Newsletter subscribe

Features, Politics, Top Stories

The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives

utopia, paradise, nowhere
Posted: September 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm   /   by
“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the (sic) particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the (sic) do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: They believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Fantasyland vs. Reality
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.


The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

mob, wicker man, effigy, mob mentality

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”

― Russell Kirk


Featured image source: Wikipedia
License: Public Domain

Image source: Wikimedia Commons
License: Public Domain

Christopher Cook

Christopher Cook

Managing Editor at Western Free Press
Christopher Cook is a writer, editor, and political commentator. He is the president of Castleraine, Inc., a consulting firm providing a diverse array of services to corporate, public policy, and not-for-profit clients.

Ardently devoted to the cause of human freedom, he has worked at the confluence of politics, activism, and public policy for more than a decade. He co-wrote a ten-part series of video shorts on economics, and has film credits as a researcher on 11 political documentaries, including Citizens United's notorious film on Hillary Clinton that became the subject of a landmark Supreme Court decision. He is the founder of several activist endeavors, including (now a part of Western Free Press) and He is currently the managing editor of and principal contributor to
Christopher Cook


  1. rrowe1961 says:

    EXCELLENT Chris !

    1. Thank you, rrowe1961. It comes up so often, and I felt as though I needed to make a definitive statement on the subject. Please share it as far and wide as you can. I’d like people in our movement to use this as ammunition whenever they need it!

  2. DanKettles says:

    Excellent.. Will share.

    1. DanKettles Thank you, Dan!

  3. HumbertaPirinho says:

    Here are two organizations that are fronts for the Republican party.
    If you donate money to them, then it is considered charity by the IRS. Contributions to those two front organizations are tax deductible.
    Is this an example of ‘helping the poor’ as Jesus commands of his followers?

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      HumbertaPirinho I would reply first that your assertion is simply incorrect.  Neither the American Enterprise Institute, nor are “fronts” for the Republican Party.  Second, I fail to see what relationship there is between IRS rules for deductibility, and helping the poor.  The mandate of the IRS is to generate revenue for the federal government, not administer or regulate “helping the poor.”  There are a number of basic expense categories which the IRS considers “deductible” which have nothing to do with charity.
      Third, in study after study, it has been shown conservatives, both religious and secular, are much more generous when donating to charities than leftists are.

      1. HumbertaPirinho says:

        GregoryConterio HumbertaPirinho Yes, Conservatives give to charity to a variety of org’s that are fronts for the Republican party; like I had already stated.

        1. tjtmcbride says:

          HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio
          While I respect everyone’s right to contribute to whatever causes they feel called to support, and consider the IRS position on them totally arbitrary, the organizations my conservative friends and family support are hardly limited to think tanks. Likewise, I’m confident that left wing think tanks (or are they feel tanks?) exist and are supported by plenty of folks who imagine they are acting charitably. Personally, I support (with money or time) St. Jude’s, the shriner’s hospitals, the local foodbank, two pregnancy resource centers, a local science and history museum, a homeless shelter, the USO, one life charity and my church.  I’ve had to call a stop to editing this list because I keep thinking of more things I should add. Please note that I’m not under the misimpression that my tax dollars are a charitable donation.

          1. tjtmcbride HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio St. Judes and crisis pregnancy centers are on our list as well. 
            Americans as individuals are usually #1 in the world in giving. Imagine if the government even left just a fraction of the trillions they extract from the private economy each year. All TRUE charitable needs would be met with no coercion.

        2. Annie says:

          HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio Wrong. Conservatives, rich or poor, give more in time, money, and blood to charities that directly help others. Go look up Arthur C. Brooks studies. He is an admitted liberal and was rather surprised at what he found. He identifies the forces behind US charity – traditional strong families, church attendance, ‘earning’ one’s income, and the belief that the best solution to societal troubles comes from individuals, not a bloated, unaccountable,  anonymous government. He found when government backs off – via welfare reform – people give more and do a better job at the local level to help those in their communities.
          But you go ahead and make unproven claims.

          1. @Annie HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio You’re right about all of that except—–as far as I am aware, Brooks is not an “admitted liberal” if by “liberal” you mean on the political left. Unless there was something I missed . . . .

  4. HumbertaPirinho says:

    What kind of godless and immoral people think that giving to a political party is a charitable tax deduction? The Tea Party people, that is who.

    1. GregoryConterio says:

      HumbertaPirinho What kind of Godless, immoral people feel good about themselves by using the power of the state to take wealth from people who have earned it and give it to those who have not?

      1. HumbertaPirinho says:

        GregoryConterio HumbertaPirinho Republicans!!  When the Republican party implemented their ‘Faith Based Initiatives’ in 2001, was that a Marxist, socialist, redistribution of wealth from the American taxpayer to a variety of religious orgs; and was the Republican party’s Faith Based Initiatives an un-Constitutional, tyrannical act?

      2. HumbertaPirinho says:

        GregoryConterio HumbertaPirinho To all the Republicans out there.  Here’s is what I do know about farm subsidies.  It is a Marxian Redistribution of wealth from America’s east and west coasts to America’s heartland with their teat-sucking Republican values.  Agreed?  The three biggest bucolic wealth redistributors were Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan!

  5. rrowe1961 says:

    There’s that funny troll smell AGAIN …

  6. HumbertaPirinho says:

    To all the Republicans out there.  Here’s is what I do know about farm subsidies.  It is a Marxian Redistribution of wealth from America’s east and west coasts to America’s heartland with their teat-sucking Republican values.  Agreed?  The three biggest bucolic wealth redistributors were Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan!

  7. TerryMc says:

    Humberta, are you legal?

  8. AmyBichselWells says:

    Excellent read!

  9. infowarrior says:

    I see conservatives as being self-centered and selfish. They use the main stream media as the window to their world. They put corporate profits before people and our health and freedom. I see them as preferring to use war as a first resort rather than as a last resort. They work to use government to control every aspect of our lives, even what medicines we use and our reproduction. Conservatives demand conformity of thought and groupthink, and it operates on fear and subservience to authority.

  10. Piytar says:

    Your sir are a perfect example of the self-serving delusional left described in the article. Thank you for your insipid comment. You prove each and every point.

  11. Shootist says:

    HumbertaPirinho No. Farm subsidies are purely for buying and keeping votes. The more people are dependent upon the State, the more people will vote for State control. democrats are masters at buying votes.

  12. joelraupe says:

    An remarkable study.

  13. BILL COWAN says:

    This is EXACTLY why CONSERVATIVES must take the senate this November !!!

  14. JustinMannino says:

    @Humberta did you actually just say teat suckling republican values. You are delusional. I guarantee you also believe there should be no borders. Guarantee it! One thing I have noticed also about why these liberals spit so much hatred towards conservatives, it’s mostly older fat dikey looking women. From you’re picture you fit the bill.

  15. mlk12 says:

    infowarrior You are describing yourself.  A liberal who hates everything that has a conservative name on it. You do not even know what a conservative is.  Not surprising since liberals are usually so dumb like you are, that they stand in the crowd that they think will win fir that reason alone because the winner is the one that looks good.  I know I’m correct in that assessment of your pathetic thought pattern.  As far as your explanation of how conservatives will use gov’t to control every aspect of our lives, that you dummy is exactly what democrats do and always have done. Conservative for your information you dummy means to be conservative with government.  Did you understand that or do you need the definition of conservative.  Conserve, conservation, conservationism, conservationist- It means to limit the intrusions of an outside force on something.  Damn you are really dumb.  Everything you think are conservative values are liberal values.  The medicine we use and reproduction line.  The demanding conformity of thought and groupthink, the use of fear and subservience to authority.  All of which are pillars or anchors of liberal agenda.  Liberals use the mainstream media as the voice to spread their vile message of lies.  And you think conservative’s actually put corporate profits as being more important than health and freedom.  That last one, the freedom thing there, damn you are stupid.  I wonder how you have managed to survive being so dumb.  How do you do it?  Is ignorance really bliss like the claim?  To top the entire thing off your handle of infowarrior is the name of a website ran by a guy who exposes the hypocrisy of liberals and conservatives both but mainly it exposes the lies and deceptions being carried out  in the Obama administration.  Damn.  Just wow!  How?  So?  Dumb????????

  16. mlk12 says:

    HumbertaPirinho  Nope.  Wrong answers all of them.  Try Roosevelt in the number one spot.  Ever hear of the new deal?  Or how about his coup de grasse, the confiscation of all the gold privately held in the entire country.  I think that is the epitome of wealth redistribution.  By none other than a democrat who stuffed the supreme court using threats and also diminished its number of justices.  Funny how left wing liberals are just so dumb.

  17. mlk12 infowarrior @Piytar 
    Thank you, gentlemen, for taking on this person’s comment so accurately. As I was reading it, I thought at first that it was a joke—some sort of parody to express agreement with the thrust of the article. But then I realized it is nothing less that a pulsating example of the left’s near-psychotic levels of projection and self-delusion.

  18. mlk12 HumbertaPirinho Republicans have certainly participated in the growth of government. Hoover, for example, was afflicted with many of the terrible progressive ideas that were sweeping through Western civilization at the time. But—contrary to the brilliantly crafted and disseminated lie that the left has been spreading for the last 80 years—FDR didn’t save us from Hoover’s mistakes, he made all the same mistakes, only more and bigger!
    The left is good at creating and marketing colossal lies—you’ve got to give them that.

