balanced the budget? I thought Congress created the budget.

    6) Who care about the unemployment numbers? The important number is the overall size of the labor pool. Which is still shrinking. Unemployment percentages get better as people just quit being part of the labor pool.

    7) I bet you blame Bush for the mess Obama inherited. Do you blame Clinton for the mess that Bush inherited when the internet bubble burst? Oh yeah Bush inherited that. Then a little thing called 9/11 happened. No mitigating factors for Bush’s increased deficit at all.

    8) I am in the Military, and socialized medicine sucks really bad. How many people in the private sector have had to wait 16 weeks to see a Gastroenterologist while having the severe symptom of large amounts of blood in their stool. Keep preaching that socialized medicine.

    9) I didn’t know all Republicans are against some form of birth control. I am a proponent of both abstinence and birth control. From the sounds of these pointed questions, only liberals live in the world of absolutes.

    10) Labor Unions did great things for us in the past. That was the past. Things change.

    • Hume

      “Labor Unions did great things for us in the past. That was the past. things change.” Non-unionized companies usually start to hack away at benefits once the
      unionized companies/work places disappear. I know this from first-hand
      family experience in Kentucky and Tennessee. Holley Carburetor at one
      time back in the 1980s had a unionized plant in Tennessee and a
      non-Unionized plant in Kentucky. While the Tenn plant existed, the
      conditions for workers in the KY plant were kept just that tiny bit
      better than the Tenn plant (so that the KY workers would always vote
      against having a union). When the Tenn plant went away over the course
      of the next two decades (and production was shifted to the KY plant),
      conditions at the KY plant steadily were made worse (and continue to be
      on that slope today). The mere existence of strong unions helps both
      unionized and non-unionized workers. One reason why the creation of
      “combinations” (i.e., unions) was opposed so completely for so long (two
      centuries after the start of the industrial revolution) and was dealt
      with so harshly right up into the early 20th century.

      Trying to deal with management regarding conditions and wages WITHOUT a Union or equivalent is the same as being an employee at McDonald’s and trying to approach management to improve things. ALL power and leverage is in the hands of management (which has its own “unions” both formally and informally set up in such things as Chambers of Commerce and the like).

      Certainly unions (or combinations, or whatever term you want to use) need to be run according to regulations and the law, as should all institutions in society …. but unfortunately in the US the whole concept has been tossed out as “something that was useful and is now in the past” ….. I don’t agree. Such mechanisms are still very much needed … the effects of the lack of effective ones in the US is seen in the falling working conditions for most since 1981.

      • Si Gung

        We don’t need the unions anymore. We have all the laws in place already. The workers just need to bargain collectively.

      • kurtsteinbach

        The Union is what enables/allows workers to bargain collectively….

      • Thomas Pearson

        It was some of the very unions that have helped the pension program collapse in the first place.Detroit and Chicago are sterling examples.

    • HatahZappah

      #11) You’re the tool that will be used to bury your sorry ass.

      • Kevin Currier

        Insults don’t really help prove any points. Gracies_Dad is actually making sense here. The difference is, he seems to be closer to a moderate Republician, and this list is really for someone closer to a Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh who will indubitably be about as far right as possible because that’s where the main voices of the party are right now.

  • Kommissar

    1. It wouldn’t matter which denomination if it was considered part of the “Church”. Some are more fundamental than others, but their beliefs are anchored by the same beliefs.

    2. I don’t consider myself a “Republican” or a “Democrat” as I have sense enough to vote for the person that I feel is capable, and best represents my values. I have chose to remain straight all of my life. Homosexual activity is judged as a sinful behavior. I slept around with more than one woman before I was married, which is a sin as well. I chose to turn away from that part of my life. I guess I could have formed a “special interest” group to fund studies designed to condone my behavior, but that’s not what I did. If sexual orientation is not a choice, then why have many chose to turn away from homosexual behavior?

    3. I wasn’t outraged as the law appeared to have good intentions. However, the highway to where we are now was paved with good intentions brought about in emotional times.

    4. Agree with Gracies_dad here. Who had control of the congress at the time the great recession started?

    5. I thought Congress balanced the budget as well. The President will sign the budget.

    6. Agree with Gracies_dad here as well. I’ll add this, exactly what was the average wage of all the jobs that have been created under Obama? With the increase in job creation recently, who is in control of the House again?

    7. I have nothing to add to Gracies_dad’s response here.

    8. Lots of these people have paid into these systems for years. However, there’s an increasing number of people in this country that are riding the system, while others pay out the nose.

    9. I think the Repub party isn’t against birth control per se, only that is HAS to be covered by an employer’s insurance. Abstinence, although not effective due to the fact people will not take responsibility for their own actions, is still 100% effective.

    10. Lots of non-unionized companies have the same benefits. Unions can and have been beneficial. I have also observed a union protecting those that do not want to work, use drugs on the job, and would bitch if you gave them a $50 just because it wasn’t a $100. It almost destroyed the company. I saw this first hand.

    As for Corwin02, I might vote for another black guy for president, or even a black woman, if their politics and mine matched up enough. Unfortunately, they usually are connected to groups that support brain children like yourself, and they won’t get my vote.

    • Hume

      “Lots of non-unionized companies have the same benefits. Unions can and
      have been beneficial.” Non-unionized companies usually start to hack away at benefits once the unionized companies/work places disappear. I know this from first-hand family experience in Kentucky and Tennessee. Holley Carburetor at one time back in the 1980s had a unionized plant in Tennessee and a non-Unionized plant in Kentucky. While the Tenn plant existed, the conditions for workers in the KY plant were kept just that tiny bit better than the Tenn plant (so that the KY workers would always vote against having a union). When the Tenn plant went away over the course of the next two decades (and production was shifted to the KY plant), conditions at the KY plant steadily were made worse (and continue to be on that slope today). The mere existence of strong unions helps both unionized and non-unionized workers. One reason why the creation of “combinations” (i.e., unions) was opposed so completely for so long (two centuries after the start of the industrial revolution) and was dealt with so harshly right up into the early 20th century.

  • kevin d

    1. All denominations. That is the point, it wasn’t the kings church. The fact is they were mostly Christian and those morals are all over their actions.
    2. Being “straight” is not a choice. It’s being normal. Unless you want to redefine what normal means that’s just a fact.
    3. We were, you just weren’t pay in attention.
    4. It began in 06 when the Democrats took over the budget.
    5. See 4
    6. Where is it the President’s responsibility for job creation? See 10th amendment.
    7. WAR
    8. Like we have a choice. Money was confiscated from our pay and we just want it back. I could put $ in a savings account and do better than SS. One of the problems is it has expanded to include SSI and disability for which it was never intended.
    9. Only people with religious objections oppose contraception. The rest of us don’t think we should have to pay for it for other than our family.
    10. I’m pretty sure we have labor laws to protect unfair labor practices. Unions prevent the person to negotiate wage he deems fair in favor of the will of the “worker”, which seems to mean the collective. That’s a socialist principal. And by your logic, why don’t liberals favor gun ownership for private guns is what allowed us as a colony to free ourselves from tyranny and form a better nation?

    • corwin02

      1. So because a person who signed a document 200+ years ago happened to be Episcopalian is reason to force a population into christianity ? Nice to know that 20% of the American population (all Atheists) do not count.

      2. Define normal , what may seem normal in your eyes may or may not be normal in someone elses, Do you consider eating raw fish with onions as a snack normal ? If not , you just insulted the population of 6 countries.

      3. Then why did it get passed into law ?

      4. The recession began in 2002 not 2006 , know your facts

      5. see what in 4 , irrelevant answer , there has never been a republican president since Eisenhower who managed to balance a budget

      6. Republicans hold Obama responsible , so that is tit for tat.

      7. A useless War against a non existing enemy resulting in enormous upheaval in the Middle East done without congressional approval and a collapse of the US.

      8. SS is an INSURANCE for the less fortunate. I assume you also do not pay car insurance because if you happen to be in an accident you have enough money on hand to pay for the medical bills of the other party , the other parties vehicle and your own vehicle ?
      In an insurance all people pay a small amount to make sure all are covered for a mishap. If you are too selfish to pay then also do not use any of the publicly paid utilities like there are sewage, roads, electricity, phone public transportation , school grants etc etc

      9. Again it is an insurance but since that principle is apparently foreign to you I’ll explain it another way.
      If you do not pay for contraception you will pay for the resulting child which is a whole lot more expensive than an condom or a 5 ct pill
      And if you do not understand why you pay for the child I pitty you

      10 Yeah check those labour laws in “right to work’ states and check what republican legislators in those states will do with the minimum wage (also a union benefit) if given the chance.
      And where the heck does the gun rant fit in (which by the way was to form a militia because at the time the US did not have a standing army and is thus obsolete by now)

      • ConChriMother

        1] No. Because a bunch of men 200+ years ago created documents, multiple, that expressed Christian values and created laws around those values… nothing on this earth stops an Atheist from having those same values or agreeing with those laws. Check your history, because there were Atheists in that mix, as well. Let’s face it, Christian principles were a major driving force in the creation of our country, but they don’t just belong to Christians.. many people simply call them morals.

        2] Yes, normal is defined differently by different people, but the question was about choosing to be straight. The answer given was that he (kevin) felt he never had to make that choice, as he deems it “normal.” I also deem it normal, but perhaps you do not. Fine. Like most of these questions, it doesn’t address the issue at all, it only sidesteps with opening for offensive and off-topic discussions, like what defines “normal.”

        3] Because there were a lot of well-meaning idiots running our government – people who were looking emotionally at what just happened, and not at the long-term consequences of it. There were plenty of dissenters on both sides of the aisle. We aren’t all blessed with Congressional seats, however.

        4] Umm, use some logic. The economy didn’t just wake up one day and decide to jump off a cliff. It started long before it actually hit Wall Street. There were bad laws and government programs, poor economical choices, and bad investments… these things don’t happen over night. Think about it. If you take out a loan for a house, then open a line of credit, then buy a new car, then put a second mortgage on your house, you’re not doing too badly on paper. You have great credit, you have a house, a car, and a line of credit to buy things you want. 🙂 Yay for you! Until you find you’re using that line of credit to buy your groceries, because you don’t have enough cash to pay that car note, and that house payment, and all the insurances the government requires…

        5] Okay, pay attention here, because this is important legal information, Constitutional, even!!! Presidents. Don’t. Create. Or Balance. Budgets. Congress does.

        6] I don’t care who you hold responsible… fact is, it doesn’t mean a thing if the jobs created are government growth, self-employment, or jobs that we are apparently allowing illegal immigrants to stay here for because “they’re jobs Americans won’t do.” I don’t want to pay more taxes to the government just so they can pay more people to process my tax returns.

        7] Here again, the question is eliciting an argumentative answer, rather than a productive one. War was part of the reason the deficit went up, a big part, but arguing over the validity of the law doesn’t answer the question, or address the issue of budgets or budget deficits. Side note, or rather pointed return question to you, corwin: So what, you figured oh, well, we were just attacked by maniacs from over seas, we deserved it, we should just sit here and do nothing? I suppose your laissez-faire attitude extends to the stirring up World War 3 over there, as well, and the wonderfully wimpy reaction of the supposed most powerful man in the world?

        8] Social Security was intended to be RETIREMENT insurance, for the elderly who were expected to live a certain amount of time, and would receive enough to help in the golden years. Medicare, likewise, was created to help seniors get medical care at a time when they were unlikely to have medical insurance of their own, seeing as how they no longer had a job. They retired, remember? That’s why they’re on SS?
        Socialism is an entirely different critter. Socialism means that everyone pays into the system, and the system meets out what they feel we each should have. Each little bit they take to pay for the rest, each little inch they climb up that rope, brings us closer to total socialism. You know, that thing that brought Russia to its knees? Yes, I am too selfish to pay for YOUR insurance. I have medical insurance because I pay for it. Or I don’t have it because I didn’t pay for it. If you get, despite not having held a job in order to pay for it, then what you are getting is not insurance – its an entitlement. We all pay taxes, property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. Those taxes pay for the roads we drive on, the schools we send our children to, and the like. I hate to tell you this, it might upset you… but I pay for my own electricity, I pay for my sewage (even when I lived in the city and used city sewage, that was part of the bills I paid each month), I pay my phone bill, and when I use public transportation… gasp!… I paid for that, too. By the way, if I weren’t legally obligated to send my child to school, and legally obligated to send them to THAT school, I might not do so. I might instead pay for a better school, a private tutor, or teach them myself (because I, personally, am qualified – I’m not saying that everyone should do this). The basic premise behind SS and MC were heartfelt and well-meaning, but those two programs were only the beginning of this socialist movement. Back to the original question… what’s the military got to do with it?

        9] The question, again asked in such a way… the question was why Repubs are against contraceptives. Answer, plainly, is that they are not. They are against being forced to pay for things they believe to be immoral and simply being forced to do things that are against their religion. See, your insurance (that you pay for yourself) may pay for the pill or some other monthly BC, but does it pay for abortion? ACA says all insurance should pay for all of the above. Which means that my tax dollars, which help to subsidize those who need help under ACA, are helping to pay for the insurance payments to abortion clinics. If I think that it’s immorally wrong, that it’s murder, then I am helping to fund murder. Let me explain something about insurance to you, sir: I pay into insurance to protect myself against future unforeseen tragedy, such as a brain tumor or a broken limb. If someone else chooses to buy insurance to protect against their own stupidity, that is their right. But the issue at hand was simply that companies which are religiously and morally based, which provide their own health insurance to their employees, will be forced to provide coverage for things they believe to be morally wrong, and to pay for murder as they see it. No one is stopping anyone from buying a condom or practicing abstinence… still the only 100% effective method out there.
        As for me paying for your unwanted child… no, sir. That goes back to socialism. Goes right back to why we shouldn’t have this government entitlement BS in the first place. I don’t understand why I pay for your unwanted child, because YOU made the mistake, and YOU should suffer the consequences and pay your dues – NOT ME. Responsibility. Let’s all practice that, for a change!

        10] Go back to the Constitution with me, if you will. Amendment #10 – where it says that all things not expressly written into the federal government’s purpose belong to the states. This means, it is up to the states to make these laws. If you feel the state is not giving you the ability to fight for your rights in the work place, and you feel that you need outside interference to make your work place safe, then you have two choices. Find another place to work – hopefully others who are like-minded will do the same, and they will figure out they can’t treat their people like that. If not, then at least you got into a better place. OR Move to a state that WILL protect what you feel is not protected.
        Honestly, I don’t get the gun rant either, but I will say this. Tell me that militia (which, by the way, is merely an armed citizenry willing to stand up and defend their homeland) is obsolete when the standing army starts taking orders from a socialist/communist dictator. Because this continued road into socialism will eventually get us there, no matter which party is in office at the time.

      • Tim0619

        According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the most recent recession began in December of 2007. Do you just make up things like 2002 and think no one can easily prove how wrong you are??? You have absolutely no credibility!

  • Si Gung

    1) If this country was indeed founded to be a “Christian nation,” could you please explain which denomination?

    Inaccurate premise – Founded by men who believed God does exist.

    2) If our sexual orientation is a choice, can you explain to me when it was that you chose to be straight?

    I chose to take a spouse in order to propagate the species.