  19. joelraupe You are a gentleman, sir. Thank you. My goal was to perform a service.

    I wrote this to give us all something to which we could turn for ammunition when we are attacked. Something to serve as a permanent touchstone for answers explaining the hate and bile of the left. Please feel free to spread it far and wide.

  20. AmyBichselWells 
    Thank you. My goal was to give us all something to use as ammunition. Please feel free to spread it!

  21. msamericanpatriot says:

    Yeup that sounds like libtards for sure there. That and having their fingers in their ears saying nah nah nah not listening to ya too.

  22. JessTommassello says:

    mlk12 infowarrior I feel like this every single day.

  23. JessTommassello mlk12 infowarrior Ha!

  24. msamericanpatriot Exactly . . .

    “They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.”

  25. msamericanpatriot says:

    WesternFreePress msamericanpatriot Feminists are the exact same mindset as liberals. You present them with the facts, they too then attack the presenter of the facts and then attack them on appearance and things of that nature. I am a firm believer that feminism and liberalism ARE mental disorders and conservatism and traditional values are healthy and sane.

  26. msamericanpatriot Yeah, you know, there’s only so many times you can deal with someone who claims to have mankind’s best interests at heart and proves it by insulting, oppressing, ruling over, and slaughtering mankind before you have to conclude that that someone does not “mean well.”

  27. tempest_teacup says:

    infowarrior And you know nothing about Conservatives.

  28. tempest_teacup says:

    HumbertaPirinho I contribute to the Republican Jewish Coalition. I can’t say what Jesus’ followers would do. Way to stereotype all conservatives as Bible thumpers though. It shows how much you have bothered to learn about conservatives. Way to be open minded! Not.

  29. tempest_teacup says:

    HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio Hmm. I’d vote for Franklin Roosevelt and Johnson’s Great Society as the great wealth redistributors. Also, don’t forget that Johnson said that the Great Society will “… have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” — Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “”

  30. tempest_teacup says:

    tjtmcbride HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio I’m a die hard pro-life conservative and I donate to my synagogue, Shriners, St Judes, ADL, Chicago Zoological Society, the Museum of Science and Industry, food bank, American Cancer Society, and domestic violence shelter. I also donate household items to an epilepsy charity. The only political group I donate to is the Republican Jewish Coalition. I refuse to give the RNC anything.

  31. mitch7788 says:

    “The principal feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness.
    By loudly denouncing all bad things–war and hunger and date rape–
    liberals testify to their own terrific goodness.  More important,
    they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of
    those who care deeply about such things…  It’s a kind of natural
    aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that
    you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong, or even lucky to join it,
    you just have to be liberal.”  – P. J. O’Rourke

    Liberalism is predicated on two things:
    The denial or ignorance of history, and
    the denial or ignorance of human nature. – J. M. Graves

  32. EvanMaughan says:

    HumbertaPirinho Tu tienes mucho informacion que es malo. Debes ser mas sabio porque hay muchos personas que esta pasando mintiras.

    Most everything you said was way off the mark. All 3 presidents mentioned did have farm subsidies while in office, but what you TOTALLY ignore is that democrats are in the same boat. As a conservative I am against farm subsidies and would love to see ALL government welfare, corporate and individual, go away. Government only uses such programs to buy votes.

  33. EvanMaughan says:

    HumbertaPirinho Soooo, it’s bad when Tea Party folks contribute money (if the IRS lets them) to political causes.  It is EVIL and Godless. What about all other groups Humberta? Are you consistent? Is it okay for Democrats (who booed God at their convention), members of the Humanist Society, pro abortion groups, pro homosexual marriage groups to make a tax free donation? Are these groups good in God’s eye but any conservative group that does such a thing is evil? Well????

    Do you understand the concept of being consistent in your beliefs? Do you understand what hypocrisy means? You seem to have a trend of coming down hard on the right for doing things you say are awful and yet IGNORE the fact that the left, the democrats, do the exact same thing if not more so?

  34. EvanMaughan says:

    HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio So Humberta are you an ultra libertarian who just happens to be ragging on the Republicans today? Do you feel the same about all the democrats programs of wealth redistribution?

    If not, you are an ULTRA hypocrite. To pick at the mote in the Republicans eye (and yes I agree they have some issues I disagree with) while ignoring the beam in the eyes of the democrats shows a huge degree of either willful ignorance or grade AAA hypocrisy.

  35. EvanMaughan says:

    HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio Your repeating yourself. Again, do you feel the same towards the democrats? They do it as well.

  36. EvanMaughan says:

    HumbertaPirinho Great! and I have donated to Heritage, but they, unfortunately, are not a front for the Republican party. I wish the Republican party were that conservative.

    Now do you feel the same about Dem/leftist groups that get the same benefit?

    How do you feel about Obama using the IRS to attack right wing political groups to take away such a benefit or deny it?

    If you are all for Obama going ultra Nixon and using the power of government to attack his political enemies, then why do you hate freedom and the Constitution so much? Wouldn’t moving to a leftist paradise with a well established dictator be more to your liking?

  37. melissacpereira says:

    It’s called projection. All sociopaths do it.

  38. PaulC Shugrue says:

    infowarrior  Externalize much/

  39. RenoBob says:

    An excellent piece! Now wait for the liberal trolls to attack!

  40. I_Am_Me says:

    This is brilliant.

    There is potentially an even more sweeping, lower level narrative to Leftist ideology. Anonymous Conservative wrote a book describing a genetic mutation that makes people with that mutation to have an r-type behavior. In a nutshell, that means an aversion to competition. And that is what their Utopia is. A hive-like collective where no one has any meaningful political differences (Imagine by John Lennon is the canonical example). And like any collective, there needs to be a queen. And that’s where these self-selected “thought leaders” come in.

    And I’d go one step beyond calling them narcissistic. I’d say they are arrogant, nihilistic narcissists. They have a complete lack of epistemic humility, hence their intolerance for divergent viewpoints about the meaning of life. Theirs is the only permissible faith or fantasy.

    All the pieces are there for a pretty damning book against the Left. David Horowitz and others have touched on several of these points already, and you’ve added to this in a most excellent fashion. Much thanks.

  41. EddieWhittington says:

    You had me until you posted that red herring crap about DDT. But then again the best meaning people still fuck up. I am a conservative but poisoning our food supply and our bodies in the sake of saving money or making more money via higher crop yields is stupid. This is real simple, quality should be more important than quantity.

  42. I_Am_Me says:

    EddieWhittington Do you understand the links between DDT bans and malaria deaths?

  43. Jo says:

    I don’t hate Conservatives. Really I don’t. I disagree strongly with them. I live in a country with a conservative government and I’m annoyed about their policies which remove personal responsibility and choice from people and grant more power to mid-level government beaurocrats to control people’s private lives. I’m annoyed that the government is willing to frack under people’s homes and businesses without any permission from the landowners. And I’m annoyed about a billion other things I won’t go into now.

    I am a utopian, but increasingly I’m realising that an ideal society needs conservatives. Diversity of views is incredibly important. For instance, the party I vote for is always going to be against geoengineering, but it will be very important to solving climate change. I need conservatives in the world to push for solutions that my own side won’t support. You need socialists to push for things your side won’t support.

    People are too tribal, I think. We tend to see those we disagree with as mentally ill, defective, stupid, or evil. But maybe we’re just different? In my experience, social groups where everyone is too alike can be fall apart. Having differences of approach and values makes a group more dynamic, effective, and fun. The same is true with a nation.

    An analogy for how I see socialism in society is that society in like a climbing wall. You’re free to go up it, stay where you like, or explore it as you choose to. Socialism is about making sure there’s a safety-net, and maybe handholds along the way. Some conservatives try to take the safety net away, but if you do that some people won’t be able to climb. Meanwhile, some socialists never let people off the safety net to start off with. I have a problem with anyone who tries to limit human freedom and endeavor unduly. That’s not limited to any one political group, in my experience.

  44. I_Am_Me says:

    @Jo What country is this?

  45. @Jo First, please let me thank you for the civil and irenic tone of your comments!
    There’s a lot here, and your comment deserves more of a reply than I will be able to give now, but here are a couple of notes . . .
    Whatever government you’re referring to, it is not conservative to “remove personal responsibility and choice from people and grant more
    power to mid-level government bureaucrats to control people’s private
    lives.” Insofar as any political players who call themselves conservative are doing that or pushing for that, it is a deviation from conservative principles.
    Let’s forget about political parties for a moment and just talk about the limitation of human freedom. Welfare; corporate welfare; special tax statuses for some groups or businesses; government grants, loans, carveouts, and giveaways . . . any transfer payment at all, for whatever reason, must first be taken from someone else, by force, before it can be given to another. That is a profound limitation of human freedom. Note that this is different from everyone being taxed to pay for, say, police or courts, since security and neutral justice are meant to benefit everyone roughly equally. Forced redistribution, ostensibly to achieve some sort of equalization of outcomes, benefits one individual, entity, or cohort at the expense of another. It is literally yoking one person (or entity or cohort) to the economic needs, wants, succor, or upkeep of another. It is a form of bondage. Please tell me how you define freedom. Please explain how this profound limitation of the freedom of some is morally justifiable.
    And again, thank you for your refreshingly productive and irenic tone!