    3) If you’re outraged over the news of the NSA spying “scandal,” why
    weren’t you upset when George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans passed
    the Patriot Act to begin with?

    I was! Danged liberal congress.

    4) What year did the Great Recession begin, and who was president?

    Again, inappropriate premise. It was a radically liberal congress, a liberal president, and a costly war that precipitated the Recession.

    5) Can you name a Republican president since President Eisenhower who’s actually balanced the budget?

    I believe that Congressional input balances budgets. The house controls the purse strings.

    6) When was the last month the United States posted a negative number
    for private job creation? How many months ago was that, and who’s been
    president ever since?

    This is an interesting way to pose a question. I believe the more appropriate question involves the percentage of people that the private sector taxpayers must support ( this includes all government employees, retirees, and social welfare recipients )

    7) If Republicans in Congress were responsible for the balanced
    budget under President Clinton, why did that same Republican-controlled
    Congress return the country to massive deficits the very first year when
    a Republican (George W. Bush) moved beck into the White House?
    Shouldn’t a Republican president have created an even larger budget
    surplus, instead of ruining it?

    History shows that our country has prospered most with a conservative congress and liberal executive branch. War, Liberalization of Congress in Bushes second term, and the fact that Bush was a rather liberal republican all contributed to the down turn. Some would argue that some of the housing issues started in the Clinton years helped bring Fanny Mae to her knees.

    8) If all forms of socialism are so terrible, why do tens of millions
    of Republicans salute our military while enjoying their Medicare and
    Social Security benefits?

    This is an interesting way to twist this. Social Security benefits were intended to be a savings account: monies that individuals could not receive throughout their lives because of the government hoarding. Instead, the government spent those funds (invested) for something other than what they were intended. Now, our children are being forced to invest in us. If we are to call this ‘socialism’, then Ponzi schemes are equivalent to socialism.

    9) Since abstinence isn’t a realistic way to prevent unplanned
    pregnancies (the leading cause of abortion), wouldn’t it make more sense
    for the party that’s against abortion to support contraceptives instead
    of opposing them? Won’t the lack of contraceptives only lead to more
    abortions, the very thing your party opposes?

    The premise that abstinence isn’t a realistic way is inaccurate. One only needs to be abstinent for a few days a cycle to prevent pregnancy. Contraceptives are readily available to anyone who wishes to purchase them. The question really is about who pays for the contraception.

    10) Do you enjoy weekends off? Paid vacation? Benefits? Holidays
    off? Safe working conditions? Overtime? Workers compensation? Sick
    leave? Then why do you oppose unions? They’re the reason why we have
    all of those things.

    Unions served their purpose. Like toilet papers their usefulness ended when their purpose was fulfilled.

    I wouldn’t call myself a Republican, but that is how I might respond to such questions.

    Ultimately, there are two kinds of people: Those that believe that the individual may not always make the right choice but should determine his own destiny; and Those that believe that the individual is incapable of doing for him/herself and requires government oversight to ensure their well being.

    • Brad Rogers

      If you chose a wife just to propagate the species, what’s your boyfriend’s name?

  • FD Brian

    I don’t understand why republicans don’t blame their counterparts for treating workers so shitty that they needed to unionize. If it weren’t for the rich factory owners treating people like shit, we wouldn’t have unions. So republicans and the rich only have their ancestors to blame for unionization. And one other thought, paying people more gives them more purchasing power to buy more shit, the more shit people buy, the more shit factory workers can sell and the more money they can make. Figure it out you stupid rich, hoarding dipshits.

  • m134 gunner

    I’m a Republican. Here it goes.

    1. Although many of our values are of Judeo-Chritian roots, we were not founded as a ‘Christian Nation.’ Many of our founders were atheists, many were christian…but ALL feared religious persecution by the state.

    2. Sexual Orientation is probably not a choice. People are predisposed to their orientation.

    3. I always disliked the Patriot act once I figured out what was in it. As we have seen, sometimes it takes years before we realize the implications of the law. It is even harder when 3/4 of the law is executed in a Top Secret manner. Although Bush signed it originally, Obama signed an extension of law in 2011.
    No one knew the extent of the intrusions until the information was leaked by Snowden last year….now Snowden is running from the USG.

    4. The recession initiated in 2006, under Bush, after a series of subprime mortgage defaults resulted in 2 of the largest subprime firms going bankrupt. The fact is that the US Gov’t promoted this subprime market for the previous ~15 years through the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The government was complicit in this collapse.

    5. No. The only time it has been balanced was under Clinton, although Newt Gingrich had to ‘hold the government hostage’ in order to force his hand on the matter.
    Every President for the last century has spent in the Red. The biggest contributors are this president and the one before him.

    6. The employment situation isn’t just about the ‘unemployment rate.’ That rate drops when people leave the workforce, which they have done. People retire early because they can’t find a job, etc. This contributes to the decline of the unemployment rate. Yes we have created jobs, but we have done so at great cost to the tax payer. We are still not healthy. We now have 48 million on food stamps. QE has been driving the stock market. There are still serious economic risks to this recovery. But, to your point, the job situation is better today than it was in 2009.

    7. I’m not sure if you are aware, but we were the target of the largest terrorist attack in world history. You might want to go back and read the news in case you missed it. That being said, we should have stopped deficit spending in 2005. FYI, you damn Bush for the ’07 recession but you don’t credit him for the post-911 recovery.

    8. People ‘enjoy their medicare and social security’ because they don’t have a choice. They contribute 15.3% of their income to those programs, which leaves them without the capital to pursue other options for retirement and healthcare. You can’t take people’s money to fund a program and then blame them for using it. That fact doesn’t mean SS is a good retirement system for Americans. Most would be 3-4X better off privately investing those funds.

    9. I don’t oppose contraceptives. I do oppose requiring religious-based institutions to fund the insurance premium to pay for their use though.

    10. There aren’t many unions in my state and I have all those things. Unions had their time and place. They did indeed secure many things for the American worker. The problem is that they realized their bargaining power and used it to exploit the industries they worked for to the extent that some have had a hard time existing, such as the US Auto industry.

  • nynetguy

    These are some of the most ridiculously leading-questions I’ve ever seen in my life. If the intention here was to show that Republicans act like children I fail to see how coming up with childish questions proves your point. These questions are overly simplistic and fail to take the wider picture into account. Moreover, they are predicated on the myopic and idiotic belief that anything right-wing is bad while everything left-wing is good.
    This is fucking idiocy and is essentially just more extremist horseshit.

  • Demetrius

    1) It wasn’t. But it wasn’t founded as an atheist nation either.
    2) It’s not a choice. this is why prison rehabilition is a joke. A pedophile and a rapist cannot be reformed anymore than someone straight or gay.
    3} Because there are strict regulations on what can be done without a search warrant. the NSA scandal were warrantless searches.
    4) 2007; Bush was president, Both houses of Congress were Democrat. “George Bush is now a lame duck president” – Nancy Pelosi, 2007.
    5) Presidents don’t balance budgets Congress does. It’s in the Constitution. Congress has the “Power of the Purse” as part of checks and balances. “Newt Gingrich hijacked my Presidency” – William Clinton
    6) September 2010, one month before the elections that gave Republicans the majority in the house of Representatives. Since Democrats have not had control of both Houses of Congress, there has been only positive job creation.
    7) In 2001 Bush won the white house, Democrats won the Senate. Congress controls the budget.
    8) Because rounding people up into reservations and projects and taking away their self esteem is about as racist as it gets. But discounting that, And discounting that Socialism fails in almost every country that has tried it, Social Security and Medicaid are Government run insurance systems that are broke, Do you really want the government running anything else?
    9) If you want an abortion or a condom, help yourself. But why do you think I should have to pay for Chelsea Clinton’s abortions?
    10) We don’t oppose unions. They are necessary to help unskilled labor. But I don’t believe someone should be forced to join a union against their will either.

  • Tom Lengner

    1.) There is little question that Judeo-Christian ideals were considered as our nation was forming (you are foolish if you think otherwise). Anyone claiming that this country is a “Christian Nation” is; overstating history, not that bright or a “Forward” thinking Progressive that is trying to ask an invalid question.

    2.) I don’t care enough about what ‘sexual orientation’ someone is to muster an answer to this question.

    3.) There was so LITTLE opposition to the Patriot Act (either in 2001 when it was originally enacted and in 2006 when reauthorized) that I don’t know what the author of the question is complaining about. The most opposition that the Act got was from truly Conservative voices in the media.

    4.) Which Great Recession are we referring to here, the one during the latter of the Ford Administration and exacerbated by the policies of the Carter Administration (and the Congress in the late 70’s), or the one that was started in the latter stages of the GW Bush Admininstration (with a Democrat majority held Congress) that has been truly exacerbated by the policies of the Obama Administration (with a majority held Democrat Party Congress for when the most destructive policies were forced through)?
    Because in all honesty, the one in the 70’s caused more damage adn was only reigned in by Conservative ideals.
    And, can you even imagine how much more damage that would’ve been done if the House had not changed over to GOP control in 2010?

    5.) Question has already been answered, and the fact that the question has been asked makes one wonder if Civics is even taught anymore.

    6.) It depends on how you measure positive job growth. Since we have less people in the workforce now (as a gross number and as a ratio) than in any previous year over the last decade, the answer is clear….. ok, it may not be, so…… there has not been positive private sector job growth (unless you use the calculations apparently devised by Obama’s Common Core Math Metrics) during the Obama Presidency.

    7.) The answer to that question is “Why do you think most Conservative’s think GW Bush failed us a a President?”.
    Answer: because he allowed the country to return to the fiscal policies which have consistently proven to themselves to be economically destructive, or in other words he acted (in terms of his domestic fiscal policies) like a Progressive/Liberal Democrat (and that is never a good thing for the country, obviously).

    8.) I guess if I were being Sarcastic I would answer the military portion of this question with “we Conservatives had better salute the military since Liberals hate our soldiers and think of them only as baby killers”.
    And as to Medicare and SS, nobody “ENJOYS” the benefits from those two entities. For crying out loud, NOBODY in their right mind EVER enroll in private programs that you would have paid into your entire working life that would pay out such meager and pathetic benefits. You would sue those private entities for malpractice!

    9.) Since when is Abstinence unrealistic as a means for preventing pregnancies? There has only been one documented case in human history where abstinence didn’t prevent an unplanned pregnancy. That was a looooong time ago, and to be honest we are all better off for that particular person having inhabited the Earth.
    So, not being a proponent of abstinence is kind of stupid, right….?

    10.) To attribute the fact that the benefits you state in this question as being only attributable to labor unions for their very existence is utterly false.
    I will counter and say that the existence of labor unions has had some very positive effects for our country too.
    However, I will leave it to the author to come up with a more valid question to replace this one as to why labor unions still have a place in our society (because this one is truly kindergarten level gibberish).

    • Debby

      That was smart, correct, and sarcastic at the same time …bravo!

  • Stan Hall

    Others have answered these adequately. So I’ll only waste my time with the first. “Which denomination???” What a stupid question! First you must quote and provide documentation to prove that any conservative has ever claimed that the United States was founded as a single Christian denomination. No one to my knowledge has ever claimed that, so your entire premise is based on a bald-faced lie. It’s truly sad that for a liberal to try to ridicule conservatives he must resort to lying to do it.

  • Tim0619

    These are incredibly stupid questions that even a six year could easily respond to!

  • John William

    First I will say that, on their face, these are all fair
    questions. Of course, most of them are jaded by misinformation
    propagated by left, the result of poor explanations of Conservative
    principles or simply a symptom of the lack of education coming from
    our “schools” in this country. Thus, to set the record straight,
    here are responses to each, set forth in as accurate and rational way
    as possible inviting only those who are truly desirous of an
    intellectual discourse of ideas.

    1) If this country was indeed founded to be a “Christian nation,” could you please explain which denomination?

    –The Conservative principle of “the United States is a Christian nation” is, for starters,historically demonstrative. I will not go into details because the
    notion that any nation in the 18th century would have been founded without immense religious influence is fundamentally absurd—atheism institutionalized in any societal fashion did not arise until the very late 19th century and only caught on in any popularity in the 20th century: followed,
    ironically by two world wars, the holocaust, communism, the gulags and other attempts at mass murder and genocide…but I digress. The simple fact is that Europeans were religious and those who came to the New World tended to be more religious even than those they left behind. The most prominent socio-cultural phenomenon of the pre-revolution days was the Great Awakening: a spiritual revival, the principles of which directly influenced the decision to break from England. Thomas Jefferson’s own words, twisted and warped so beyond their original meaning of “separation of church and state” in themselves communicate the expectation that the culture of the United States—her values and society—are distinctly Christian in nature for no other religion refers to their organization as a “church.” When new communities were formed, one of the first buildings to be erected—with public effort and funds—was a community church. It would be ludicrous to believe that in such a climate of religious culture, the Founders were all deists and atheists desiring to exclude public religious expression. Supreme Court decisions have furthered this claim as late as the mid 19th century when a court found that the religion of the Founders was Christianity and
    they expected [not demanded] it to be the religion of their descendants. The logical inequities aside, the direct evidences of the Christian underpinnings of the nation are too numerous to exhaustively mention and, I would venture, are actually too numerous to even fully appreciate affecting us in ways the most devout Christians probably cannot trace.

    –The confusion comes from the misunderstanding of what it means to be a “Christian nation” and a misunderstanding of the word “religion” as it was understood by 18th century statesmen. Through the lies and fear of the liberals, people have come to believe that being a Christian nation means that all Americans either are Christian or must become Christian in order to
    be good Americans. We have been told that this means “we are a theocracy.” Furthermore, there is a dearth of understanding of what the Judeo-Christian Ethic really is and the values it holds and has imparted to this great nation.

    –For starters, a person who says the United States was founded “to be” a Christian nation is not historically accurate. A better way of putting it would be to say that the United States was founded AS a Christian nation: the
    intention behind the statement is not that only Christians live here and only Christians are welcome here. In fact, the reason all religions are welcomed here is primarily because of the Christian influence: Christianity fears no competition and invites all to reasonable discourse. What this means is that the nation’s values are Christian values. Our heritage and way of life have been primarily influenced predominantly by the Judeo-Christian belief system and that those things which we, as Americans, hold most dear are those things enshrined and taught by Biblical Christianity. What does it mean, then, to live in a Christian nation? It does NOT mean that you are automatically a Christian if you are an American. Heavens NO! It also does not mean that you must convert to Christianity in order to be a good American. What it means, really, is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Kind of weird, huh? A true Christian nation institutionalizes the separation of
    religious power from political power as God designed in the Kingdom of Israel: priests were from the tribe of Levi; kings were from the tribe of Judah. No priest could be a king and no king could be a priest. In fact, God destroyed the house of Saul (Israel’s first king) because he trespassed on the office of the priest by offering sacrifice. This was a RADICAL departure from the deified monarchical figures of the pagan nations surrounding Israel but at no point does the Bible nor at any point did the Founders intend or even imply that only non-religious people could hold office. In fact, quite the
    opposite. Many of those same men who separated church power from political power went back to their own states and made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ a PREREQUISITE for holding office in their state. Separating political and religious power is another safe-guard against tyranny. The Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the world full of pagan religions who do not practice this approach—an approach set forth in the pages of Scripture—are monuments to the failure of not following God’s design.