  46. I_Am_Me EddieWhittington Yes, I totally understand your concerns, EddieWhittington, but it does appear from evidence that DDT may be safer than it was believed following the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” Carson, an environmental activist, was dying of cancer and lashed in a number of directions in her book. DDT was one of her victims. A number of sources suggest that DDT is not the villain it was made out to be—that its effects on the environment are minor. And because of DDT bans, millions have died from malaria who could have been saved by its use.
    Environmental questions are tough—we all want a clean world, but there are also tradeoffs that need to be dealt with. Many people now believe that DDT, on balance, would do more good than harm.

  47. I_Am_Me Thank you very much. Please tell me more about the book to which you refer that discusses the r-type behavior. Can you provide a link? Thanks!

  48. Brett Bellmore says:

    4: The worse you are, the more free they are.

    In order to be the ‘good guy’ in a fight,  you only have to be better than the other guy. The worse you believe the other guy to be, the worse you are free to be, and still be better.

    By believing conservatives to be monsters, they free themselves to be monsters, and still feel good about themselves. Because they’re not as bad of monsters.

  49. RenoBob Thanks, Bob—bring ’em on!

  50. melissacpereira Yes, so it would seem!

  51. Brett Bellmore Yeah, pretty much!  This sounds like it might be a corollary to, or a more fleshed-out aspect of, Reason #3. But it does point up another characteristic—elitism. All of these things make the left feel superior. They make them feel like they DESERVE to rule over us. They are the experts, the olympians, the enlightened—we, the children, the rabble, the monsters. Their authority over us is natural and right. Perhaps I should edit the piece . . .

  52. mitch7788 Excellent, yes, thanks!
    Elitism just came up in comments with Brett Bellmore. I think it’s more than just feeling superior—the superior feeling makes them feel entitled to rule us. I like the term “self-selecting” in the O’Rourke quote.

  53. JustinMannino Humberta is a troll, and very likely a paid troll.

  54. @BILL COWAN That would be a good start.

  55. EvanMaughan HumbertaPirinho I doubt she understood your Spanish, as “she” is a troll, very likely a paid troll, and “her” real identity is very much in question.

  56. EvanMaughan HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio  Yes, that is the conclusion we came to. We also, over a few weeks of trying to get more than just robotic Republican-bashing out of her, slowly sussed out that her claim to be a libertarian is just a ruse to gain credibility for her work as a troll . . . which is, again, exclusively to bash Republicans. It has all the hallmarks of a paid trolling operation.

  57. tempest_teacup HumbertaPirinho GregoryConterio They are now, and have always been, the party of racism.

  58. EvanMaughan HumbertaPirinho “I have donated to Heritage, but they, unfortunately, are not a front for
    the Republican party. I wish the Republican party were that
    Same here!

  59. KarenHarkinsLloyd says:

    @Jo I would almost assume that you do not live in a democracy since you combine your rhetoric with conservatives and socialism.  If that is the case, then no wonder you choose not to identify the country in which you live.

  60. KarenHarkinsLloyd I think a fair guess would be the U.K., since Cameron is Tory. Calling the British Conservatives “conservative” in the ideological sense, however, is something of a exaggeration.
    That said, we do appreciate Jo’s civil and pleasant approach, and we are happy to respond in kind.

  61. MikeBaudanza says:

    HumbertaPirinho wrong,that would be your boy obama!go back to cuba!!!!

  62. AngieSharp says:

    Yep. I was told I was losing my empathy and my posts were too negative. Mkay.

  63. MikeBaudanza says:

    HumbertaPirinho what about every damn union in this nation?they are all legal money laundering operations for the d.n.c!!wake up!!!

  64. AngieSharp Told by whom?

  65. MikeBaudanza HumbertaPirinho Thank you for the use of the term “money-laundering.” That is an excellent description. I have used it myself multiple times, such as here:

    It’s an entirely apropos term.

  66. JasonBeckstead says:

    Great article!  Time to take the senate and prevent further degradation of America.

  67. AngieSharp says:

    WesternFreePress AngieSharp By a lefty friend of mine.

  68. I_Am_Me says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me This book is probably going to trouble you greatly. But truth seeking is never pleasant.

  69. I_Am_Me says:

    WesternFreePress Brett Bellmore Your original text is a brilliant foundation for a followup. It’s clean and tight as is.

  70. TerryMastroni says:

    AngieSharp Angie, I’ve been told that more than once by friends. These days I just agree with them – yep, I’m all out of empathy, sympathy.  They don’t quite know what to do with that and I go on my way, laughing.

  71. AngieSharp says:

    TerryMastroni She’s always got the moral high ground. She was very upset that I did not believe in global warming. She recycles but she runs her air conditioning at a very low temperature non-stop.

  72. JasonBeckstead Thank you, sir. Taking the senate would be an excellent start to a very large and important project!

  73. AngieSharp TerryMastroni Yes, thank you both for this addition and confirmation. The left is very good at calling us hateful, even though they project far more vitriolic comments and calumnies at us than they ever receive at our hands.
    And see how they do it—how they preen in front of the mirror? YOU lack empathy, she says. Not like ME. Look at how empathetic and wonderful I am. They make themselves more beautiful (in their own eyes, as they gaze into the mirror) by making you ugly.
    And then, what’s worse, once they have convinced themselves of their beauty, of their righteousness—then, they don’t even need to practice what they preach by setting the thermostat at 78 instead of 72. They are good and righteous in so many other ways that, well, what does it matter if I fudge here for my own comfort. I deserve it, for I am good and noble and politically perfect in every way.

  74. I_Am_Me Fascinating. The abstract:
    Why do people adopt different political ideologies? How can seemingly
    equal intellects, presented with the same facts and circumstances
    disagree so vehemently over how society should be structured? What
    psychological undercurrents guide people to adopt Conservative or
    Liberal political beliefs, and where did they come from?
    The answer
    lies in a well known concept in biology, termed r/K Selection Theory.
    r/K Theory examines how all populations tend to adopt one of two
    psychologies as a means of adapting their behavior to the presence or
    absence of environmental resources. The two strategies, termed r and K,
    each correlate perfectly with the psychologies underlying Liberalism and
    One strategy, named the r-strategy, imbues those
    who are programmed with it to be averse to all peer on peer competition,
    embrace promiscuity, embrace single parenting, and support early onset
    sexual activity in youth. Obviously, this mirrors the Liberal
    philosophy’s aversion to individual Darwinian competitions such as
    capitalism and self defense with firearms, as well as group competitions
    such as war. Likewise, Liberalism is tolerant of promiscuity, tolerant
    of single parenting, and more prone to support early sex education for
    children and the sexualization of cultural influences. Designed to
    exploit a plethora of resources, one will often find this r-type
    strategy embodied within prey species, where predation has lowered the
    population’s numbers, and thereby increased the resources available to
    it’s individuals.
    The other strategy, termed the K-strategy,
    imbues those who pursue it with a fierce competitiveness, as well as
    tendencies towards abstinence until monogamy, two-parent parenting, and
    delaying sexual activity until later in life. Obviously, this mirrors
    Conservatism’s acceptance of all sorts of competitive social schemes,
    from free market capitalism, to war, to individuals owning and carrying
    private weapons for self defense. Conservatives also tend to favor
    abstinence until monogamy, two parent parenting with an emphasis upon
    “family values,” and children being shielded from any sexualized stimuli
    until later in life. This strategy is found most commonly in species
    which lack predation, and whose population’s have grown to the point
    individuals must compete with each other for the limited environmental
    resources that they are rapidly running out of.
    substantiated with the latest research in fields from neurobiology to
    human behavioral ecology, this work offers an unprecedented view into
    not just what governs our political battles, but why these battles have
    arisen within our species in the first place. From showing how these two
    strategies adapt in other more complex species in nature, to examining
    what genetic and neurostructural mechanisms may produce these
    divergences between individuals, to showing what this theory indicates
    our future may hold, this work is the most thorough analysis to date of
    just why we have two political ideologies, why they will never agree,
    and why we will tend to become even more partisan in the future.

  75. I_Am_Me Quite interesting. But then, how to explain political conversions? Many people start out with one view and then convert to another, either slowly over time as a result of long-term study and thought, or quickly as the result of a sudden and precipitating event. That seems more reason-based than evolutionary.
    I am not seeking, a priori, to discredit the book’s thesis (and I haven’t read it, obviously), but that’s a question that popped to mind right away . . .

  76. I_Am_Me WesternFreePress Brett Bellmore Thank you. If I were to add something, it would be very minor, but perhaps you are right. 
    I did do something of a little followup, based on a video, here:

  77. PaulHawkins says:

    The bottom line is that Conservatives LOVE America and Libtards HATE America.

  78. I_Am_Me says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me That’s a natural response and one I had as well. Biology is not destiny. But it would be a disservice to you, the author, and your readers for me to explain any more as I myself haven’t completely come to terms with the situation we are dealing with and its potentially genetic and natural foundations.

  79. I_Am_Me I am right there with you. Occasionally I give some thought to the idea that more of what we are is genetic than I might wish it to be. The thought makes me shudder. I do not like the idea of fate or deterministic explanations for reality.

  80. PaulHawkins I think what you are describing is actually a symptom of a broader phenomenon. The political left, no matter where they are, first have to deconstruct the existing society so that it can be rebuilt according to their more “enlightened” statist blueprint. In order to deconstruct society, they have to rail against its many “injustices,” its many “failures.” They must sicken the people so that they are ripe for accepting their “solution.” They hate America the way leftists have hated their own country in every place they have cropped up.
    Disturbingly, this also explains some of the success of classical fascism of the 20th century. It was essentially a left-wing phenomenon (in terms of its theories of economics and governance), but it made allowances for the existing order (some private ownership of business, e.g.) and it was heavily nationalistic—thus, it allowed the people to root for their nation rather than against it. That is part of why the fascists beat out the communists in Germany and Italy.

  81. I_Am_Me says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me I too don’t believe in fate or deterministic explanations. Self-awareness appears to make that a truly impossible reality. But there does seem to be individuals within certain circumstances to be easily and readily drawn towards particular behaviors.

    If you are a truth seeker, then it is your duty to investigate this.

  82. I_Am_Me I think it’s all a question of percentages. Obviously nature plays some role, and nurture some, and choice some. And there’s even luck and external circumstances to throw in the mix. The question of what percentage nature/genetics plays is the big one, because whatever that percentage is, it’s the least mutable of all of them. Choices, circumstances, nurture are all more open to alternation by selecting different actions. Less so with nurture. And that is what disturbs me—what if that percentage is higher than we think? Yuck. 
    But I am not hiding from the knowledge. Whatever it is, that’s what it is.

  83. TerryMastroni says:

    @Jo I re-read your post a couple of times to make sure I understood what you are saying. My first reaction is I think you are confusing diversity of opinion with diversity of moral values and outlook.  Any group or nation that does not share the same core values is in for a whole world of hurt and trouble.  Opinions are like body orifices – everyone has one and that’s great.  When we stray from the core value system, trying to make everyone feel good about themselves, then the fabric of that group falls apart and chaos takes over.
    My second reaction is – why is everyone entitled to a safety net?  The elderly, the infirm, and the children unable to care for themselves, the veteran who has put their life on the line – those people need help, although I am by no means convinced the government should be allowed anywhere near the money and the administration of said funds.. Unemployment insurance – okay, I can deal with that, but it should not be infinite. If you are able-bodied and of sound mind, then you and you alone are responsible for your well-being.  The world owes no one a living.  Now if people want to band together and form an organization to support those that refuse to improve their own lives, my blessings upon them.  Just don’t take money from me to support them.  I contribute to causes I believe in.  People unwilling to help themselves is not one of them.
    There is a reason there are signs all over Yellowstone about not feeding the bears.  They come to expect it and forget how to fend for themselves.  They also become very dangerous when the easy pickings from the humans are no longer there.  It’s conditioning, just like we’ve conditioned the entitlement mentality.  What a horrible thing to do to one’s fellow humans.

  84. JackDurish says:

    True. All true. Painfully true. Sadly, we don’t need truisms. We need solutions. How do we overcome the popular appeal of leftism? How do we sell meat and potatoes and vegetables while they sell sweets and confections? Therein lies the rub…

  85. TerryMastroni says:

    JackDurish I don’t have a clue at this point.  Change has to come from within, and like drug addicts, until people want to work themselves up, it isn’t going to happen.  I fear its going to take being so hungry, so uncomfortable, and so desperate, that the entitlement people will be willing to shift for themselves.

  86. JustinMannino says:

    If you are not liberal at the age of 20 you have no heart, if you are not conservative by the age of 30 you have no brain – Churchill ( I believe) I totally identify with this quote, I turned 30 this year and happen to start seeing things alot different.

  87. FaithMMartin says:

    Impressive piece! I enjoyed it very much. Well written, and to the point. It also happens to be true of many Leftist, note I say many. This is because there are many who have no idea what it is they are supporting. The young idealists who are out “causing” (supporting a cause) without proper investigation, those who have no idea what conservatism is because they have been reared to be leftist, who, will eventually, hopefully, use the tools available to do some actual investigation into the history of the ideology they support. It is the mature leftist, who knows “Why” that is the most dangerous, the “true believer”, that cannot be swayed from their entrenched position, because to give up their “true belief” is to deny themselves. Thank you for a great article.

  88. Dustin Johnson says:

    From my personal experience with “far left” progressives is that they seem to jave a serious superiority complex. Each one I know feels they are smarter than you or anyone else. Commonly my constitutional conservative views are compared to cavemen or demonized as related to the KKK or the likes of the Unabomber when they cannot legitimately defend their opposition to true conservative thinking. Because of this, they feel they know what is best for everyone, and that all should be forced to adhere to their jaded ideas. This absolves them from any actual personal responsbility for what they preach and gives them the satisfaction of doing a good deed…. unfortunately I think its more of a perverse version of “look what I did” and actually serves to be self-appreciating rather than for the greater good of the citizens.

  89. agkcrbs says:

    Cultures die.  There is no overcoming it, only delaying it, from one
    generation to the next, in the churches and schools, or escaping it with
    Religions can outlast governments (governments themselves being
    man-made religions, or sources of moral authority, usually
    not overtly theistic these days), but all great nations rise and fall
    along some such lines. 
    Even some of our founders, exuberant at the birth of a federation
    devoted to liberty, expected
    our eventual demise.  Our holy books vaguely predict it.  The “human
    nature” leftists may not understand is still operative in their own
    lives; they are a cause, but also an effect, in the long chain of social
    miseducation leading to growing politolatry and incompetency, ending in
    collapse or conquest, and restructuring or replacement by a temporarily
    less degenerate culture.  Conservatives are actually fighting against
    their own medicine, trying to save a country from the outside that, if
    they succeed, is
    not going to save them in turn.  If they could give up other interests
    and gradually flood the schools with unpropagandized teachers, there
    could be some chance with the next cohort… but everybody can feel that
    our sun is setting.

  90. I_Am_Me says:

    agkcrbs JackDurish I think this time it is going to be a bit different, and primarily because of nuclear weapons and the 2nd Amendment. I think there will be either another civil war that starts at the street level, or a series of secessions followed either by a civil war or by a collapse of the socialist half. Once the collapse occurs, there may be a reunification.
    A third option, one that is far less dramatic, is that the march towards a social democracy continues without any attached severe restrictions on non-financial freedom. This would be somewhat similar to what happened to the British Empire. A surrendering of one’s seat at the world table. But all signs are pointing to erosion of all freedoms (NSA, PC, gun-grabbers, enviro-whackos, etc.).

  91. I_Am_Me agkcrbs JackDurish Well that was a depressing set of comments to read straight out of bed!

    I would like you guys to check out this:
    And I would like you to read, if you would, comments 14 through 19 (the on that starts with the link by Marty to the Recovering Bureaucrat.
    Please tell me what you think.

  92. I_Am_Me says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me agkcrbs JackDurish The article was spot on. I’ll read through the comments and the link chains. But I suspect that it won’t go to the next level of true power, oligopoly, plutocracy and Islam’s temporary seat at the table.

  93. FaithMMartin Thanks, Faith!
    You are not wrong—there are many who are mindless footsoldiers, or who are just at the beginning of their intellectual exploration. And many will convert over time. (I did!) But there is still the phenomenon whereby people want to feel as though they’re good and compassionate and noble. Maybe all of us do, to some degree, but on the left, the notion that they are all these things simply by virtue of being on the left quickly metastasizes. These people who are “causing” without proper investigation are, in a way, the prototype for that. They’re not asking themselves, “Am I right about this?”; they are joining a cause that portrays itself as being noble and then believing themselves to be noble simply by association with it. I know that is an oversimplification and that human beings and the facts on the ground are more complicated than that, but there are far too many examples of this being true to ignore. For those who do not take a moment of intellectual honesty and ask themselves if their policies have ever worked, anywhere on the planet—for those who never convert—this elitism and narcissism is likely to expand. Unfortunately, it all-too-often expands to the point where the person considers him or herself to be part of the noble and compassionate olympian elite—the enlightened experts fit to rule over the rest of us unenlightened rabble. For the good of the “community.” For our own good. They, the Rousseauean nobility; we, the Hobbesian animals.
    I, for one, am tired of it :-)

  94. TerryMastroni Thank you for your kindly-worded but strong response to Jo.

  95. I_Am_Me agkcrbs JackDurish I will have to read that article while I eat breakfast or lunch or something, as it is long. But it is true, generally speaking, that things are happening on a lot of levels, and very often, we average folks are only dealing with a few layers down near the bottom. OTOH, if a true movement sweeps through the mass of the people, even the elite may not be able to stop, control, or capitalize upon it.

  96. I_Am_Me says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me agkcrbs JackDurish That is the only thing they fear. And it has always been that way. Napoleon was always afraid of the masses revolting against him.
    But as time has gone on and technology has evolved, it has become easier to control the masses. Consumerism, cell-phone/internet addiction has played favorably into the hands of the Statists. Massive overdiagnosis of ADD, ADHD and Autism in children and the rampant distribution of anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medications for adults means you have a dumbed down, drugged up populace addicted to consumption, reality TV and political gibberish.
    This is an extremely complicated puzzle. And people who start to figure it out typically end up in prison or dead.