    –Secondly, the understanding of the word “religion” has changed over the last 200 years or so. Nearly every occurrence of the word “religion” in the personal writings of the Founders can be arguably attributed to refer to the Christian religion specifically. Those that cannot be proven are at least close enough that it would not be a tremendous cognitive leap to assume that is what they are referring to. The use of the word “religion” in the 18th century did not refer to an organization of people adhering to a select statement of beliefs. That is what we use the word to communicate but “religion” in the 18th century usually referred to the expression of those beliefs (namely Christian ones) in the public sphere: good works, preaching, charity etc. Thus, we conclude that when the first amendment addresses religion (further
    proof that the United States was a distinctly religious society; the first topic in the Bill of Rights is religion.) by saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” the word “establishment” must be added for it to refer the organization rather than the expression of religious belief. What this first clause means is that Congress cannot pass a law defining religious expression. Congress may not say “In order to be considered ‘Christian’ you must adhere to the following beliefs” or “In order for the charter for your synagogue to be approved to, you must sign this statement regarding your practices” or, in more modern terms, “In order to be considered for tax exempt status, you must deliver us a written form of the content of your prayers.” These are all violations of the first amendment because Congress does not have the power to define what is and is not “Christian” or “Jewish” or “Muslim” or “Hindu” or “Atheist” or “Taoist” or “Big Birdist” nor does it have the power to actively or passively punish those that do not comply with their definitions. By similar thought, Congress may not declare an action to belong exclusively to a religious sphere and thus unaddressable by government: i.e. abortion and homosexuality are addressed in the Bible but that does not mean that valuing life and the traditional home are values that can be held by only Christians and so
    institutionalizing those values somehow violates someone else’s
    religious beliefs. Paying taxes and saving money are both addressed in the Bible as well but no one suggests that the levying of taxes or encouraging saving and investment is somehow theocratic. The second phrase “…nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” is meant specifically to defend those that would express those beliefs in public: like a Christian school teacher for example. The public expression of faith—any faith including non-Christian—is fundamentally connected to the Judeo-Christian Ethic which values the reason and rational discourse of ideas: “Come, let us reason
    together, saith the LORD…” It is in no way a violation of your rights to be confronted with ideas that are contrary to your own and thus the silencing of Christians in the public sphere and the purposeful removal of Judeo-Christian iconography is, in itself, a tyrannical violation of the first amendment. Until you are forbidden to express your beliefs (by law) or until you are told that you must comply with distinctly religious tenets, any Atheist, Jew, Muslim,
    Christian or Buddhist must put up with the fact that living in a free
    society means that he will unfailingly be confronted with ideas that are contrary to his own.

    –In addition to all this, the Founders, most of whom were devout Christians and all of whom had more respect for God and the Bible than most “Christians” today, did not want a repeat of the mistake of medieval Europe. In Europe, people were born into the church. They didn’t have a choice which meant that they also never experienced conversion. A person who makes no conscious decision to become a Christian is not really a Christian for God requires a personal commitment to Jesus Christ not an accident of geography to determine one’s spiritual state. This produces nothing of eternal value for the person and contributes nothing to the reasonable
    exchange of ideas for the person who is a “Christian” has never self-actualized those beliefs and has no intellectual means of presenting those ideas in any fashion that would be believable to someone who is not a Christian. Ironically, in the effort to secularize the nation, that is exactly what we have ended up with: intellectually lazy “Christians” who don’t know anything about the Bible and wouldn’t give two flips about what it says if they did know. The Founders knew this potential and in fact saw the consequences of this in the years before the Great Awakening. The churches of the pre-Awakinging colonies were cold, corrupt places because people were “born into” the church. Much like the religious culture of today, church had become a hobby or cultural expectation bringing stigma to those who rejected it and, as a result, the Church had become a spiritual pit and an intellectual wasteland completely useless to society: again, much like today. That is not what the Founders wanted. The Founders recognized your individual responsibility to choose Jesus Christ for yourself and thus institutionalized your right to do so or not if that is your decision. That is the nature of Christianity: individual responsibility before God and the limitation of power upon those exercising rule over a nation.

    –Finally, in answer to your specific question of “which denomination” that was actually the subject of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. The letter was written by an Anglican whose own proclamation was “I am
    a Christian: that is, a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ” to a group of concerned Baptists. The Baptists were not concerned that this man, who later generations have errantly declared a deist, was going to forbid the expression of Christianity in the public sphere but was, rather, going to make one denomination supreme over all others. Thus Jefferson responded with words he would surely take back if he’d known how they were going to be abused later on: “the Constitution has erected a wall of separation between church and state.” In other words, the understanding of all the parties
    involved was that the United States was a Christian nation: from the acknowledgment of a Divine Creator and Judge to the concept of the equality of all men or the respect for individual rights to the limitations on governmental power—these are all taken directly from the pages of scripture. Jefferson’s letter was to assure the Baptists that their religious liberties would not be taken away and the assurance of conservatives is reflected in the same: an acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States is not a mandate that non-Christians must convert or be punished. It
    is simply an observation meant to remind everyone that though the Church may fail to meet your needs or your expectations, Christianity has been a positive force in the world and especially here in the United States. It is a preservation of the values that have become an integral part of all we hold dear as Americans and though you may not choose Christianity for yourself, respect those ideals that gave you the right to make that decision and don’t trample others’ right to do the same.

    2) If our sexual orientation is a choice, can you explain to me when it was that you chose to be straight?

    –In background, please understand that, although I am a Christian and acknowledge the Bible as my authority for faith and practice, I understand that many of you reading do not. I am happy to frame this debate using any medium of authority we can both agree to recognize. Shall we discuss this as naturalists? In nature, no creature is strictly homosexual. If it were, its genetics would be eliminated from the biological continuation of its line and
    “homosexuality” as a genetic compulsion would cease to exist. Thus, at best, homosexuals are demanding permanent societal change for what is destined to be a temporary phenomenon. In addition, those animals that do practice bi-sexual behavior always have other societal motives in mind. A dog does not commit such acts because it is expressing “love” or “affection” or “a desire to procreate.” Rather, such acts serve to establish a hierarchy within
    their pack structure: it is an act of dominance necessary for the smooth running of their primitive society. Thus, to make that comparison is to compare homosexual “culture” to a society too primitive to express complex emotions in any but the most base and perverse ways. Hardly complimentary. Are you going to start pissing on a bush while you are out for a run as well so anyone else jogging by knows that that is your bush? Following that same line of reasoning further, if we are going to establish animal behavior as a parallel for human behavior, many animals eat their own young too so is this to now be acceptable among human societies? Many animals eat their own feces as well. Shall I serve up Poop on a Plate with a Pickle for you? Whether you believe in the evolutionary processes or
    in the Divine Creator, the observable fact is that Humanity is endowed with a unique dignity and responsibility that transcends the behavior of the animal kingdom and just because an animal is known for certain behavior does not give you the excuse to exhibit such behavior as well.

    –What other medium of authority shall we address? Society? Society, by its actions, has long established the traditional home as the standard of human behavior. Shall we call upon the law? The law said that slavery was a perfectly moral; perfectly reasonable institution. That did not make it a positive force in world history. Following that line further, laws have been passed outlawing homosexual marriage. Shall we not respect those laws? Shall we appeal to tolerance? Where is your tolerance for those who disagree with you? Can we not disagree and continue on our ways or does the LGBT community think so lowly of their lifestyles or so highly of my opinion that they must force me to accept their choices as being equal to my own? Shall we finally address the authority of the individual: that “I decide what’s right for me” attitude? This is fundamentally hypocritical because that means you must respect my right to reject your lifestyle then. Such a position of “personal morality” is not authority for if you decide what is right for you
    then I may decide what is right for me and do with you what I please. Obviously, no society would survive such an attitude so we are not arguing about if a line should be drawn: we are arguing WHERE the line should be drawn. The imposition of law—any law—is the imposition of morality upon those who may disagree. No logical person would argue that one of society’s chief responsibilities is to, by law, define societal institutions. We define adulthood as being over 18 years old. That does not mean we hate everyone who is 17. We define a citizen as a person to whom all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of America are endowed. That does not mean we hate tourists (even though many of us have claimed to hate tourists). We
    define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That does not mean we hate people who choose to be homosexuals any more than we hate people who choose to be single. Just as a single person is, by definition, not married so too are two homosexuals not married. Their relationship does not fit the historical or societal definition of marriage. Perhaps you don’t agree with that definition which is why the true conservative opposes things like the Defense of Marriage Act: because we respect your right to choose for yourself. However, in order for society to function, it must have order and in order to have order, societal institutions must be clearly defined. What you
    have is not marriage. You are entitled to enter into any legal contract you desire effectively forming the exact same legal status of two married people but what you have is different—maybe in your eyes it is superior. It is, however, distinctly different and should be treated as such.

    –Now, to answer your question, this would be a more fair question if it were not based on an intellectually false premise. A person who dies their hair has made a choice for their hair to be blond rather than red. This does not mean that they chose to have naturally red hair: it means simply that they chose to no longer have red hair and depart from their genetic and biological standard. This is a choice. A conservative may find redheads more attractive than blonds but he does not seek to prohibit people with red hair from dying
    their hair any color they choose. Similarly, the biological imperative of every creature on earth is the procreation of its own species. Even those animals that practice homosexual acts do not forgo their biological responsibility of furthering their species. The human genome has been mapped and, sadly for the LGBT community, there is no indication whatsoever that anything within a person compels him to be a homosexual. By the same parallel, we do not
    forbid you to be gay: by all means pursue happiness. Just remember
    that others are pursuing happiness as well and their definition of happiness may run contrary to yours.

    –By a similar note, this accusation—for that is what it really is—misses what is truly being said. Many choices we make are not made with any cognitive
    recognition that we are making a choice. No drug addict chose to
    become an addict. He chose to begin using recreational drugs. The parallel could be made that few if any homosexuals make a cognitive choice: “I have decided to be gay.” Rather, environmental factors, poor moral decisions especially ones of a sexual nature and the fundamental devaluing of sexual purity and the traditional home contribute to the subconscious acceptance of homosexuality as “an alternate lifestyle” from which some may decide to partake. Perhaps that young man did not wake up one day and say with a newly acquired lisp, “That’s it, I can’t stand it. All I want to do is shop and
    decorate my house. I will no longer be attracted to women.” No, his cognitive choice is largely gone by that point for he was started down that path likely by a poor father figure, continued of his own volition by choosing to objectivize women first in pornography and then in his own sexual promiscuity and finally ended up there when the failings of so many people contributed to a general disregard for traditional morality. If I may, even the Bible bears this out when it says that “…God gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND [emphasis added] to do those things which are not convenient…” That phrase “reprobate mind” refers to someone who doesn’t even realize what he is doing anymore; a person who is sick.

    –Admittedly, this is where Christians have failed. Christians, like so many other religious hypocrites throughout history, are very quick to point out the sins of other people. To this, the LGBT community largely has a legitimate complaint: one that I will echo with them. To those Christians who quote things like “…it is an abomination…” remember that that same phrase is found when referring to lying and I doubt very much there are many people out there who are not guilty of lying at some point. We recall the story of the woman taken in adultery (another sin referred to as an abomination) and cast at Jesus’ feet. The Pharisees, which today are represented in the majority of fundamental churches, knew their Bibles well: the law said to stone her and her partner (ironic that the man is nowhere to be found if she was caught in the act). Notice that Jesus’ response was not that their understanding of the Bible was incorrect: “…let him cast the first stone at her.” Jesus’ rebuke to the Pharisees was that their application of the Bible was selective: “He that is
    without sin…” The homosexual, by any authority, has something wrong with him, but so do I. So do we all. The person true to conservative values—one who values liberty and respect for the individual—opposes the LGBT lifestyle because we believe that the purpose of life is to grow beyond our base impulses to become better people. We oppose the LGBT community because in its own actions, it flaunts its behavior in the public sphere (which is their right) and then lashes out when their behavior is discussed in the public sphere (which is our right). We oppose the LGBT agenda, not because we hate homosexuals, but because we believe that those who disagree should be treated with the same respect which they themselves are demanding.

    • Debby

      This is so good I would like to copy it with your permission?

      • John William

        Sorry for the delayed response. I haven’t been on disqus in almost a year. You are more than free to use anything you find and welcome. Thanks for the feedback.

  • John William

    3) If you’re outraged over the news of the NSA spying “scandal,” why weren’t you upset when George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans passed the Patriot Act to begin with?

    –Put simply, Conservatives were outraged. As we were outraged by the implementation of the DHS and other acts by Bush. Let me say before expanding further that this is exactly the point Conservatives make when we oppose the expansion of government. What starts out as a small, “necessary” intrusion quickly becomes an oppressive abuse of power. Furthermore, this question betrays the very foundation upon which the Obama campaign was ostensibly based: Hope and CHANGE. Conservatives make the case that while Bush was bad—and he was very bad—Obama is exponentially worse. If we can bring ourselves to agree that Bush and Obama are both bad and largely for the same reason: namely the continuous uninterrupted expansion of government power over the American people, then we can work together to stop this intrusive expansion and reverse the trend restoring American liberty. Democrats and Republicans are like the actors on supposed “reality” shows: they show an antagonistic front to the
    camera then work arm in arm behind scenes, reviewing their scripts over coffee together. To understand the origin of this question we must address three pieces of misinformation commonly accepted as truth.

    –First, people have come to believe that Republicans are Conservatives. This is not true. It is very simply, very glaringly, very importantly NOT true. True conservatives make up a very small portion of the republican party and are largely ignored and marginalized by the elitist “establishment” republicans because Conservatives threaten the status quo. Why is it that the only thing Republicans and Democrats publicly agree on is their antagonism toward the TEA Party? Does anyone wonder, even for a moment, why both parties should agree on that of all things? Republicans are not conservatives. A Conservative believes in the Republic of the Founders: the Federal Constitutional Republic. Republicans believe in big government the same way Democrats do. The only thing the two parties disagree on is the path to take to get there. Conservatives believe that the national government should be empowered to do only VERY specific things and that all other matters—as much as possible—should be addressed at the local level.

    –Secondly, casting a vote for someone does not mean that you support or agree with everything that person does, says or believes. I voted for Bush twice and I firmly believe that he was an awful president. Part of the frustration (a large part) Conservatives feel is with just this fact: we are tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act because it is a violation of Constitutional rule. Conservatives opposed the creation of the DHS because that bureaucracy is a redundancy of the responsibility of the US Marshals and the US military. Conservatives
    disagreed with Bush’s decision on stem cells. Conservatives disagreed with his invasion of Iraq. Conservatives disagreed with his handling of the War on Terror. But, we come full circle again by saying that his failings do not excuse the fact that Obama is president now and his policies simply take Bush’s failures and multiply them many times over by doing the same things on a grander scale.