  97. I_Am_Me agkcrbs JackDurish OTOH, technology can also work in our favor. The PTB cannot control the flow of information nearly as easily as they could before.

  98. PaulHawkins says:

    WesternFreePress Irenic?   LOL

  99. PaulHawkins says:

    WesternFreePress Hey Ayn Rand settle down

  100. PaulHawkins says:

    WesternFreePress TerryMastroni So irenic!

  101. PaulHawkins 
    irenic |īˈrenik, īˈrē-| (also eirenic)
    adjective formal
    aiming or aimed at peace.

  102. PaulHawkins I am not a Randian, as it happens, though she was certainly right about a great many things. Do you have a substantive critique or comment to add?

  103. PaulHawkins TerryMastroni Indeed. A refreshing change from the flame-wars that so often occur.

  104. LynnJohnson2 says:

    I hate Conservatives cuz they are thieves, they even want to steal our social securityand social security isn’t even a branch of government. (its a private fund) But Boy!!! all that money puts a sent in the air that just makes them salivate!! Like pigs at feeding time.

  105. TerryMastroni says:

    LynnJohnson2 Awwww…bless your little heart.

  106. TerryMastroni LynnJohnson2 
    I am going to assume that you are engaging in some sort of humorous parody, LynnJohnson2  . . .

  107. LynnJohnson2 says:

    their also very ignorant : )

  108. LynnJohnson2 And when no one is looking, we drink snifters of brandy and then get in our BMWs and run over poor people.

  109. LynnJohnson2 says:

    WesternFreePress TerryMastroni LynnJohnson2 Conservatives draw comedy to themselves.

  110. LynnJohnson2 TerryMastroni If you mean that we have better senses of humor, you’re absolutely right! Thank you for noticing.

  111. LynnJohnson2 says:

    exactly……..Take Sarah Palin….Please : )

  112. LynnJohnson2 says:

    WesternFreePress LynnJohnson2 TerryMastroni Nope Conservatives tend to be humorless drones, but they are perfect for making fun of.

  113. LynnJohnson2 TerryMastroni Interesting, then, that a number of surveys done over the last 20 years have shown that conservatives live longer, are happier, report greater life satisfaction, and have better sex lives.

  114. LynnJohnson2 *rimshot*

  115. bdyy says:

    LynnJohnson2 “Their also very ignorant,” “sent in the air,” lol. Graduate middle school much?

  116. bdyy LynnJohnson2 Yes, I noticed that as well. Sort of the textbook definition of irony, given the content of the comments!

  117. WilliamVoegeli says:

    WesternFreePress PaulHawkins

  118. JustinMannino says:

    I’ll take the old cougar for a night!!

  119. melissacpereira says:

    Sarah Palin is the best. And if you don’t realize that something’s wrong with you, not the other way around

  120. melissacpereira says:

    You’re confused

  121. melissacpereira says:

    You’re thinking of the loveless humorless hatemonger libs

  122. melissacpereira says:

    Public school indoctrination stupidity catching up

  123. melissacpereira says:

    Because they believe they are superior. Therein lies the problem. There narcissism not only does not make them superior, it makes them less. More stupid. By their own choices. Ironic.

  124. indyfromaz says:

    Nailed it! This is virtually everything I have ever said in 5 years of my own blog ( in one article.
    Fear Is Hope. The Agenda is The Agenda. And The Truth Doesn’t Matter.
    Wonderful. Bravo. And I am most Definitely IN THE WAY! :)

  125. indyfromaz says:

    LynnJohnson2 So that’s why the Fund was raided into Bankruptcy by Democrat Congresses…

  126. indyfromaz says:

    Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people
    have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for
    admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that
    they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s
    Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic,
    emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and
    borderline personality disorders.
    Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
    Believing that you’re better than othersFantasizing about power, success and attractivenessExaggerating your achievements or talentsExpecting constant praise and admirationBelieving that you’re special and acting accordinglyFailing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelingsExpecting others to go along with your ideas and plansTaking advantage of othersExpressing disdain for those you feel are inferiorBeing jealous of othersBelieving that others are jealous of youTrouble keeping healthy relationshipsSetting unrealistic goalsBeing easily hurt and rejected You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You
    may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don’t receive the special
    treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or
    Sound any Leftist you know? :)

  127. indyfromaz says:

    FaithMMartin “For Proof Denies Faith, and without Faith I am Nothing”– Douglas Adams
    A Left does believe in Proof they are wrong, they have too much faith in their own superiority for that.

  128. PaulHawkins says:

    indyfromaz  –  Wow.  I know someone just like this.

  129. PaulHawkins indyfromaz Uh oh. Since i was a little kid, I believed I would one day live in a castle. Is that an unrealistic goal? :-)

  130. indyfromaz LynnJohnson2 You’re expecting logical consistency from someone who is afflicted with a sense of groundless moral superiority. That being said, though, anyone can come around, and anyone can welcome the truth. How can we help you do that, LynnJohnson2? Are there any facts we can provide? Any arguments we can make? We’d be happy to try, sincerely so.

  131. indyfromaz Would you be interested in writing for Western Free Press?

  132. indyfromaz Thank you!!

  133. melissacpereira @Dustin Johnson To you both, well said!
    And all of this is what makes them feel as though they are fit to rule over us. They, booted and spurred. We, saddled and in need of riding. For our own good, of course.

  134. melissacpereira It was inevitable.

  135. dotsied01 says:

    This is so funny!:I laughed so hard at the fallacies of thes specious and bogus arguments I blew Diet Coke through my nose!

  136. dotsied01 says:

    Not this one…

  137. dotsied01 That’s awesome! Next time, take video!

  138. PaulHawkins says:

    WesternFreePress PaulHawkins indyfromaz –  No a bad goal to have IMHO>

  139. PaulHawkins indyfromaz I dunno . . . it’s a pretty large castle. With a 4.2 million-gallon underground cistern whose roof is upheld by massive granite columns. What do you think—too much?

  140. WilliamVoegeli PaulHawkins Nope. Jo’s original comment was fairly irenic, which I appreciated.

  141. rofomoreno says:

    indyfromaz Yep. Our Democrat stronghold (of school, city, county, state legislative
    and congressional districts) in west Phoenix has been under the
    influence of collective Narcissistic leadership for nearly 30 years. If
    we don’t see at least some change from D’s to R’s this November, we will
    be on the last leg of fast tracking to Detroitism.

  142. rofomoreno says:

    LynnJohnson2 Eerie. Señor Cook must be a soothsayer. He threaded hints throughout the commentary that someone of the “I hate Conservatives” logic would do a drive-by to express their discontent. 
    Sure enough, credibility arrived … like clockwork.

  143. rofomoreno says:

    JustinMannino I turned sixty recently. My wife noticed that my Conservatism doubled since thirty. Apparently it gets to be much more meaningful with age, grandkids and great grandkids.

  144. rofomoreno says:

    JackDurish Truth is the most effective offensive against Liberalism/Progressivism. It works every time it’s introduced.

  145. GretchenAndreasen says:

    LynnJohnson2 Ignoring your bad grammar and spelling, you’re an ignoramus. Look it up. Social Security is not a “private fund”. It’s an IOU. You send in your money, the state gives you an IOU. You are not guaranteed a repayment of any kind, just a note on empty paper, not even backed by Gold or Silver, just the honor of the US Government.

  146. PaulHawkins says:

    Who am I to say what is too much and what is not too much?

  147. audreyregan says:

    Oh, Liberals don’t SEE  the present day Republican Party as evil.  It IS evil.  Christopher Cook, when your Party gives us mental midgets like Palin, Bachmann, Cruz and the entire Tea Party Patriot movement, it is pretty easy for Democrats to laugh at you. When over 700 Bills have been written in the States’ legislatures from 2011 to the present, and over 400 of those Bill have been passed and made into law …. ALL of them restricting a women’s reproductive rights, it is easy to feel superior to you.  When your so-called moderate Republicans would choose to wipe Iran, Iraq, Syria right off the map .. or as Cruz said “bomb them back to the stone age” with zero regard for the consequences, it is easy to view you and your Party as fucking reckless.   Yours isn’t just the party of the stupid, though; it’s also the party of the greedy.   And I wish to submit to you, Mr. Cook, that NO President in recent history has had to endure as much hatred and obstructionism and name-calling as President Obama.  The fact that he handles this malevolence with grace at all times only makes us support him more.  So take your creed that must have taken days to write and shove it!   I come to this website to laugh at you and your absurd headlines, and ridiculous, dishonesty.   As far as UTOPIA is concerned …. yeah right.   Tell that to the millions of hardworking people who can’t even take home a living wage.  Your stinking Party refuses to raise the minimum wage and the justification for voting it down every time is based on lies.   The Republican Party has become a goddamned sewer, Mr. Cook.   And if they don’t get their house in order, there will not be another Republican President for a very long time.   Welcome to the 21st century!   Come on in, you actually might like it here.

  148. I_Am_Me says:

    audreyregan Facts presented to refute the original article: zero.
    Quod erat demonstrandum.
    Leftism is a mental disorder caused by a mutated dopamine receptor gene that leads to cowardice, envy, and sloth.