    –Finally, the NSA spying, the existence of the DHS and the passing of the
    Patriot Act is not where the debate needs to be framed. Rather, the debate should be framed around the US foreign policy. All of these domestic violations of American liberty are excused and justified by both Republicans and Democrats because the arrogant, weak, politically correct and gutless unwillingness to prosecute any kind of war against the enemies of this nation. We don’t need the Patriot Act. We need a Congress and a President willing to defend the American people and her interests around the world. We don’t need the NSA spying on Americans. We need the consequences of doing harm to this nation to be clear in their definition, complete in their scope,
    decisive in their implementation and remorseless in their aftermath. We need a foreign policy that makes it abundantly clear to our enemies that we do not want to fight. Because we do not want to fight, we will not begin any conflict with any nation. But also, because we do not want to fight, if you do harm to even one American we will bring the full might of the US military to bear on your sorry souls and may whatever god you worship have mercy upon you for we shall have none! If we want peace there are three things that need to
    happen. First, Republicans need to stop declaring war. Libertarians need to be willing to go to war when it comes. And Democrats need to be willing to prosecute a war in such a way as to bring it to the most swift and decisive conclusion possible. We don’t need 3 million fighting troops on 900 bases in 150 nations across the world: THAT IS A WASTE! We need 250,000 fighting troops here at home who can thwart our enemies’ attacks and a massive firepower navy to unleash hell on the homes of those who sought to do us harm. The first nation we scoured to a barren wasteland as a consequence of doing harm to America or American citizens would stand as lasting monument to all other such nations to: Leave. Us. Alone!

    4) What year did the Great Recession begin, and who was president?

    –The simple answer to the question is 2007 under George W. Bush. Of course, what you are really asking is “who do we blame for the Great Recession.” Once again, we must first dispel some myths about economics.

    –For starters, economic recessions are unavoidable and even necessary in any healthy economy. Let’s put that to bed right off the bat. The attitude in America today is that the economy should always be booming and if it slows it must be because somebody in power messed up. This is born of an attitude of selfishness and gross over consumption during times of plenty and is akin to strangling the golden goose to force it to continue to lay golden eggs. For goodness’ sake give the thing a rest and it will get back to laying eggs in a little while! Instead of demanding constant economic prosperity (which is impossible to deliver no matter what politicians promise you) you should be saving your money for when the hard times come. Healthy recessions last on average anywhere from 6 to 18 months after a recession has been declared. Such declarations usually follow 6 months of negative GDP growth so total time of “hardship” can be anything from one to two years usually. Some recessions might extend a little longer while some might just be minor blips on the economic chart: not worth even getting excited
    over. Then there are “unhealthy” recessions or depressions such as the Great Recession and the Great Depression. Unhealthy recessions are the result of poor economic choices by the citizens of the United States such as those that led to the Great Depression (stock speculation and such) or the result of poor fiscal policy by government leaders such as excessive regulation, burdensome taxation, direct fiscal manipulation or social engineering. Unhealthy recessions go on for years and often leave scars on the economy that take many more years to heal. Worse still, what might have been a healthy recession can and often does become an unhealthy recession because it is exacerbated by such poor fiscal policies. It is widely
    accepted, for example, among economists today that the New Deal did
    not end the Great Depression. Rather, the New Deal and its bastard son the Great Society did more to create economic hardship than the Depression or the 1960s recession would have by themselves. The Great Depression was ended by the onset of World War II: war is good for business as long as your business survives. The Great Recession, by the same token was actually started because of similarly bad economic policies and further worsened by more of the same bad decisions. So who is at fault?

    –Next we tackle the nature of US government in economics. This may come as a shock to most people reading this but the President does not set governmental policy. Amazing, right? The office of the President of the United States is addressed as the “Chief Executive” and is defined in Article II of the US Constitution. That’s right, boys and girls: Article…TWO! This understanding would go a long way toward Presidents not embarrassing themselves in front of the American people or on the world stage and save them all a lot of grief. Of course, maybe two presidents in the last 10 had any
    working understanding of American government or the concept of American liberty so that should not surprise anyone. Congress sets the fiscal policy for the nation. Congress sets the foreign policy. Congress sets the domestic policy. Congress sets trade policy. CONGRESS sets policy. The President, as the EXECUTIVE, executes the will of Congress by implementing their policies the way he thinks is best. Under the early Republic, the Speaker of the House was, perhaps, the most powerful single office in the entire country. Why? Because the House of Representatives whose power was closest to the People, holds the greatest single power in politics: the power of the purse. Now that we understand who has the power (or at least the responsibility) in government, let’s reframe this question the way it ought to be: What year did the Great Recession begin and who controlled fiscal policy? Then the answer becomes 2007 and the liberals of the Democratic Party. Uh oh. Suddenly, George W. Bush has plausible deniability. Suddenly, instead of a mastermind economic doom and woe, the worst “Dubbya” can be accused of is being a shill and a coward for not standing up to the Democratic Congress and vetoing their unconstitutional, tyrannical and fiscally unsound bills. This does not excuse George W. Bush from responsibility: he was entrusted with that office to stand up for American liberty and he did nothing, likely because he, too, is no Conservative but some monstrous cross between a floundering, brain dead colonialist and some mutant spawn of PC culture producing liberals who really believe they are conservatives. While this may be true, blame does not rest with the President—of either party: it is not within his power to set government policy. That power—and thus responsibility and blame for the Great Recession—lies with Congress and the liberal policies it produced.

    –Then we address the expertise of Liberals in framing a debate around inconsequential or symptomatic issues rather than the core of the problem. Once again, the Conservative does not argue the Republican vs. Democrat model. That is a false paradigm. The philosophical spectrum runs from far left which encompasses fascists, communists, theocrats, oligarchs, socialists, feudalists and other statists to the far right which are federalists, constitutionalists, confederates and republicans (not the party but rather those who support a republic as a form of government). Where you fall in this
    spectrum has nothing to do with party affiliation. Now, I can make an educated guess about you that if you identify with the Democratic party you are almost certainly at the very least a socialist. And the federalists, constitutionalists and republicans tend to gravitate toward the Republican party. However, that is certainly not the rule. Many of the most prominent Republicans represent nothing of Conservative values and there are a host of “blue collar” democrats who would return fiscal control and responsibility to the private sector where it belongs. Where the debate belongs is on the policies—not the people implementing them. What are the things that lead to unhealthy recession? Excessive taxation. Democrats: check. Burdensome regulation. Democrats: check. Fiscal manipulation: Republicans: check. Social engineering. Democrats and Republicans: check. It seems to me that this recession has been a long time in coming, both parties are equally to blame for it and NEITHER party has done anything to solve it. The recession is not over: there are just fewer people looking for work. The economy has not grown: we’ve just changed how we measure it so the guy in charge looks better. We are not more prosperous or more powerful or safer. Things have only gotten worse because the only difference between George W. Bush and
    Barack H. Obama is that Obama has far more audacity than Bush to seize more power for himself and his allies at a faster rate than Bush was willing to attempt.

    –And finally we discuss Conservative philosophy instead of useless partisan politics whose only real change is the letter after the name of the idiot in charge. So what would Conservatives do? For starters, the Conservative asks the question no one else seems willing to ask: should the government have so much power that it CAN affect the economy enough to wreck it? Let’s start there. Instead of asking “who do we blame” ask “why do we let these stuffy bureaucrats whose resumes couldn’t get them a job as a dog catcher make major financial decisions affecting the entire country?” For
    that matter, the greatest single manipulator of the economy isn’t even an elected official! The chairman of the Federal Reserve is a private citizen in control of a private bank and has no accountability to the American people at all! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!? This unholy union of private banking establishments (which Thomas Jefferson warned us about) and political powers is the entire foundation of the crony capitalism gutting the golden goose that used to be the roaring power of American business. The Conservative seeks the reimplementation the “laizze faire” economics of the
    Founders. Leave. It. Alone. Hands. Off! This is the only time Conservatives actually seek to increase the size of the bureaucracy. We believe the economic bureaucracy should be around 330 million people—each person makes his OWN economic decisions! There should not be a central bank of any kind. Burdensome regulations coming down from the EPA, OSHA and others should be abolished: let those things be managed on a state level so mismanagement may be seen, measured. documented and corrected. The tax code should be simple and should apply equally to ALL citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, social class, economic situation, marital status, family size, clothing style or favorite song! Why do we need to ask permission to drill for oil in our own country? Mr. President, you do not own that land! Land within a state’s borders is outside your jurisdiction save when the land is used for interstate or international trade. And land not within a
    state’s borders (oceanic territory, protectorates and territories) are held in trust of all American citizens. Stop caving to your radical special interest enviro-nazis and green terrorists and do what is best for the prosperity and security of your country! In addition to these unconstitutional and disastrous policies begun and supported by both Republicans and Democrats and anathema to American liberty, we have an overt violation of the Constitution used as an excuse to do these things. Does anyone remember the phrase “too big to fail”? They might have said “I dub thee: Too Big to Fail” while tapping them on the shoulder with a sword but that would have been a little over the top. The Constitution forbids the granting of noble titles: special legal treatment for someone based upon their lineage or acts of valor. Why am I not “too big to fail”? Because I’m not a Fortune 500 company? What horse crap is this? I didn’t get a bailout. Nobody came rushing to my aid when the fecal matter made contact with the oscillating rotary air management device. But then, I didn’t buy myself a politician either. I don’t have Obama in my
    back pocket so I guess I can just go to hell, right? The Conservative opposed all three bailouts. Yes, there were three and many people seem to forget that. The first bailout came in early 2006 with a Keynesian-style “tax stimulus check” delivered all around the country. This was meant to kick start the slowing economy and it worked: for one quarter. Then, when the money dried up, the economy began to slow again. Keep strangling that goose…in October 2007 came the first really big one: “Bush’s Bailout” or the $650
    billion dollar stimulus. Keep in mind, both those bailouts failed to get the economy started again, primarily because poor fiscal policies had already destined the economy for recession. Postponing the recession only makes its eventual arrival worse. Three months after the second bailout and its colossal failure comes our messiah: Barack Obama defeats fellow liberal and gutless rat John McCain to become Bush’s replacement in the White House. Running on “Hope and Change” Obama and the wave of Democrats that rode in with him…did exactly what Bush had already done. Twice. Over $800 billion were heaped atop the $650 billion and who knows how many billions of the first bailout and what happened? Nothing. That’s right. Nothing. We still have record low labor participation. Our credit rating dropped. Our GDP
    has been stagnant. Our middle class slipped to 2nd place in terms of prosperity. But boy those nobles, uh–I mean CEOs who bought themselves a noble title–are sure living high on the hog, aren’t they? Oh, but its the Conservatives who are the ones supporting the “fat cats.” No. Its the elitists who are supporting the rest of the elitists and the people deceived into thinking the Republicans and Democrats are any different from each other are just useful serfs helping to shield the lords of the manor from what they deserve: dissolution at best and trial and execution at worst. The role of government is two-fold: protect citizens from foreign attack and protect the rights of citizens within their own borders. That’s it. The role of government is not to prop up failures nor is it the role of government to manipulate the economy nor is it the role of government to offer protected status to some obscure animal in order to keep us from accessing our own resources:
    “protected status” being another title of nobility, by the way.The Conservative says: “You made poor economic choices. The market says you fail so you fail. Sorry, sucker.” Oh but I hear it now: “what about all those poor people who’ll lose their jobs?” Refer to my first point: economic recessions are inevitable. People should be saving their money for those kind of disasters and in a society of free, enterprising, hard working and generous people, no recession will be unbearable nor is it likely to last very long. The Conservative believes in you, the People, and your ability and responsibility to make sound economic choices for yourself. This question is a non-starter.

  • John William

    5) Can you name a Republican president since President Eisenhower who’s actually balanced the budget?

    –Let us start, once again, with the inaccuracies of this question. First, Eisenhower did not balance the budget. Congress did. Gasp! And it was Republicans who did that! We’ve covered this already, so we’ll move on. Secondly, the factors affecting a nation’s budget are far more than simple tax-and-spend economics. For example, one of the primary reasons Congress was able to balance the budget with Eisenhower was the post-war economic boom following WWII. By a similar token, the last time Congress (and we will credit Congress from here on out with the budget since that is their power and responsibility) was able to balance the budget was under the
    Republican-led Congress in the 1990s. Now, there is, naturally, some debate as to how they were able to do it. Was it the entitlement reform touted by most Republicans or was it the huge (largest ever by percentage) tax increase at the hands of Bill Clinton? Just as a point of trivia, folks: Clinton defeated Bush One in large part because Bush raised taxes. Ironic, huh? Not surprisingly, the Conservative believes a little of both and yet neither. The largest contributing factor to the balanced budget in the 90s was the prosperity of that decade. You probably are not going to get many people off of welfare if there are no jobs (hence why Obama’s economic policies can be measured as failures: we have record number of people receiving government assistance) and so entitlement reform is a no-go. Also, tax increases don’t really do much if no one has any money to begin with. You must have a prosperous economy in order to continue to spend and yet balance your budget. During recessions and economic downturns, in order to keep it balanced you must slash spending. So the question, then, becomes: what led to the prosperity of the 90s. Well, liberals don’t like this question because it leads them, inevitably to discuss the 1980s. For our purposes, we will actually go back a bit further to the 1930s. The 1930s saw the greatest single decade of government growth in American history and it did not revive the economy. In fact, the economic inequalities have actually increased exponentially and fewer and fewer people are members of the middle class. The economic boom that followed WWII pushed the US into prosperity that lasted into the 1960s when Johnson (credited with balancing the budget even though it was…wait for it…the Republican Party who controlled Congress’ power to budget) was president. Being fair, it was that same Republican Party that raised taxes under Johnson leading to the early 1970s recession:
    taking money out of the economy slows the economy’s ability to produce wealth. Whether you are a Keynesian or an Adam Smith Capitalist, that fact remains indubitable. The rest of the 1970s saw further mismanaging of the economy under Jimmy Carter and the liberal Congress, a disastrous foreign policy and an even worse energy policy. So from the early 1960s to 1980, there was uninterrupted liberal policy (once again “Republican” does not mean conservative: conservatives don’t raise taxes save in an emergency
    and we certainly don’t raise taxes to pay for socialist programs such as the failed Great Society). Then 1980 rolls around and even liberals who, proverbially, know next to nothing about American history know who came to power in the 1980s: Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is important primarily because he is one of the few presidents in American history, those elite examples of leadership excellence, whose person transcended the office which he occupied. What do I mean by that? Ronald Reagan is one of those few people who can accurately be said to be responsible for the policies of his government. Not because he had the direct power but rather because his leadership skills were so great and his character so impeccable that even his
    political opponents would not dare defy him. George Washington would be another example of this kind of leadership: a man that could have been king but whose integrity would not be thus compromised and instead he had to be begged simply to be President because he didn’t want the job. Our politicians could learn somethings about humility, leadership and sacrifice from that man! Moving on, under Reagan’s leadership, the Democrat-led Congress implemented for the first time in five decades, institutionalized reversals of the growth of government power not because Democrats believed in anything Reagan stood for but because they were good politicians and understood the political consequences of opposing someone like Reagan. That same Congress for the first time in five decades cut taxes, increased
    domestic investment in the military and US economic interests. These
    policies can be measurably traced to the three primary factors in the prosperity of the 1990s. First: the end of the Cold War. Bill Clinton himself attributed credit and praise to Reagan for what he called the “peace dividend.” Without a pressing need to maintain a massive military presence, funding could safely be cut from defense budgets. Second: the reduction of taxes and regulations during the 1980s allowed the American people to invest their money where they thought best. Since each individual is best empowered to make economic choices affecting his own life, this led inexorably to the expansion of the economy and an increase in overall wealth for the nation. Following this same cause, Three: We have all heard of the “tech boom” the explosion of the industry of technologies and applied sciences that was the hallmark of American economic power in the 1990s. Well, where did all this tech come from? That’s right, folks, private investment made possible by tax cuts and deregulation. Follow that with Reagan’s own government investment in technology and the unparalleled marvels of innovation that a free society was able to produce brought the bankrupt Soviet Union to its knees, left the United States as the sole Superpower and launched the US into the Information Age marked by wonders of science bettering life for everyone. This grand prosperity was the reason Republicans could reform entitlement programs without political backlash and why Clinton could raise taxes and have them do something measurable besides just gut that golden goose again.