  149. I_Am_Me audreyregan Welcome to the site, AudreyRegan, Please tell all your friends.
    Let’s try to take these things quickly.
    1. Your first point is just an ad hominem attack on three politicians and an entire class of people. Not much to say about that, really. That kind of “argument” debases you more than anyone else. I think you can do better than that.

    2. Your second point involves the abortion question. The abortion question is a conflict between two mutually exclusive human rights. The born woman, just like all humans, has a right to bodily control. This is an outgrowth of her self-ownership, etc. The pre-born fetus has the natural human right to live. In most cases, in human society, it is possible to find a way to respect one person’s rights without severely impacting another’s. In this question, however, the rights are completely mutually exclusive—you cannot protect the one without violating the other. Either violation is painful and tragic, but the nature of human reproduction has left us in this terrible position. I understand the passion of the pro-choice crowd, for they are defending a human right. But the pro-life crowd are defending another human right, and the most fundamental one. In this venue, I will not offer you arguments for which side has the superior claim. The conflict causes me pain because of the tragedy and seeming insolubility of it, and I do think most earnestly that there are much better ways our civilization can handle it. Your verbiage, however, indicates that you have no such reaction. The fact that you cannot even see why some people might side with the voiceless, defenseless nascent human over the born, responsible human is odd to me. The violation of the mother’s rights is inconveniencing, perhaps terribly so, but it is not terminal. The violation of the fetus’ rights ends his/her existence. Now maybe you think that the born mother has the better claim, but the fact that you attack those who would side with the other with no apparent understanding of why, and no sympathy for the terrible nature of this conflict between human rights, is somewhat sociopathological.
    3. Your third point involves defense. Defense is another very difficult question. External security is the first duty of even the most minarchist society. Thus, the primary question must be, “How much?” How dangerous is the world, and how much defense do we need to meet that danger? How should it be used? How should it be deployed? That is a complex question about which reasonable people can disagree. The question of ISIS, which is the current defense question on the table, is more clear-cut. They are slaughtering thousands. They are lining up women and children and shooting them and pushing them into mass graves. They are beheading people and making their families watch. The Kurds—always the victims, it seems, of savages—are being driven from their homes, brutalized, and murdered. Just like with the abortion question, you have taken a cartoonish, oversimplified, highly partisan stance to a difficult and complex question.
    4. Your “party of the stupid and greedy” comments help reinforce the points I made in the article, especially Reason 3, so thank you for that.
    5. During the Bush 43 years, people of the left were marching in rallies with pictures of George Bush’s bloody, severed head. The fact that you are incapable of recalling, or admitting the existence of, the unprecedented levels of vitriol and hate to which Bush was subjected does not mean they did not occur. It is true that levels of opposition to Obama are extremely high, and probably as high as any opposition to a president in the post-bellum era. But that, really, should not be much of a surprise. Obama is further to the left than any president in living memory, if not the furthest ever. And he is met with an intensity of opposition concomitant with the size of the ideological chasm between him and his opponents. People on the right stridently opposing someone on the left? Imagine that. And once again, nothing Obama has experienced is in any way beyond what Bush 42 did, your blinkered whingeing to the contrary notwithstanding.
    6. I know that calling for a minimum wage makes people feel good about themselves, but the historical record—not to mention basic facts of economics—renders the question clear: minimum wage laws raise the wages of a small subset of workers at the grievous expense of a much larger number of workers. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment for teen, and most especially minority, workers. Minimum wage laws do not help people, they hurt people. And evidence shows that those people who are working minimum wage-level jobs do not tend to be supporting families yet. They are people who are at the beginning of their working lives—young people gaining experience and learning to support themselves. Minimum wage laws increase the wages slightly for a few and put the rest of them out on the street. I’ll say it again: minimum wage laws hurt human beings. The fact that people keep pushing for them is on ongoing monument to ignorance, not to mention to exactly the sort of preening narcissism I describe in Reason 3. But the things you push for do not actually have to work, you just have to feel good about yourself for pushing them. Then you get to go around asserting your moral superiority. Unfortunately, your minimum wage position, which harms the lives of far more human beings than it helps, is morally criminal.
    In fact, most of the positions of the left can be shown not only to produce negative results, but also to be violative for fundamental human rights. But by all means, continue insulting, calumniating, assaulting, and projecting your own moral criminality upon us. In this venue, all it does is serve to reinforce the points I made in the article above.
    (I will let others address any further points you may have, as I have a lot of other commenters to whom I must respond, not to mention other duties.)

  150. PaulHawkins
     And thus, Paul Hawkins did distinguish himself from every leftist, statist, and “liberal” who has ever drawn breath on planet Earth, for behold, saying what is and what is not too much is their favorite thing to do!

  151. GretchenAndreasen LynnJohnson2 Not to mention the fact that there isn’t a single Republican who wants to “steal social security.” That whole “argument” is one of the most hackneyed and, frankly, childish in modern political history.

  152. rofomoreno JustinMannino With age comes wisdom.

  153. rofomoreno LynnJohnson2 They can hardly do otherwise. ‘Twould be like asking water not to be wet or fire not to be hot. They are so filled with the hate and bile described in the article that they do not even see the counter-irony of attempting to refute the article by spewing hate and bile.

  154. rofomoreno indyfromaz Ahhh, Detroit. Exhibit #437, right alongside the USSR, as an example of the colossal failure of leftist ideas.

  155. indyfromaz says:

    WesternFreePress rofomoreno indyfromaz I’m originally from Michigan (moved out to Phoenix in 1987). My opinion of Detroit has always been bad,n even as a little kid. I always joke that the Original “Robocop” was only science fiction because it had a cyborg in it, everything else looked like Detroit to me. :)

  156. indyfromaz says:

    WesternFreePress PaulHawkins indyfromaz Well, here’s your chance. A “unique fixer upper opportunity”:

  157. indyfromaz says:

    audreyregan Thanks for the live action demonstration of the articles point. Do you hire yourself out for parties? :)

  158. indyfromaz says:

    WesternFreePress indyfromaz Interesting notion, as I am not a journalist. But it is an interesting notion. I am flattered in some way.

  159. indyfromaz It’s funny, that’s similar to what our most prolific contributor said to me when I put the same question to him. “I am  not sure that I’d have all that much to write about,” he told me. Four years later, he’s made close to 700 posts.
    Today, the line between “journalist” and civilian is a lot blurrier than it used to be. And that is a very good thing.  The power of the internet to open opportunities and democratize aspects of our existence is simply amazing. Today, so-called “average” people are doing better, faster, more honest journalistic work than a lot of the official so-called “journalists.” Citizen journalism is exposing lies, spreading truth, and protecting freedom.
    Think about what would have happened at the Bundy Ranch standoff if not for citizens, the internet, and social media. Just another Waco or Ruby Ridge!
    I read your work on your site. You have important things to say. If you say them on WFP, they will get seen by a lot of people.
    If you are ready, email me at


  160. indyfromaz audreyregan Ha! I just about spat out my glass of water!

  161. indyfromaz audreyregan 
    I wonder if she will return to the site, or if her profanity-laced calumny fest was just a drive-by.

  162. indyfromaz PaulHawkins Never at a loss for turning something (even an innocent joke) into an exploration of libertarian principles, that article about the castle raises interesting questions:
    Does the state have a right to prevent an owner of private property from turning a 400-year-old historical landmark into rental apartments? It’s private property, after all. Is there any line to be drawn around any historical structure? At what point, if any, does historicity trump property rights? If Disney offered to pay half of the national debt in exchange for the Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore—or to give Egypt a bunch of money for the Pyramids at Giza—and the government in question accepted, would Disney then have the right to cover them in roller coasters?
    I find this question interesting . . .

  163. indyfromaz rofomoreno 
    I think your personal story, anecdotal though it may be, is important. Detroit’s story is tragic, and people need to know WHY it happened. And facts tell, but stories SELL. Maybe you can write up your impressions from your childhood someday.

  164. DawnMWest says:

    Chris, Excellent article.  SPOT ON!

  165. DawnMWest Thank you! Feel free to use it as AMMUNITION. That is why I wrote it :-)

  166. AngieSharp says:

    audreyregan Wow. Thanks for proving his point.

  167. AngieSharp says:

    indyfromaz audreyregan Exactly. Maybe she’ll come back and address global warming and the lack of empathy conservatives have. Yawn.

  168. AngieSharp says:

    LynnJohnson2 We also eat kittens for breakfast and kick puppies just for the heck of it!

  169. AngieSharp audreyregan Yeah, for real! Such is their hatred, that they cannot even conceal it when commenting on an article calling them out for their hatred!

  170. AngieSharp indyfromaz audreyregan Yes, it does get rather tedious, doesn’t i? Except that these people have and crave power, and they invariably use it to oppress other human beings!

  171. AngieSharp LynnJohnson2 Indeed. Just the other day, I was sitting in my velvet-trimmed throne smoking cigars with my plutocrat cronies talking about how much we enjoy eating kittens. The younger the better! After a long, deep, sinister laugh, we all decided to fire up our private jets and fly therm in circles in an effort to cause global ozone hole warming climate change . . . or whatever those filthy hippies call it.

  172. BrentRegan says:

    Excellent article Mr. Kirk. I plan to share widely.
    You can lead a liberal to logic but you can’t make them think.

  173. BrentRegan says:

    Correction. Excellent article Mr. Cook.