    –All this being said, “allow” and “contribute” and “made possible” are
    simply words thrown around by political hacks more concerned with
    protecting their power than doing what is right for their people. Balancing the budget is, ultimately, a choice. Conservatives believe we as a nation should CHOOSE to live within our means but no one wants to give up their share of the government freebies and so Conservatives rarely get elected to office and even when they do, they are marginalized and attacked as “radicals” so their policies never get implemented. Are Democrats going to vote for someone who will slash entitlement spending? No. Because they benefit from it. Are Republicans going to vote for someone who will slash military spending? No. Because they benefit from it. Thus, Conservatives don’t get elected because we piss off everybody. It is time to make a choice, America. Either we choose to live within our means, making the hard cuts to the budget and taking responsibility for our own well-being. Or we choose to continue to drag our economy down with wasteful spending, useless layabouts producing nothing but consuming everything and an imperial military serving no other purpose than a saber to rattle when some pissant dictator gets uppity.

    –So how would a Conservative balance the budget? The Conservative wants to balance the budget by stopping tax subsidies to corporations. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by closing down the wasteful military presence all over the world. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by drastically reducing the size of the American military to what is necessary to defend herself and her global interests. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by ending the war on drugs or at least prosecute
    it proactively by destroying the drugs at their source. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by streamlining the bureaucracy, destroying overlapping agencies such as the FBI and the US Marshals or the CIA, DHS and US military. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by ending all monetary aid to foreign nations. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by ending the government’s role in the postal service (the reason this power was given to the government to begin with was that the only means of long distance communication in the 1700s was a horse and rider and the
    government wanted to make sure that such communication would always
    be protected by the US government directly as a matter of national security. Today, we have plenty of means of long distance communication so a federally mandated postal service is outdated and unnecessary.) The Conservative wants to balance the budget by gradually ending programs such as Social Security (which accounts for nearly 1/3 of the US budget) Medicare/caid, Welfare, Food Stamps and agricultural subsidies. Only in America do politicians declare we must subsidize the farming industry to keep food prices high enough for farmers to make a profit and then say in the same breath with a straight face that we must give money away in the form of food stamps because food is so expensive. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by implementing trade policies that favor American businesses and make it possible for American manufacturing to get rolling again. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by not borrowing money from people who hate us in order to buy oil from people who hate us
    so that we can instead loan money to people who hate us who need to buy natural gas from people who hate us who in turn buy merchandise from people who hate us. In case you missed it, the money flow looks like this China>USA>Middle East>Ukraine>Russia>China. Lose/lose for us. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by ending our involvement in the United Nations. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by simplifying the tax code so that EVERYONE pays the same percentage in taxes be that by a flat tax, tariffs or consumption tax. You are a citizen? Then you pay ___% in taxes. Period. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by ending federal involvement in things it ought not be involved in such as
    public education, train subsidies, health care, environmental protection etc. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by ending pork spending and instituting a Constitutional amendment (one of few that Conservatives actually support) requiring that all bills be restricted to the address of a single topic: one bill one subject. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by enforcing the rule of law and free enterprise thus encouraging a vibrant business culture and attracting young and energetic new businesses. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by rediscovering the Classical Liberal principle of “freedom of contract” and so would repeal labor laws
    and lift the restrictions stifling competition in the market place such as Affirmative Action, the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week and others. The Conservative wants to balance the budget by reinstating the federalist model: let the states adopt or discard the discontinued federal programs as they see fit so that all may see demonstrated before their very eyes which ideas work and which ideas do not. The Conservative wants to balance the budget, simply, by empowering individuals to care for your own lives and to form communities that share your values.

    –How many of you began reading that list and were appalled by my suggestions? How many of you began reading that list and thought “Right on, brother!”? How many of you changed what you thought of the list part way through? That is why conservative policies don’t get implemented. Because we all want what we can get for ourselves. This is, in existential form,
    the reason for the Constitution in the first place: to keep any one group (majority or minority) from ruling over the others. Or, in the words of the Preamble itself: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union [a united people not a series of special interest groups or racial identities vying for control of the same political space], establish Justice [not social engineering], insure domestic Tranquility [peace among all Americans;
    your right to form local communities that reflect your values], provide for the common defense [the mandate for the military], promote the general Welfare [make life better for ALL Americans not just the ones who vote a certain way or the one who contribute to your campaign], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    6) When was the last month the United States posted a negative number for private job creation? How many months ago was that, and who’s been president ever since?

    –The simple answer, again, is December 2009 and Barack Obama has been president. We have addressed this already but, as a quick reminder, the President does not set fiscal policy or economic direction. Job creation only
    started back into positive numbers in 2010 (laughably when Republicans retook the House). However, since this raises another interesting question, we will address the subject of job creation.

    –First, “job creation” is not the measure of a strong economy. No employer thinks to himself “Well, our business needs to do better so lets hire some people.” No, the business has to be doing well BEFORE any job is created. Like the business, “job creation” in the economy is a SYMPTOM of a strong economy but it is not the measure of it. There are seven distinct measurements of a strong, wealthy economy. They are: 1) Growth of the gross domestic roduct: a measurement of all goods and services produced by the native population; 2) Size of the middle class: a strong economy has
    a large (well over 60% of the total population) middle class with significant liquid income to spend on luxury items; 3) Low government spending: the government cannot account for GDP or spending because that is merely the dollars of the citizens being recycled—no new wealth is created by that; 4) High labor participation (not simple “job creation”): no economy will post appreciable wealth creation in a society that is based on slave labor or government dependency; 5) Mastery of its environment especially in the case of the agricultural sector: the mark of any civilization begins by dominating its environment to tap its natural resources. In the case of a modern civilization, it must produce enough food to feed its population at affordable prices by utilizing a minimum percentage of its population; 6) Emphasis on three major industries—manufacturing, finance and technology and a distance from agriculture, service, tourism and raw materials. 7) Inverse import/export ratios—an economy must export more than it imports or at least break about even.

    –Under this proper understanding of a strong economy, lets analyze Mr. Obama again. 1) In the past six years, the Obama presidency has posted an anemic average .8% GDP growth. Compare to the 2.7% average GDP growth under Bush. The first quarter of this year posted even worse at .1%–practically stagnant. If that were not bad enough, inflation continues to hound American families because of the three stimuli and corrupt manipulation by the Federal Reserve. While the report was that there has been nearly no inflation for five years, those reports do not count food or energy: the two sectors of the economy most important to continued growth and the two sectors of the economy always worst hit by inflation. Worst of all for our liberal friends is that nearly all of that “growth” was made possible only by massive government spending which we said above doesn’t count because that is an economic “bubble” or artificial prosperity that cannot continue without continued manipulation. 2) Under the Obama presidency the size and fluidity of the middle class has decreased dramatically. The general prosperity of the US middle class actually slipped to 2nd place on
    the world stage and it is becoming harder and harder for Americans to
    reach middle class status. 3) A healthy economy grows without prompts
    by a government entity. Much like a “healthy” car goes down the
    road without having to get out and push it. In the traditional model
    (that model that made the US the world’s banker) the economy supplies
    the government with needed resources. In the warped model of the
    modern liberal movement, the government supplies the economy with
    needed resources. Not only is this bass ackwards, it is fundamentally
    unsustainable. Eventually, debts must be repaid and the money will
    have to stop flowing. If the economy cannot stand on its own by then,
    the US will fall. 4) We have not had a lower labor participation
    rate in the last three decades. On top of this, we have never had as
    many people drawing from the general coffers for their day to day
    “needs.” Even on the oh-so-vaunted socialist model praised by
    liberals everywhere, it is obvious this is a problem. Socialism
    depends on EVERYONE contributing something to the pot. When half the
    population is contributing nothing and that same half is drawing from
    it, you create a model that can only end in disaster. Remember: each
    person not working is wealth (goods and services) not being created and
    each person on the government dole is wealth (more goods and
    services) being consumed so that wealth (those goods and services)
    are harder to come by for everyone. 5) Obviously under liberal
    leadership, we never master our environment because the environment
    is more important than the well-being of families or the security of
    our nation and her freedoms (what little there are left). Because of
    things like this, food prices continue to go up, energy prices
    continue to soar (with the money being sent overseas fueling radical
    jihadists instead of staying here and funding US business) businesses
    lose money or go overseas taking jobs for Americans with them.
    Liberals refuse to master even the political “environment” by
    refusing to enforce border security and the integrity of the US as a
    sovereign entity. If there are ten million people unemployed and looking for
    work but there are 12 million people here who oughtn’t be, it doesn’t
    take a superb mathematician to know that we could kill two birds with
    one stone by fixing that little inequity. 6) Why do we favor certain
    industries over others? Our favor does not mean that we think
    agriculture should be ignored. You can have great factories but
    they’ll all be empty without farmers because we’d all starve. What we
    mean by “favoring” an industry is that more money flows and more
    reliably from manufacturing, finance and technology. When the
    industrial revolution began in England, she started in textiles (clothing). Let us remember, England was able to do this because she had mastered her food supply already so people were free to pursue more lucrative forms of employment. As England became unimaginably (for the time) wealthy, England’s focus shifted from textiles to other forms of manufacturing. Eventually, England didn’t make clothes at all: she made machines that made clothes and sold the machines to emerging economies (like the United States). Contrary to what many Republicans and Libertarians think, it is not a threat to our national security to buy clothes from China…as long as we’re
    selling satellite components back to them. Established industrialized
    nations specialize in the leading edge of technology and that is what
    they produce. Mass produced clothing is 18th century
    technology and I would hope that we have moved beyond that.
    Unfortunately, manufacturing has plummeted in the United States
    because liberals insist on regulating factories out of business. Even
    “American made” products are rarely actually produced in America.
    Most American car industries actually have their cars constructed in
    other nations and shipped to America by components. They are “made
    in America” only because they are assembled here. Controlling
    manufacturing, finance and technology are not only the means to
    exorbitant wealth they are also fundamentally necessary to national
    security but that is a topic for another time.

    –Now that we have seen that Obama’s job performance is
    actually abysmal, we will also go into the unemployment “rate.”
    Sheer number of jobs created is no indicator at all of how the
    economy is doing. After such a deep and sharp recession, a recovery
    should be marked by exploding GDP growth (4-5%) and massive job
    creation to accompany it. Instead, we have pretty much just stalled
    in the water much like the socialism implemented after the Great
    Depression. A “laizze faire” economic system would have seen both
    the Great Depression and the Great Recession plummet far further than
    we saw. “Laizze faire” would probably have allowed 40-50%
    unemployment during the Great Depression and 15-30% during the Great
    Recession. The simple-minded would declare: “See that is proof we
    need government protection!” However, the well-informed would know
    that “laizze faire” would also have resulted in those economic
    hard times lasting between the estimated 1-2 year time frame and
    would have been ended with massive (or in the case of Obama’s
    “recovery” at least observable) growth. After something like the
    Great Depression, the economy would have come roaring back after
    about two years with or without WWII. Instead, it dragged on for
    almost a decade and ended only because of the manufacturing boom
    following the war. The modern parallel of the Great Recession started
    by liberal policies has only been exacerbate by more and is still
    dragging out. Even though these things are so, most people don’t even
    realize it because the methodology of measuring a political regime’s
    economic success is instituted by the regime in power. Economics is a
    science folks. You can tweak how you measure “unemployment” all
    you want but the definition of “unemployed” is someone who is
    capable of working but isn’t actually working. At that SCIENTIFIC
    fact, the US unemployment rate is 50% or higher. When you take
    politics out of the equation—when we as a culture are more
    concerned with finding the TRUTH about what works and what doesn’t
    instead of coloring things to favor our power base—we find that the
    Great Depression was actually only the first Great Depression because
    we’re in the middle of another one right now.

    –Finally, this question is posted on a logical fallacy: that
    government creates (or should create) jobs. Government does not
    create. It destroys. It takes. It consumes. Government does not
    create anything. Just as Liberty comes not from government but from
    self-government, so too do jobs come not from government but by
    government getting out of the way, thus leaving an environment where
    business and, by extension, jobs can flourish. Even if there were a
    model of government program whereby it actually created something
    instead of taking it from someone else, we are left with the question
    of “Do we want a government that has so much power it can create or
    destroy livelihoods at will?” This is the objection Conservatives
    had toward DOMA. It was not so much that we disagreed with their
    definition of what marriage is. Rather, we disagreed with the spirit
    of the law entirely: we do not want a government so powerful that it
    can define and redefine major societal institutions by simple
    majority vote. That is WAY too much power because the opposite
    majority can suddenly decide that my marriage is now illegal. A
    Conservative defends the rights of people—even those he disagrees
    with—because we value FREEDOM. “Liberty is not a means to a
    higher political end [such as wealth]; it is, in itself, the highest
    end of all.”–Lord Acton. Freedom will produce wealth and power and
    prestige and security. It has produced these things in the very
    existence of the United States of America. It stands to reason then
    that taking that freedom away as we have now done will serve not to
    create more wealth but to squander that wealth we already have.

  • John William

    7) If Republicans in Congress were responsible for the balanced
    budget under President Clinton, why did that same
    Republican-controlled Congress return the country to massive deficits
    the very first year when a Republican (George W. Bush) moved beck
    into the White House? Shouldn’t a Republican president have
    created an even larger budget surplus, instead of ruining it?

    –I am glad that this question was asked since I addressed this
    very topic in an earlier point. This is a VERY good question and one
    of the few on this list not jaded by political ideology. There are
    explanations for the loss of the surplus but the point you are trying
    to make, I actually agree with. It is the height of irresponsibility
    for a president (Congress actually, as we have already discussed) to
    enter into government with a surplus and squander it to the point
    where we are running an average of $154,339,000,000 per year in the
    red! So what contributed to this debacle?

    –For starters, the tech boom is over. Most of the newer technologies generated by the contributions of the Reagan years are now common enough that they no longer have the same economic effect. Let’s face it: we are all used to having the doors open automatically when we enter a Walmart today. Thank you, Mr. Reagan. This loss of productivity, naturally leads to
    a loss of government revenue. Combine this with the fact that taxes
    were still high (are still high) and the boom actually reverses trend
    to threatening recession. Now, as we discussed before, you cannot
    simply continue to tax an economy in recession. Any economist,
    regardless of political ideology, will tell you that heavy taxes will
    push the economy into further recession or even depression if you do
    that. In 1999, the economy was showing signs of slowing so, when Bush
    came to office, he and his fellow Republicans in Congress
    collaborated to lower the tax rate for Americans. Now, before we
    start hollering about “tax cuts for the wealthy” or “trickle
    down economics” lets stop and take a breath. Lets try to be logical
    about this and just think for a moment. I will cover “trickle down
    economics” in a moment but the “tax cuts for the wealthy” line
    is such an emotional reaction not based in any kind of logical or
    rational thought. A tax cut for only a wealthy person would mean that
    only the wealthy people would be paying less in taxes. Since that was
    not the case, this objection is dead on its face. Everyone’s taxes
    were recalculated to a lower rate to reflect the slowing economy.
    Now, this does not always and should not always totally avert
    recession. As we said before, recessions are unavoidable and even
    necessary. “Saving money for a rainy day” is a more apt statement
    than we sometimes think. Rain is unavoidable and even necessary even
    though we may not enjoy it. Simply put, this objection is based
    solely in class envy and I will not accept any kind of guilt or blame
    placed upon anyone by someone who indulges in such a base and
    destructive emotion as envy. The wealthy received a greater reduction
    in taxes, this is true. Let’s talk about that.

    –A common over-simplification of the US tax code is the ten guys going to the bar analogy. For those of you who have never heard it, it goes
    something like this. Ten guys decide to go out to a bar together and
    decide that the break down of their collective bill of $100 will be
    paid like the tax system here in America. Were that to happen, the
    first four men would pay nothing, the fifth would pay $1, the sixth
    would pay $3, the seventh would pay $7, the eighth would pay $12, the
    ninth would pay $18 and the tenth would pay $59. Even though all ten
    men had the same access to the same drinks, the same waitress, the
    same environment, the same company: the richest guy pays the most
    because he has more money. Now, again, that is way over-simplified.
    In America, Ten would actually just hire a lawyer or buy himself a
    politician to get his $59 hoisted off onto men Five through Nine
    while the first four men would clamber about how unfair this system
    is and demand that the others all have a $2 tax applied to their
    respective bills that would then revert to the first four men for
    nothing more than their fine company. All this money floating around
    would cause massive confusion and inflation causing the bartender to
    raise his prices meaning that the Five and Six now can’t afford their
    bills and can’t come anymore making the burden even harder on Seven,
    Eight and Nine. Five and Six remember how much they liked being able
    to go to the bar and form a militia to defend what beer they have at
    home while One, Two, Three and Four, because they are deadbeat
    losers, camp out in front of the “greedy” bar that dares to charge its patrons. Seven blames Nine while Nine blames Seven. Eight blames both and all three call Five and Six “radicals” and “racists.” Meanwhile, Ten buys the bar, slashes the waitress’ compensation and begins serving crappy foreign beer while increasing prices yet again. Finally, Six steps forward and suggests that everyone should pay for their own bills so the other nine drag him
    into the alley and beat him to death. Folks, the reason why the
    wealthy received a bigger portion of the tax reduction is because
    they pay the greatest burden in taxes. Now, it is easy, I know, to
    pass off the wealthy because what “burden” do they really feel,
    right? Its hard to feel sorry for someone who takes a vacation
    anywhere in the world any time he wants on his private yacht. But
    that is not the point. The point is that if the government can
    unfairly tax one sector of the population at a higher rate than the
    rest of the population, what is to stop them from taxing you in such
    a way? Just give them an excuse and they will. This is a matter of
    principle. America was founded on the idea of “equality under the
    law.” The law shouldn’t care that one person has more money than
    someone else. Taxes apply to all. If you call the police, the police
    do not check to see how much you paid in taxes and respond with less
    enthusiasm if you happen to be poor. You get the same—or SHOULD get
    the same—police response as any wealthy person. You drive the same
    roads. You have access to the same rights. The American way is that
    the law treats you the same regardless of your economic condition.
    The argument that that is not what we see in reality is hardly an
    argument though it is certainly true in many cases. At no point in
    her history has America ever been completely true to her values. We
    have set an ideal: equality under the law and we strive toward that
    ideal. We stumble. We fall. We fail. But we grow. When we stop
    growing toward greater liberty and justice, we have betrayed the very
    foundational heritage of our culture. The fact that selfish,
    unthinking, corrupt people make it so the wealthy practically get off
    for crimes that would send any of the rest of us to jail is hardly
    justification to be selfish, unthinking, corrupt people ourselves
    when deciding the tax rate. Oh, and in case you missed the parallels:
    Men 1-4 are the low-info OWS people; 5 is the low-info but morally
    sound citizen; 6 is the high info Conservative; 7 is the low-info
    self-absorbed Democrat, 8 is the low info but still-thinking
    Libertarian; 9 is the low-info, bitter Republican; and 10 is the high
    info but totally corrupt politicians and their purchasers.

    –As a quick note but one I feel deserves its own bullet: it is a
    distinctly liberal idea to tax people at differing rates in the first
    place. Liberals aren’t mad because the system is “unfair”–its ALWAYS
    unfair: they designed it that way. Liberals are mad, like every other child, because it wasn’t unfair in their favor. This entire argument is a non-starter with a Conservative because the Conservative doesn’t argue about who should be favored with tax benefits and who should be saddled with “paying
    their fair share.” To a Conservative, the fact that you are a citizen means you should be paying taxes at the same rate as everyone else. Why? Because that is your fair share.

    –Now, I promised to address the concept of “trickle down economics.” There are three things to remember about “trickle down economics” before we
    address with they ostensibly failed under Bush. The first thing to
    remember is that “trickle down economics” works…sort of. Reagan
    proved that it works. Even the socialistic Keynsian model of “priming
    the economic pump” operates on a similar philosophy: money in the
    system allows the economy to grow. What makes “trickle down”
    different is who the money is given to. “Trickle down” gives
    money, yes, to people who already have money. Why is this okay?
    Because those who have money in a recession still have money: and that proves they can handle money. If you give money away to people who have no concept of how to handle money, are they going to make smart
    investments? No. Simply, no. Now, the populists will like to point
    out what seems to be a bit of hypocrisy on that note: “I thought
    Conservatives believe in people.” We do. We believe in the ability,
    the right and the responsibility of people to make their own
    financial decisions: be they good or bad. The Conservative fully
    expects many people to fail. These people stand as lessons of “what
    not to do.” The Conservative also fully expects many people to
    succeed. These people stand as lessons of “what should be done.”
    As we learn, more and more people will become successful, more and
    more wealth will be created and life will be better for all: even the
    failures. This is the free market capitalism that formed the
    wealthiest nation on the planet and you can’t knock results. Also
    characteristic of the ’80s Reaganomics, “trickle down” gives the
    money to people who are in the best position to create more wealth
    with it. No poor person ever hired an employee. Only business owners
    do that. It doesn’t make sense to give the money to masses of people
    who are just going to blow it because then the money is gone,
    trickling up into the hands of people liberals claim don’t deserve
    it. So the wealthy are going to end up with that money regardless: a
    wealthy person has the skills necessary to attract wealth–that is
    why he his wealthy. “Trickle down” simply starts the chain there
    for faster, more efficient results. Finally, “trickle down” works
    within the system created by liberals to begin with. As I already
    said above, it is not the conservative model to decide who gets taxed
    and who doesn’t. That is a liberal thought so don’t get angry with
    the Republicans who are simply using the rules you saddled them with.
    Within the distinctly unfair and completely unjust system of
    progressive taxation, “trickle down” sprinkles a bit of justice
    on the heaping pile of unjust liberal garbage that is the class
    warfare of the Left by giving back the money taken from the wealthy
    in taxes. The second thing to remember about “trickle down” is
    that it does not work in a vacuum. Reagan did not simply cut taxes.
    He also deregulated the economy and enforced the rule of law. Smart
    business owners are not going to start or expand their businesses
    when they have no idea what the rules are going to be in the market
    place or even if those rules are going to be enforced for everyone.
    This is the primary reason that Bush’s version of “trickle down”
    didn’t work as well. Liberals raised hell about the “deregulation”
    under Bush but it was penny ante compared to Reagan and nothing of
    what the economy needed. When you bring into the economic equation
    disastrous things like the North American Free Trade Agreement with a
    nation like Mexico just across the border you had better freaking
    deregulate here at home! With American businesses trying to compete
    with places like China, you had better deregulate on a massive scale!
    The only other option is to pass protective tariffs but those don’t
    help the economy: they hurt it because it is a TAX and takes money
    away from consumers. Bush’s deregulation was pathetic and didn’t even
    reduce it back to levels from the 1970s so its no wonder the economy
    still busted. “Trickle down” economics works just fine when
    coupled with an environment that encourages business investment. In a
    business environment that makes it so difficult to turn a profit,
    entrepreneurs are simply going to say “Thanks for the check. I
    think I’ll take a vacation.” The final thing to remember about
    “trickle down” is the hypocrisy of its critics. What in the world
    were the bailouts if not “trickle down” based bribes? The only
    difference was that Obama and his cronies only gave that money to
    their political allies or those they could use to gain more power for
    themselves. By comparison, Obamanomics does the exact opposite of
    everything Reaganomics did. It gives money to people who have
    demonstrably failed to manage it wisely, invests in failed policies
    and ideas, refuses to be clear on the rules of the market and, in
    many cases, won’t enforce the laws that are clear. It is no wonder
    that the wealthy, who have been doing just fine in this recession,
    and the would-be entrepreneurs are sitting on their money. They are
    waiting for an environment that will give them confidence that their
    investment will return a profit. With a fickle, bloviating, narcissistic sociopath as a president, I wouldn’t invest my money in this economy either.

    –It should be noted here that Conservative economics is not “trickle down.” We don’t believe in tax benefits or selective tax reductions because corruption follows power and power follows money. With that much money flying around, corruption is inevitable as we have clearly seen. If you are going to reduce taxes, reduce them the same for everyone. Of course, the
    Conservative also thinks everyone should also be paying taxes but
    since no one will implement a policy that will actually solve the problem to everyone’s satisfaction we keep having to talk about nonsensical diatribes of economic stupidity.

    –A further factor in contributing to the Bush deficits was, of course, the war.
    It is true that the war was not paid for out of the general budget. Don’t ask me how Bush got away with that. I don’t know and I would probably puke at the amount of corruption it would take to go to war, spend tax payer money for it and yet not budget it into the federal receipts. Wow. Anyway, that did not stop the war money from being calculated into the national deficit however. Let’s pretend that militant orthodox Muslims didn’t attack us on September 11th, 2001. How much has the United States spent, on average, every year
    for the War on Terror? Well, the total cost of the war (which continued under Obama and the Democrats, by the way so they are equally at fault here) in 2010 was around $550 billion dollars. Since the War on Terror also has a domestic front (for some reason I don’t understand) we will add the $360 billion dollars the DHS spent from 2002 to 2011 on top of that figure. What we are left with is a war that has cost the American taxpayers somewhere in the vicinity of $900 billion. Since this is 2014 and not 2011 and because I like
    round numbers, let’s call it a cool $1 trillion for the sake of discussion and just to make things simple and please our low-info readers (if they’re still reading) we’ll say that all of it was spent by Bush. $1 trillion dollars in an eight year presidency spent to fight a war. Wait. That almost accounts for the average $154 billion dollars per year in Bush deficits! So was it Bush’s fault that the
    surplus vanished or was it Clinton’s fault since he had the opportunity to have Osama bin Laden delivered to us back in the 90s but he didn’t think removing a genocidal psychopath who had already tried to blow up the World Trade Center twice didn’t need to be removed from this world? Perhaps we should blame Muhammad since it is his model of militant conversion the jihadists are following when they slaughter thousands of innocent people. Had this attack not taken place, we would not have gone to war (unless the Republicans
    had found some other excuse to bully pathetic tent-dwelling losers
    10,000 miles away which is certainly possible) and thus the budget
    would have been balanced. Right? In addition to that mess, remember
    that Conservatives are non-interventionists or “isolationists” as our critics like to label us. The Conservative called for bin Laden’s head like everyone else and indeed it was the responsibility of the US government to hunt him down like a dog and put a bullet (hopefully recently dipped in pig’s blood) in his head. Kudos to Obama for being able to at least correctly make the easiest call in the history of the Office of the President. What do you want? A cookie? What does this have to do with anything? How much of that $1 trillion was spent in “nation building” or propping up Afghanistan and Iraq? People, we
    are at war with these nations. We don’t rebuild them. Ever. We tear
    them up until we get what we’re after an then we go home and they can
    rebuild their own sand dune. For that matter, the Conservative asks
    “why are we at war with these nations to begin with?” I kind of understand Afghanistan…I guess. But Iraq? Why? No, it wasn’t oil. I have a theory that is a far darker view of Bush than even his Democratic critics but I won’t address that here. Just think: Mafia-style hit on someone who “insulted the Family” and you have more of Bush’s motivations than simple oil. We have already briefly mentioned Conservative foreign policy. How much cheaper do you think it would be to simply announce to the world: “the US is no longer
    going to police your behavior. Kill each other at will. Kill one of
    our people and we will monkey stomp you into the dirt.” And then,
    pull our troops home, put them on the border and around strategically
    important locations to thwart terrorism (thereby eliminating the need
    for the DHS saving almost $4 billion a year) and prime them to
    respond to enemy threats. The next time an orthodox jihadist knocks
    one of our buildings down, we put a dozen cruise missiles into the
    Kaaba in Mecca with this message: “Your religion has crossed the
    line again. Reign in your followers or Medina is next.” You want to
    talk cheap? The average price of a Tomahawk Cruise missile is ½ a
    million dollars. Six million dollar “war” and how much do you
    want to bet that the Saudi’s will have bin Laden gift wrapped for us
    if he does it again? And that should apply to every civilization. We
    don’t need to prop up Israel. Let the Israelis and the Palestinians
    kill each other if they want to. Israel is far closer to our values
    as a culture and it would be better for US national interests for
    Israel to win such a conflict but let Israel decide its own fate.
    Quit neutering then abandoning nations like the Ukraine. Let the
    Ukrainians and the Russians kill each other. Russia has every right
    to decide that the Crimean Peninsula is necessary for their national
    defense. And the Ukrainians have every right to deliver their
    disagreement from the point of a gun. We are friends with all
    nations: allies of none. Once again, the Conservative doesn’t want to
    fight but mess with us and we will wreck your entire civilization so
    your grand kids will still be picking up pieces of debris.

    –Finally, the answer to your question: why did the Republicans return us to massive deficits? Once again, I cannot stress enough how WONDERFUL this question is and thank you again for asking it! Republicans are not conservatives. Republicans can choose to balance the budget and they can choose to unbalance it and both credit and blame belong to them. Of course, as a Democrat, don’t you now play the hypocrite by demonizing Republicans for their paltry (by comparison) $154 billion when Obama has run 4, 5 and 6 times that number or more every year he has been in office. The fact of the
    matter is that both of them are wrong; only the scale of their
    mistake is different. Conservatism is a philosophy and is thus a
    metaphysical phenomenon: an ideal that transcends physical entities
    such as politicians or political organizations. People either adhere
    to the principles of American Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and
    the Judeo-Christian Ethic or they don’t. The problem is not with
    Conservatism as a philosophy but with Republicans who betray their
    principles for political expediency.

    –And of course, Conservative response was predictable. Conservatives (not Republicans) made noise when the deficit was 2.7% of GDP under Bush. That’s too much. We made three times as much noise when it became 8.9% under Obama. More deficit = more noise. Simple. A stove fire is a problem and warrants immediate and decisive action. But that action is the level of a fire extinguisher not an 11 alarm fire department response. What we have now is a situation in which we are fast approaching 11 alarm urgency.