  174. indyfromaz says:

    WesternFreePress AngieSharp LynnJohnson2 I hope you had some Fava beans and a nice Chianti with that kitten.

  175. indyfromaz AngieSharp LynnJohnson2 Yep. Then I talked Multiple Miggs into chewing off and swallowing his own tongue . . . while simultaneously fracking the entire eastern seaboard from my back yard.

  176. @BrentRegan Thank you!

  177. @BrentRegan Who needs to think when you can emote, make fanciful promises, and then call anyone who is skeptical “evil”?

  178. ErinKrumenacker says:

    This article is grossly false. We don’t hate Conservatives; we pity them because of their blatant ignorance.

  179. ErinKrumenacker says:

    audreyregan Now this comment is spot on. This article is NOT.

  180. ErinKrumenacker says:

    WesternFreePress I have 40 quotes that prove the right is Immoral and if not evil, very ignorant and nasty:

    1. “Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that’s been raped? We need to protect innocent life. Period.”
    -Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, declaring that raped women must be additionally forced to carry and give birth to their rapist’s baby against their will in front of an all male crowd at the National Catholic Men’s Conference,
    2. “Nobody plans to have an accident in a car accident, nobody plans to have their homes flooded. You have to buy extra insurance for those two.”
    -Barbara Listing, leader of Right To Life, comparing rape to a car accident,
    3. “In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out.”
    -Texas State Senator Jodie Laubenberg, absurdly claiming that rape kits are used to abort a pregnancy,
    4. “Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.”
    -New Mexico State Rep. Cathrynn Brown, HB 206 language stating that rape victims would be charged and arrested for getting an abortion,
    5. “Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it’s an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don’t know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don’t know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act.”
    -California GOP assembly President Celeste Greig, saying rape victims don’t get pregnant because it’s a traumatic act,
    6. “Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.”
    -Rick Santorum, stating that God sanctions rape to give women the “gift” of pregnancy,
    7. “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
    -Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, repeating Rick Santorum’s belief that rape is sanctioned by God,
    8. “It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”
    -Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, claiming that women can shut down the reproductive process during rape to prevent pregnancy,
    9. “Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low. But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.”
    -Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, claiming that getting pregnant via rape is rare therefore there shouldn’t be any exceptions for rape victims in anti-abortion bills,
    10. “Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way and I’d be open to hearing discussion about that subject matter. Generally speaking it’s this: that there millions of abortions in this country every year. Millions of them are paid for at least in part by taxpayers. I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.”
    -Iowa Rep. Steve King, saying he’s never heard of a child becoming pregnant by rape and that he won’t support abortion under any circumstance until proof of such a thing is presented to him,

  181. ErinKrumenacker says:

    11. “What Todd Akin is talking about is when you’ve got a real, genuine rape. A case of forcible rape, a case of assault, where a woman has been violated against her will through the use of physical force where it is physically traumatic for her, under those circumstances, the woman’s body — because of the trauma that has been inflicted on her — it may interfere with the normal function processes of her body that lead to conception and pregnancy.”
    -AFA’s Bryan Fischer, agreeing with Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment,
    12. “Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape. I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things.”
    -Mike Huckabee, defending Todd Akin’s rape comments and zero exceptions for rape victims by talking about how much of a positive gift rape is,
    13. “Abortion is never an option. At that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.”
    -Missouri Republican central committee member Sharon Barnes, echoing Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock that rape is God’s way of blessing women with children,
    14. “I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”
    -Paul Ryan, referring to rape as a method of conception after being asked about Todd Akin’s rape comment,
    15. “He also told me one thing, ‘If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry. Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she’s not going to say, ‘Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.’ All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she’s underage. And he just said, ‘Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,’ he said, ‘they rape so easy.’ What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, ‘If you’re going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.’ So the way he said it was, ‘Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.’
    -Wisconsin State Rep. Roger Rivard, claiming that some girls are just easy to rape,
    16. “I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape… Uh, having a baby out of wedlock… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.”
    -Pennsylvania Rep. Tom Smith, comparing rape pregnancy to getting pregnant out of wedlock,
    17. “A life is a life, and it needs protected. Who’s going to protect it? We have to. I mean that’s, I believe life begins at conception. I’m not going to argue about the method of conception. It’s a life, and I’m pro-life. It’s that simple.”
    -Pennsylvania Rep. Tom Smith, saying that rape is just another method of conception,
    18. “You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.”
    -Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle, claiming that God plans rapes,
    19. “I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at-risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.”
    -Sharon Angle, saying that a 13 year old who gets pregnant by her father should get over it and have the baby,
    20. “I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak.”
    -Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey, claiming that Todd Akin’s rape comments were “partly right,”

  182. ErinKrumenacker says:

    21. “If you listen to what Mourdock actually said, he said what virtually every catholic and every fundamentalist in the country believes, life begins at conception… and he also immediately issued a clarification saying that he was referring to the act of conception and he condemned rape. Romney has condemned rape. One part of this is nonsense. Every candidate I know, every decent american i know condemns rape. Okay so, why can’t people like Stephanie Cutter get over it?”
    -Newt Gingrich, defending Richard Mourdock’s rape comment by telling women to get over it,
    22. “There are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest — compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage… Most abortions, most abortions are for what purpose? They just don’t want to have a baby!”
    -Maryland congressman Roscoe Bartlett, falsely claiming that rape pregnancy is rare,
    23. “Each of these lines attempts to serve a portion of our population for which we extend our sympathy and encouragement. But nevertheless, it is only a small portion of South Carolina’s chronically ill or abused. Overall, these special add-on lines distract from the agency’s broader mission of protecting South Carolina’s public health.”
    -South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, referring to raped and battered women as ‘distractions’ after vetoing funding to prevent rape and abuse,
    24. “Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”
    -Idaho State Rep. Chuck Winder, saying women don’t even know what rape is,
    25. “We do need to plan ahead, don’t we, in life? I have spare tire on my car. I also have life insurance. I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for.”
    -Kansas State Rep. Pete De Graaf, saying that women should plan ahead to be raped,
    26. “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…”
    -Alaska State Rep. Alan Dick, suggesting that all women, including rape victims, should have to get permission from men to get an abortion,
    27. “If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, and I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
    -Ron Paul, echoing Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment 7 months before Akin actually said it,
    28. “A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse.”
    -Former Colorado Senate Candidate Ken Buck, claiming that the victim may not have really been raped even though the perpetrator admitted that he committed the crime,
    29. “Through our conversations, I’ve heard, ‘what if somebody has a sincerely held religious conviction about dispensing the emergency contraception medication? What about their rights? How do we address those… It’s not about the victim.”
    -Scott Brown, putting religious belief above the needs of rape victims,
    30. “When you enter into a marriage, you enter into a contract for all sorts of different things with your spouse. Why should we take it to a Class 2 felony and put a husband away who’s been a good husband for however many years … based off of something that was OK in a marriage up until that point?”
    -Arizona State Rep. Warde Nichols, equating spousal rape to consensual sex,

  183. ErinKrumenacker says:

    31. “The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant.”
    -North Carolina Rep. Henry Aldridge, making the Todd Akin “legitimate rape” claim over a decade earlier,
    32. “Rape is kinda like the weather. If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.”
    -Texas Gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams,
    33. “The odds are one in millions and millions and millions. And there is a physical reason for that. Rape, obviously, is a traumatic experience. When that traumatic experience is undergone, a woman secretes a certain secretion, which has a tendency to kill sperm.”
    -Pennsylvania State Rep. Stephen Freind, ignoring medical science,
    34. “Fear-induced hormonal changes could block a rape victim’s ability to conceive.”
    -Arkansas Republican Fay Boozman, making the Todd Akin claim, he also allegedly called this “block” “God’s little shield,”
    35. “Sometimes we’re actually right when we go with our gut and stand on principle in supporting underdog candidates.”
    -Sarah Palin, responding to Todd Akin’s rape quote,
    36. “Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.”
    -Bill O’ Reilly, claiming that a murdered rape victim was asking to be raped because of the way she dressed,
    37. “I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed.”
    -Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, saying that men can force their wives to have sex against their will,
    38. “Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”
    -Judge James Leon Holmes, Bush appointee,
    39. “Richard and I, along with millions of Americans – including even Joe Donnelly – believe that life is a gift from God.  To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous.”
    -John Cornyn, standing by Richard Mourdock’s rape comments,
    40. “The young folks that are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22 or 23. Gee whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. So we’ve got to be very careful how we address it on our side.”
    -Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss, blaming the outrageous number of rapes in the military on hormones,

  184. ErinKrumenacker says:

    WesternFreePress Those are just some of the examples. And you wonder why we see you as hateful and cold-hearted. Your politicians have no empathy at all.

  185. ErinKrumenacker says:

    indyfromaz No but it sounds exactly like all RWNJ  I have had the misfortune to speak to. 

    TheBelieving that you’re better than othersFantasizing about power, success and attractivenessExaggerating your achievements or talentsExpecting constant praise and admirationBelieving that you’re special and acting accordinglyFailing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelingsExpecting others to go along with your ideas and plansTaking advantage of othersExpressing disdain for those you feel are inferiorBeing jealous of othersBelieving that others are jealous of youTrouble keeping healthy relationshipsSetting unrealistic goalsBeing easily hurt and rejectedYou may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don’t receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. 
    This decribes the right so perfectly!!!!! I think I’ll Borrow this, lol.