  • John William

    8) If all forms of socialism are so terrible, why do tens of millions of Republicans salute our military while enjoying their Medicare and Social Security benefits?

    –Another GREAT question and one that I have had with I-can’t-even-count how many Republicans. Let’s break down your question piece by piece.

    –First, the military. I’m not sure exactly how the “military” constitutes “socialism.” Socialism is not a government just as Capitalism is not a government. These are systems of economics. Republics can be socialists. Monarchies can be socialists. Democracies tend to always be socialists but don’t necessarily have to be. Socialism/Capitalism represent views on how
    wealth should be handled in an economic system. The “military” to
    which you refer is one of the two principle responsibilities of any
    government: protection of its citizens. I believe this point to be born of the thought that “because Conservatives oppose government doing something we oppose that thing being done at all” or “because Conservatives oppose government doing certain things we oppose government doing anything.” This is, once again, a knee-jerk reaction and emotional response to people with whom you disagree. The Conservative believes in our military, even if we despise our government, because they stand in the gap between us and those who would do us harm if they could. This is a necessary function of
    government and one, I am proud to say, our government has historically done very well. If you are referring to the “military-industrial complex,” that is “socialism” or rather socialism’s fellow tyrant “fascism” and yes: that is a bad thing. Once again, to any Libertarians reading, Conservatives do not support
    the massive imperial military WWII and the Cold War left us with. I
    point out again the 900 bases in 150 countries and ask again: why?
    What do we care if the Koreans want to kill each other? We’ll just do
    business elsewhere. What do we care if the Indians and the Pakistanis
    want to kill each other. As long as militant Muslims and militant
    Hindus are killing each other, they are not killing Jews, Buddhists
    and Christians as has been their historical trend. America’s military
    strategy should be the maintenance of a few key colonies (or
    territories if you prefer that more politically correct term) to serve as central hubs of military operation. Our business is global so our military needs to be as well. Based at these hubs are fleets of highly mobile, incredibly advanced warships capable to unleashing hell upon any enemy within a few hours or offering support to any American or American “ally.” Our army should be a small, mobile highly elite force reserved only to repel invasion or when combating an enemy that requires a more…personal touch.

    –Secondly, the Medicare and Social Security. I would like to, for starters, point out that what Conservatives said was going to happen when these programs were first implemented has actually come to pass. We will refer to these things collectively as “entitlements” because welfare, food stamps, WIC and others are also “enjoyed” by republicans. The entitlement culture stems way back to even before FDR. During the Great Depression, FDR took that culture and pulled “a borg” with it: freaking assimilated our entire culture with a touch! Conservatives who opposed these measures objected on the
    grounds that they would be used in later generations as political
    weapons to influence elections. Those Conservatives were scoffed at
    as “paranoid.” I’ll let modern history reflect my smug smile at being proven correct. Entitlements really, are little more than bribes: vote for me and I will give you someone else’s money. So why do Republicans—and even genuine Conservatives—sometimes take advantage of these programs. Is that hypocritical?

    –Social Security (like many well-intentioned government initiatives) started
    out as a small, voluntary program. Today, it is simply a tax on the young to support the old. Simple wealth-redistribution as the Conservative knew it would become. So why do elderly Conservatives and Republicans take advantage of this? Well, for starters, Social Security was not supposed to be “someone else’s” money. Its supposed to be MY money and the government was just holding onto it for me against my will. Usually we call that stealing but it must be okay because the government did it. Why anyone thought an organization of glorified lawyers would be honest with that money is beyond my comprehension. “Social Security is my money” and “the check is in the mail.” Right. Secondly, liberal policies have created an economic and societal system in which many people who would not rely on the government for anything, have no choice. They can’t get a decent paying job because PC culture says a person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot and may not be employed. They tax corporations but corporations don’t pay taxes: they pass those increased costs onto the consumer making the cost of living rise beyond what many people can afford. This is all by design, of course. Get as many people dependent on the government as possible so that elections are won and lost by that fact alone. We also have the societal concept of “none of my business” when it comes to helping people. 200 years ago no one had fire insurance for their house. If their house burned down, the community came together to help that person rebuild their house. Thank you to the Judeo-Christian Ethic for the charity and brotherhood you imparted on our civilization. Today the attitude is “I don’t have to help that person. He should
    have had insurance” (which is just privatized socialism, by the way) or “I don’t have to help that poor person. He should just get a government subsidy.” Many people who would rather get the help they need from the people they know can’t because the people they know have no liquid income either: it is taxed away to pay for the bloated welfare state. That does not make these people hypocrites. It actually makes these people right all along and is why they continuously vote against it. Conservatives saw this coming. The
    Founders saw this coming when they gave us the Constitution to begin with!

    –Since you bring up socialism, let the Conservative tell you why we oppose socialism. 1) Socialism is based on a logical fallacy: namely that man requires no incentive to excel. This is nowhere observable in reality. Socialism requires 100% effort from all people in order to be successful but very few if any people will give 100% effort unless they are going to receive
    something for it. Very few people are going to strive for mastery if
    they are going to get the same reward as those who do only the bare
    minimum. It is the simple nature of mankind: man wants as much as he
    can get with the least amount of effort. It would be wonderful if this were not so but it is. Capitalism, by contrast, acknowledges this fact, accepts it as truth and incorporates that feeling of self-interest into its philosophy. In Capitalism (properly instituted) one acquires success by offering a good or service for which others are willing to pay. In other words, you serve your self-interest by serving the interest of others. 2) Socialism is a failure. It has failed everywhere it has been implemented and it is tiresome to have to address this again. Democratic Athens had a socialist model and it failed. Ancient Rome adopted a socialist model and it failed. The colony of Jamestown implemented socialism and it failed. Feudal Europe communalized the means of production and it failed. Nazis Germany was a socialist economy and it failed (in fact, by 1943 New York State was out-producing the entire Axis alliance). Communist Russia (communism being simply militant socialism) centralized their economy and it failed. The wealth-redistribution
    philosophy was tried in China and it failed. (China’s economy is
    growing today primarily because it is implementing elements of free
    market capitalism.) It failed. It failed. It failed. Now, the
    objection from many socialists is that “socialism was never
    correctly implemented in these examples which is why it failed.” Of
    course, that leads me to question what makes you think it will be
    correctly implemented this time? However, since correct
    implementation is important and one of the explanations for the
    “failure” of Conservative policies in recent years, I will allow
    that this might be true. This is why the United States is a FEDERAL
    Constitutional Republic. If you think you have a model of socialism
    that will be successful, go try it at the state and local level. No reasonable person with any desire for rational discourse of ideas will discount your theory if you can show some intellectual honesty and respect for others in your presentation of that theory. Instead of throwing a tantrum in order to force it down our throats before it is ready, perfect it and then offer it in a calm, deliberate fashion using your models as an example of success. When your model of socialism is applied at state and local levels and has prolonged and repeated success, we might consider trying it at a national level. Of course, the models of socialism in this country consist of places like Detroit so you haven’t found a working one yet. Keep trying. 3) Socialism is unconstitutional. There are many things both Republicans and Democrats do that are unconstitutional and the Conservative true to his principles opposes them all: hence the reason I opposed DOMA even though I am not in favor of gay marriage. The constitution does give the government the power to tax. What it does not grant the government the power to do is to give that money away without receiving some sort of remuneration for it. Once again, the
    Conservative wants a LIMITED government. How do we complain in
    government that we have millions of miles of roads that require money
    to be repaired while 47 million people are sitting on their ever-widening posteriors getting free checks from the government? Put those people to work! You have bridges that need to be fixed? Time to earn that welfare check, buddy. You have fires in California that need to be fought? Here’s a hose, pal, and there’s the fire. Get to it. If these people need help, put them to work and make them at least earn it. Of course, most of those things should be handled on the state level anyway. And that, really, is the beauty of federalism. Many people don’t realize that they can have their
    policies implemented pretty much wherever they want. New York can
    outlaw guns: within their borders. Texas can outlaw gay marriage:
    within their borders. Do you see how a federal constitutional system
    “promotes domestic tranquility.” Most of the things we fight
    over, we wouldn’t need to fight over. Liberals stay in liberal areas
    and make it just a liberal as you want. Conservatives stay in
    conservative areas and the sky is the limit for you. And when the
    contrast becomes so obvious, so sharp, so severe of the abject
    superiority of one philosophy over another, there will be no more
    debate. If socialism is so wonderful, prove it. Put in place, make it
    work, repeat that success and you might get our support. We could
    amend the Constitution to say something like: “Congress shall have
    the power to levy a ‘redistribution’ tax for the purposes of funding
    domestic economic programs according to the ______ model.” We will
    do it right, follow all the steps and get it ratified because
    everyone can see how wonderful this program is working. Of course, I
    can say all that fully confident that socialism will never be able to
    deliver on the point of success so let’s move on. 4) Lastly,
    socialism is immoral. Yes, immoral. How is it charitable to hold a
    gun to someone’s head and force him to give money to a group of
    people who (having no use for it themselves since they’re already
    rich) then divvy it up according to who they think deserve it…after
    they each take their own cut, of course? Furthermore, how is it
    greedy to want to keep what I have worked for but it is not greedy
    for someone else to demand what they have not worked for? This is the
    height of tyranny, abuse and greed: nothing more. Once again, the
    Conservative believes that each individual should be empowered to
    make his own decisions in life. He should be allowed to succeed and
    enjoy the benefits of his own successes. He should also be allowed to
    fail and learn the much-needed lessons that come with failure. And
    the Conservative believes the individual is capable of doing both and
    to become a better person because of it. The simple fact of the
    matter is that there will always be poor people and there will always
    be rich people. Even if all the world’s wealth were put into one big
    pot and every person got an amount exactly equal to everyone else, it
    would not take long for inequity to rise again. Why? Because some
    people are simply better at attracting wealth than others. Some are
    skilled thieves. Thieves we vote for are called politicians. Some are
    apt businessmen. Some are convincing con artists. Others are
    industrious workers. Some people are just plain lucky. Some people
    are lazy. Others just uneducated. Some are foolish while still more
    are wasteful. And if there are the lucky, there must also be the
    unlucky. What socialism does is destroy the middle class: the people
    who are not super successful but not total failures either. We make
    financial mistakes—we sometimes get completely ripped off—but our
    general trend is one of at least mild success. When socialism takes
    away our right and responsibility to succeed or fail based upon our
    decisions, we forget which decisions need to be made and how to make
    them meaning that more people are far more likely to fail. Socialism
    does succeed in making most people equal: equally miserable.

  • John William

    9) Since abstinence isn’t a realistic way to prevent unplanned
    pregnancies (the leading cause of abortion), wouldn’t it make more
    sense for the party that’s against abortion to support contraceptives instead of opposing them? Won’t the lack of contraceptives only lead to more abortions, the very thing your party opposes?

    –You give me two questions that are absolute gems and then you go and ruin the ride with this abomination. Yeesh! Okay, here goes.

    –Your dialectic thought looks like this: Abstinence is unrealistic as a form of contraceptive. Sexual activity produces a possible need for contraceptives. Therefore we should have access to alternative contraceptives. When you start with a false thesis, whatever antithesis you have will not help you come to the correct synthesis. Why is abstinence unrealistic? Because people have
    to make better decisions or suffer the consequences of self-indulgence? Abstinence was a perfectly realistic expectation 200 years ago. It was a perfectly reasonable expectation for about 2,000 years of Western history. Why not now? Are people stupid today? Are people incapable of making good decisions? In fact, in most successful cultures throughout history abstinence was practiced as the primary means of contraceptive but somehow since just since the 1950s or so people have lost their ability to keep their legs crossed. Weird because both I and my wife were virgins when we married. We must have super powers or something. Super powers like
    common sense, responsibility, involved parents and self-respect.
    Look! On the street! Its a freak. No, its weirdo. No its: Mature
    People! Da duh-DUH! Furthermore,
    your antithesis proves that you do, in fact, have the requisite
    knowledge necessary to make an informed choice: “Sexual activity
    produces a possible need for contraceptives.” And this is
    confusing? Are we going to advocate the execution of bartenders if
    someone drives home drunk and kills somebody? Worse, are we going to
    execute a perfectly law-abiding person if the drunk driver hits them
    and the drunk ends up paralyzed? The parallel is there: all three
    situations involve someone participating in a perfectly legal
    activity (sex/drinking), making a poor choice and ending up with drastically
    negative consequences as a result of their choice. And in all three
    situations, an innocent person with no connection to the choice is
    the one forced to suffer the consequences of that choice. You don’t
    want a baby? Keep your legs crossed. You don’t want to get drunk?
    Don’t imbibe alcohol. You don’t want to get wet? Come in out of the
    rain. Since most people today don’t have enough sense to come in out
    of the rain (to borrow an old mom’s adage) it doesn’t surprise that
    they also don’t have enough sense to not get drunk or not get
    pregnant.

    –Unplanned pregnancies as the leading cause of abortion is like saying that the leading cause of death is life. C’mon. Let’s have a little intellectual honesty here. The cause of abortion is self-indulgence: “I—I—want to have sex” and “I—I—don’t want to have a baby.” That is not the “leading
    cause” that is THE cause. A person who is not ready to have children, should not have sex. I did not say they MAY not have sex: I said they SHOULD not have sex. Perhaps you disagree with my opinion. You are entitled to do so. However, if you choose to indulge in sexual activity and you do so with the knowledge that it could potentially lead to pregnancy, then you have calculated that the risk of pregnancy is either minimal or an acceptable (if not desired) potential outcome. If the former, and you get pregnant, you obviously judged wrong and you don’t get to kill your child because of your
    mistake. If the latter, then life may get tight for you because you were unprepared. You have nine months to get prepared or find a surrogate parent because that child is here and you are now a mom.

    –“Oh but what about rape and incest? I didn’t choose to have sex in those instances.” For starters, those account for less than 5% of abortions so hardly justification for the other 95%. But still, the “self-indulgence” accusation is questioned by this exception so I’ll answer it. How about the rapist’s self-indulgence? “I want to have sex with that woman and I’m going to whether she likes it or not.” Sounds like self-indulgence to me. That, of course, is followed by “I don’t want a baby because I don’t want to be
    reminded of what happened to me.” Notice again the emphasis on the
    self. Never mind that child’s life has just been ended because you
    “couldn’t handle it.” Never mind that a unique human being never
    to be duplicated in the whole of time has just be casually snuffed
    out because of a horny dog that should be shot and a woman who
    believes, by her own admission, that she is too weak to grow beyond
    her traumatic experience (which hundreds of women, strong and
    dignified have done) and be the mother that child needs. No, the
    horrors perpetrated on her justify perpetrating worse horrors on
    another human being so we can all move on. Makes perfect sense in
    nation of sociopaths. And while that is a matter of “choice,”
    allowing lawful, mature people to own and carry the firearms that
    could have prevented that rape is “irresponsible” or allowing the
    open teaching of Judeo-Christian values which protect, value and
    honor the status of woman as a position of respect, dignity and
    strength worthy of her equal partner in man is “theocratic” and
    outdated. Yes, “choice” and the “woman”–that is what we are
    trying to protect by removing those things which could have prevented
    the rape to begin with.

    –Another dialectic fail follows the first: Contraceptives prevent pregnancies. Conservatives oppose contraceptives. Therefore Conservatives support unplanned pregnancies. C’mon! Really!? This time you at least go your thesis right but you follow it up with a factually untrue statement.
    Conservatives do not oppose contraceptives. My wife takes a pill that
    suppresses the hormones necessary to allow for conception. There is
    nothing violating any moral code, Biblical precept or Conservative
    principle by taking command of your own body. In fact, quite the
    opposite. Married couples have a responsibility to engage in sexual
    intercourse for the pleasure of their partner and have a
    responsibility to care for children as best as possible which may
    mean preventing pregnancies we are not ready for. In addition, the
    Bible commands that we should “subdue and have dominion over the
    earth” including our own bodies and Conservatives believe that a
    person should make sound decisions regarding themselves and their
    family. What conservatives oppose are contraceptives which kill the
    unborn child because that is just abortion in pill form. Furthermore,
    Conservatives object to being forced to pay for someone else’s
    contraceptives. You support choice: so exercise good judgment and
    make the right choice. Kicking a woman nine months pregnant in the
    stomach and causing her to fall down a flight of stairs will probably
    terminate a pregnancy too but Conservatives don’t support that
    either. And if you want to take the same pill my wife takes and get
    yourself knocked up by every pair of gonads you walk by, go for it. I
    disagree with you. I think you should have more respect for yourself
    than that. I think you should be willing to present a pure vessel to
    the person you eventually marry and I will appeal to you
    intellectually to convince you of my position. However, I defend your
    right to discount my position if you choose. But after you decide
    your course, don’t come back to me and demand that I pay for the
    pills that allow you to live a lifestyle I disagree with. What the in
    all of God’s green goodness is that intellectual fail? Pay for your
    own “whoring tic tacs.” Why should I have to pay for the items
    you need to live your life? Am I to pay for the gas you use to get to
    the top of that hill where you plan to fornicate yourself? Am I going
    to pay for the medical treatment for your STDs too? I suppose under
    Obamacare, the answer to that question is yes, at least until you are
    no longer necessary to maintain the power of your overseers at which
    point they will simply allow you to die. And I am supposed to feel
    bad for you when you choose this loose life and end up being one of
    those 5% of abortion participants because you were raped after
    dressing like a skank, going to a club with the intention or at least
    complete willingness of picking up someone to have sex with, getting
    ripped out of your head and leaving the building with the wrong kind
    of person? Forgive me if my sympathy is negligible.

    –Of all the questions on this list, this one is the only one that is complete
    crap in its very conception. Once again, the Conservative is for individual freedom. However, with that freedom comes individual responsibility and if you are not willing to accept the responsibility of your actions then you have no ground on which to argue the right to continue those actions. Your rights stop when the violate the rights of someone else: be that the Conservative who refuses to pay for your contraceptives or the unborn child who did
    nothing worthy of death—indeed has done nothing at all but dare to
    live in the first place.

    10) Do you enjoy weekends off? Paid vacation? Benefits? Holidays off? Safe working conditions? Overtime? Workers compensation? Sick leave? Then why do you oppose unions? They’re the reason why we have all of those things.

    –I actually laughed out loud at this one not in disrespect but at the irony—sheer literary parallelism unplanned but beautiful nonetheless. Once again liberal misinformation rears its ugly head. Since this exercise has been fun but extremely extensive, we’ll try to keep this short by addressing each topic individually.

    –Weekends off: This is only superficially the result of unions and this was the
    one that made me laugh. It is a bit of poetry that this point should
    be raised at the very end of these questions because it actually ties
    itself beautifully into the first question you asked. Why do we have
    WEEKENDS off instead of…oh, I don’t know…Monday and Thursday? Why
    Saturday? Why Sunday? A fact commonly lost in history books today and
    completely foreign to most places in the country is that towns used
    to all-but-close on Sunday. There were no businesses even open on
    Sundays because NOBODY did business on that day. The idea that unions
    got us Sundays off is simple cognitive disconnection. People in
    America didn’t work on Sunday (according to the Constitution even the
    President of the United States doesn’t work on Sunday [Article II
    Section 7]) Why? Because….wait. For. It! …THE UNITED STATES IS A
    CHRISTIAN NATION!!!! We have a winner and I laughed and laughed about
    this! Why Sunday? Because people went to church on Sunday. The
    sanctification of Sunday is, as I just said, institutionalized in the
    Constitution of the United States. So why Saturday and not Monday?
    I’m laughing again. What is significant about Saturday? Saturday is
    the Sabbath day or the “day of rest” set aside by God Himself for
    your relaxation and enjoyment. Why is that important!? Because the
    United States is a JUDEO-Christian nation! This is hysterical! The
    domination of Christian culture (Christianity being the completed
    form of Judaism) in the United States is firmly imprinted on even the
    most taken-for-granted aspects of our society.

    –Paid vacation: Answering your question simply: no, I don’t
    support paid vacations. I enjoy them as anyone enjoys getting paid
    without having to work for it but I don’t support it. I believe that
    I should be paid for my work and if my employer chooses to allow me
    some paid time off, he will earn my loyalty, respect and appreciation
    but I will not selfishly demand paid time off. If I want time off, I
    will save my money so that I have the funds to take time off or I
    will enter into a contract involving a set yearly salary regardless
    of total time worked but I will enter into that agreement with my
    employer personally.

    –Benefits: Benefits are similar enough to paid vacation that they
    could be addressed the same but you separated them so I shall as
    well. “Paid vacation” is a benefit like collective insurance
    policies provided by your employer. But to answer your question
    again: no. I would rather have that money given to me in cash so I
    can spend it on what I want to spend it on. I don’t support insurance
    companies. As I said earlier, insurance companies are privatized
    socialism. I don’t support government socialism and I won’t support
    private socialism either. I pay for my own health care and if
    everyone had that attitude, hospitals and doctors would be scrambling
    for ways to lower costs to attract new customers. Instead, we have
    this socialized form of medicine (which will not be even worse with
    Obamacare) that guarantees payment regardless of the quality of
    service or the price-tag attached and overshadows the patient-doctor
    decision making process. As I said, I would rather my employer, take
    all the money he would spend on benefits and divide it up evenly
    among all his employees as a cash bonus and let me decide what to do
    with my share.

    –Holidays off: This is another one that made me laugh. I’m sure
    you can guess why. This actually has a funny story. I worked for a
    trucking company for a brief time during which I worked along side an
    avowed Atheist. I had nothing against the man and even though I am a
    devout Christian, we got along just fine (proof that two completely
    opposing beliefs can coexist among peaceful and mature people). The
    first year I was there, the holiday schedule came out and the
    Atheist, who was far ahead of me in seniority was granted
    Thanksgiving and Christmas off while I, the Christian, was scheduled
    to work. I am a supporter of the seniority system as one of the means
    by which to make these kind of decisions and since the Atheist was
    also a solid worker and likeable enough I believed that this was not
    an unsound decision on its face so I made no objection. Making
    conversation with the office manager a couple of days after the
    schedule’s announcement, he, knowing I am a Christian, asked if I had
    any reservations to which I responded simply that my faith does not
    require that I observe specific days only that I put forth every
    effort to get along with those around me. So, actually, I would be
    doing my God a disservice by being argumentative about something He
    does not require of me. However, I added with a chuckle of honest
    amusement, I find it ironic that the Atheist who claims not to
    believe in God should be given two RELIGIOUS holidays off while the
    Christian is asked to work. I think the hypocrisy speaks for itself.
    Hey, liberals, what about “separation of church and state”? Why
    would we, by law, institute days in which employers are mandated to
    pay double the wage or grant paid time off for distinctly religious
    observances? Why? BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION! Now wait! Before we get too carried away, neither Christianity nor
    Conservatism requires holy day observances (Judaism does but we don’t
    have time for the lengthy reasons for that). In fact, I actually
    believe that employers and employees should make those decisions
    themselves and I believe that Christianity is better represented by a
    society that allows people the freedom to choose those days for
    themselves. Why force an Atheist to give time off to Christian
    employees so they can give thanks to a God the Atheist doesn’t
    believe in? For goodness’ sake! Where are the Republicans screaming
    “violation of conscience” like they are with Obamacare’s
    contraceptive mandate? Where are the Democrats chanting “separation
    of church and state” on that one? You know what? As a point of
    culture, I think we have a responsibility to set aside days of
    remembrance on our calendars: Christmas, Thanksgiving and
    Resurrection Sunday (Easter, if you prefer) as tributes to our
    Judeo-Christian heritage. But I don’t think someone should be forced
    to observe them if he doesn’t want to. I believe days of historical
    significance like Independence Day and Memorial Day should be marked
    as days of reflection but I don’t think that how someone marks those
    days should be dictated to them by law. In fact, I firmly believe
    that requiring by law special remuneration on Christian holy days
    (holidays, in case you missed the etymology) simply because nominally
    Christian people are in power is a real, legitimate violation of the
    first amendment.

    –Safe working conditions: Yes, I enjoy safe working conditions
    and, yes, thank you to unions for partnering with one another to make
    work places safer. As you will see below, the Conservative doesn’t
    actually have anything against unions as a matter or principle.
    Rather we object to what unions are being used to accomplish. Like, a
    bureaucrat who has never done my job and living 1000 miles away from
    my home town deciding what “safe working conditions” are in my
    place of employment. I have a problem with that. If I think something
    is unsafe, I will refuse to do it. If I think something is safe, I
    will do it regardless of whether safety protocols say otherwise. Why?
    Because I am a free-thinking individual and am capable of making my
    own choices and assuming the responsibility of my actions. If my
    employer habitually asks his employees to perform unsafe acts or work
    in unsafe working conditions, why am I and the other employees unable
    to address the problems ourselves? Because that would encourage
    individual initiative, leadership and responsibility and when we have
    that we can’t centralize power, can we? A union is just that—a
    joint, cooperative effort of a group of individuals. While in most
    cases I believe the “union” is an outmoded cultural phenomenon
    just trying to keep from gasping its last, I believe that local
    unions of concerned individuals wanting to improve their communities
    and ways of life were a positive force. Nationalizing them…not so
    much.

    –Overtime: Another union phenomenon I enjoy and yet disagree
    with. Or, rather, I should say I would enjoy it if I ever got to
    experience it. However, since employers are not stupid, they simply
    insist that workers leave work exactly at 40 hours so they don’t have
    to pay out overtime pay. It is quintessential to me that liberals
    should miss the foreshadowing of what is going to happen with
    Obamacare once the employer mandate is finally implemented. Overtime
    did not force employers to start paying 50% more money for time
    worked over 40 hours. It simply made them stop requiring their
    employees to work more than 40 hours. By the same token, Obamacare is
    not going to force employers to purchase healthcare for employees
    working more than 32 hours. It is simply going to make them stop
    requiring their employees to work more than 32 hours. What is wrong
    with this is not simply that it fails to meet its stated objective or
    that it actually backfires by lowering productivity and earned wages.
    Rather, it is, once again, a violation of the traditional liberties
    common to the Anglo-American heritage. “Freedom of Contract” is a
    principle of Classical Liberalism (as opposed to modern liberalism
    which is actually nothing like classical liberalism) and is the
    philosophy of the Founders. Freedom of Contract means that
    individuals should have the right to enter into any legal contract
    that want to with any other free citizen. This is the underlying
    principle behind the Conservative’s defense of gay “rights” and
    yet our opposition to gay “marriage.” We support your right to
    “unify” by legal means granting all the same legal rights the
    spouse of a heterosexual would have. That is the Conservative’s LEGAL
    stance and that is an independent philosophy of his moral stance
    which may or may not find the gay’s lifestyle acceptable. Along the
    same lines, why am I not allowed to work for my employer for 50 or 60
    hours a week at base pay if that is what I choose? Because that is
    what I would choose if I were allowed. “Allowed.” Does anyone
    else see the problem with that word? Free people do not ask for
    permission from their rulers to enter into a contract. We do it and
    the rulers enforce the contract once it is sealed. Does anyone see
    how this country is anything but free? I am not ALLOWED to get a job
    unless I piss in a cup first and then I have to work only on days I’m
    ALLOWED and only at the minimum pay I’m ALLOWED to make but never
    work more hours than I’m ALLOWED and so on and so on. This is
    tedious. Let me decide for myself what compensation I want in
    exchange for my labor. And if my employer doesn’t want to meet my
    requests, then I’ll look elsewhere. And if you are asking for more
    than I am…well…I guess I’ll get the job and you won’t, huh?

    –Worker’s Compensation: Worker’s Comp is much the same as paid
    vacation: why should you be paid for not working? That being said, if
    you are doing a dangerous job such as construction, police officer,
    fireman—high risk employment—I do not think you would be untoward
    in asking for EMPLOYER FUNDED worker’s compensation. However, we
    again establish this as an individual contract: not a government
    mandate. If you are unwilling to perform a dangerous occupation
    unless you are guaranteed some safety net if the worst should happen,
    you are not a coward: you are wise man. Any employer in such a field
    should be more-than-willing to provide such a safety net. And if he
    is not, then you don’t want to work for him anyway, right? I hope
    not…

    –Sick Leave: I will simply say: see above. Reasonable, mature and
    understanding people can work this kind of stuff out for themselves
    (or form localized groups like unions) and do not need a politician
    to arbitrate everything in our lives. Grow up, people.

    –Being against unions: Republicans are against unions because
    unions give power to Democrats; not because of any kind of principle.
    If unions historically supported Republicans, then Democrats would be
    against unions. Conservatives are not against unions: we are against
    unions forcing on the whole of society the institutionalization of
    what they think American business should be. If you think your
    employer isn’t living up to his end of the employer-employee
    contract, I firmly support your right and the wisdom to unionize if
    you choose in order to get him to comply. I also support that
    employer’s right to fire all of you and retrain an entire new
    workforce. I also support a person’s right to go to work for someone
    and not be forced into a union if he chooses to disassociate himself
    from it. How can I support all these conflicting viewpoints? They’re
    not conflicting: I support the liberty of the individual. I support
    “freedom of contract”–the ability and right to enter into legal
    agreements with another person. I support “freedom of
    association”–the ability and right to vocalize your identification
    or antagonism regarding a group, organization or movement without
    legal repercussions. I support “private property”–the ability
    and right of the individual to make decisions with respect to those
    things which he owns without government interference. Conservatism is
    about the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of
    people. That’s it in a nutshell.

    ***Well, I hope that helps to clear up some things for anyone who
    bothered to read it all. Many of you are saying “Boy, I’m glad
    conservatives are a tiny minority in this country because those
    people are nuts!” but I hope most of you are at least saying “I’ve
    never thought of it that way before.” To my fellow Conservatives, I
    hope something in this helps give you new information and reasonable
    dialogue to use as you champion the cause. And don’t give up: some
    people out there are listening. To all you liberals out there who
    held out to the end without going “Ooh! Look! A butterfly!” or
    having a conniption and killing someone in blind rage, you deserve a
    treat so here it is: Bush was an idiot. That’s all for me and
    remember: the primary difference between a Conservative and a Liberal
    is that the Liberal says “If we don’t control you, who knows what
    you would do?” while the Conservative says “If you would only
    just stop controlling us, who knows what we could do?”