  186. ErinKrumenacker says:

    WesternFreePress Another quote. This time about domestic violence:

    “A lot of people like being in abusive relationships.” – Republican State Representative, New Hampshire Mark Warden,, arguing for why the state should reduce assault charges from a misdemeanor to a violation.

    And another republican posted an sexually explicit  joke on Facebook: “10,000 battered woman and I still eat mine plain.” –  New Hampshire state Rep. Kyle Tasker (R)

    Another commenter on the thread told Tasker that his post was “over the line,” to which Tasker replied, “People are making money off that but Mark’s getting the press for a trivial comment … Now if we went around wearing the T-shirt that wouldn’t go over well.”

    Yep, you picked some real winners there, smh………

  187. rofomoreno says:

    ErinKrumenacker  Would you also include Conservative Latinos or Blacks as part of that pity for “their blatant ignorance”?

  188. rofomoreno says:

    Well for the love of Feminism, this seems a very fitting Liberal-Progressive influence and exploitation of our elementary school age girls.

  189. rofomoreno says:

    WesternFreePress indyfromaz audreyregan  It was a textbook drive-by. Happens all the time in Maryvale.

  190. TerryMc says:

    ErinKrumenacker Sad, little woman.

  191. TerryMc ErinKrumenacker “Sad” is probably more charitable than I would be.

  192. indyfromaz says:

    ErinKrumenacker WesternFreePress I bet she keep this “bile” jar as a badge of honor and ultimate sanctimony on her desktop. She’s just so proud of herself…

  193. indyfromaz says:

    ErinKrumenacker WesternFreePress I bet you keep this on your desktop so you can just pop it off in fit of sanctimonious pride. It’s so pithy….

  194. indyfromaz says:

    ErinKrumenacker WesternFreePress And it goes on and on and on…Her Sanctimony rolls on…

  195. indyfromaz says:

    ErinKrumenacker WesternFreePress I bet you are so happy with your Sanctimony.

  196. indyfromaz says:

    ErinKrumenacker WesternFreePress Do you feel better now. Got that Sanctimony and Righteousness Fix you were looking for?

  197. indyfromaz says:

    ErinKrumenacker indyfromaz Well, since It already describes yourself, go ahead, Maybe you’ll learn something. But I doubt it. 
    “The point is that in a … totalitarian state (Progressive Liberalism), it doesn’t much matter
    what people think because … you can control what they do. But when the
    state loses the bludgeon, when you can’t control people by force and
    when the voice of the people can be heard, … you have to control what
    people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in
    more honest days used to be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent.
    Creation of necessary illusions.” Like your fantasy hatred and your sanctimony. Enjoy.

  198. Tawnya says:

    As a free-thinking conservative women who is much more than just a walking womb you offend me! All of your points are about 1 subject and predictably for an emotional liberal you won’t use reason but try to shock with carefully selected sound bites. I pray you don’t vote

  199. adambtroff says:

    Yeah you dirty liberals we’ve always been “right-wing authoritarian” nation now get over it.  (Author, please give us more “confirmation bias”)

  200. jim says:

     Bring real jobs back to this country and there might be a living wage. You dont make big money and get benefits by working at walmart or shining shoes.
    And the banks and corporations that owns the democrat party does not want real jobs. If they did the the keystone pipeline bill would have been passed years ago. You ever heard of feudalism?

  201. GeneSmolko says:

    Sorry no, if you poll Americans in the issues, Americans support liberal policies and positions strongly almost across the board, despite the fact that Americans identifying themselves as liberals are in the minority. This phenomenon is due to the very effective smear campaign against the label liberal led by Rush Limbaugh and the RW movement at large. 

    The only reason the conservative movement survives is because of the very effective propaganda and messaging campaign coordinated by Republicans and the RW which emphasizes powerful emotion based values messaging which appeals to peoples’ ego, fear, greed and nationalism. In turn, the left does not have a clue how to message, talking about issues, policies and positions inspires virtually no one. 

    Americans support, strongly for most:

    Increasing taxes on the Rich
    Progressiv­­e Taxation
    Marriage Equality
    Raising the Minimum Wage
    Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants
    Universal Background Checks for All Firearm Purchases
    Opposition to Citizen’s United
    Homosexuals serving openly in the military
    The Public Option
    Social Security
    Expand Social Security
    Environmen­­tal Protection­­s
    Allowing women to serve in units engaged in close ground combat
    Medical Marijuana
    Full legalization of Marijuana
    Public Education
    Publics schools with Federal involvement
    Jobs program to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
    No crushing debt with higher education

  202. GeneSmolko says:

    This author is guilty of precisely what he accuses liberals of – creating a demonized cartoon caricature of the opposition.

  203. GeneSmolko says:

    rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker
    Sure, why not

  204. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko adambtroff Girl, that’s funny! Why do leftists fear one man (Rush), one woman (Palin), one network (FOX), and two brothers (Koch)? I don’t think you’ve ever met a real American.

  205. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker They hate them most of all because they dare to think for themselves! Such things are not allowed amongst leftists.

  206. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko Oh, honey. Please work on your critical thinking skills. There are classes available.

  207. GeneSmolko adambtroff TerryMc Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini had a lot of very similar policy positions, or the equivalents thereof for their time. And they sold them by appealing to people’s nationalism, pride, and fear (and accusing the other side of greed.) Funny how you miss the historical thread that ties you to these figures, and all the way back to the Bismarkian welfare state and the savagery of the French Revolution, while simultaneously making your point with a fair amount of projection. As far as which of the above policies majorities support, the polls say that some do have majority support, some do not. I am not sure why you are claiming all of them.

  208. rofomoreno says:

    GeneSmolko adambtroff  Señor Gene, any links to back up each item on that list of Liberal-Progressive priority attentions?

  209. rofomoreno says:

    GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker  Please explain your pity for Conservatives of color, Señor Gene.I would like to know where I can benefit and take advantage of Liberal-Progressive acts of displaced compassion. 

    Thank you for your concern, in advance.

  210. TerryMc says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko adambtroff TerryMc They weren’t Christians. It makes all the difference. They were also all socialists.

  211. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko adambtroff TerryMc
    And Hitler was a vegetarian, so I guess that means vegetarians are evil. 

    RWers have never seemed to learn that correlation does not equal causation, that association doesn’t mean guilt by association. 

    Funny how you mention nationalism, that is real big on the RW, as is pride, and fear. If you want to tie something to evil deeds, nationalism is a prime candidate.

  212. GeneSmolko says:

    rofomoreno GeneSmolko adambtroff
    I’ve checked them all myself, each is backed by several polls. If you are curious about them, pick a few and check them yourself, but I doubt you have the courage.

  213. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc WesternFreePress GeneSmolko adambtroff
    The author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a devout Christian, and a socialist. 
    Socialism was a major feature of devout Christianity in America during the Nineteenth Century. 
    That said, I am not a socialist, I am an American liberal.

  214. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko adambtroff
    I’ve never met a real American? Do all the people I served with in my ten year career in the USCG as an active duty service member count?
    Why do we fear RW demagogues? Because demagogues have a history of whipping up low infos, that’s why. Stop playing stupid, you aren’t fooling anyone, propaganda works.

  215. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko adambtroff TerryMc
    And Hitler was a vegetarian, so I guess that means vegetarians are evil. 
    RWers have never seemed to learn that correlation does not equal causation, that association doesn’t mean guilt by association. Both T Jefferson and A Smith supported Progressive Tax, by your logic, I guess this means they were nascent tyrants. 
    Funny how you mention nationalism, that is real big on the RW, as is pride, and fear. If you want to tie something to evil deeds, nationalism is a prime candidate, it is the main feature of fascism after all.

  216. GeneSmolko says:

    rofomoreno GeneSmolko ErinKrumenacker
    Same pity I have for all conservatives who have been duped to shill against their interests. 
    You already are taking advantage of Liberal/Progressive acts, do you like your weekend? Eight hour day? Overtime? Vacation? Retirement Pay? Medical benefits? 
    Is that enough or do you want more?

  217. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker
    Yeah that’s it, LOL.

  218. indyfromaz says:

    GeneSmolko adambtroff Gotta  love a delusional Liberal. So to your “points”.
    Increasing taxes on the Rich
    Progressiv­­e Taxation
    —Yeah, people definitely feel under-taxed and are screaming at Congress
    to tax them even more (despite the fact that the Feds have taken in more
    taxes in Sept and Oct than any other months in the nation’s history!).

    Marriage Equality
    –Discrimination against Christians, yeah not so much.

    Raising the Minimum Wage
    –And they definitively want to people to lose their jobs over their bosses having to pay out vastly more labor costs because we all know small businesses are swimming in cash! 
    Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants
    –Yeah, think of all those poor, low skilled, Democrats! :)
    Oh, and Liberals in Oregon rejected giving Driver’s Licenses.


    Universal Background Checks for All Firearm Purchases
    –Naw, you want them all banned, just admit it. Then when the Police are the only ones who have guns (and the crooks) you can blame the cops for being white  (oh, sorry, you already do that)

    Opposition to Citizen’s United
    –Yeah, it was so much better when the Unions had a strangle hold on bribing Politicians!!!

    Homosexuals serving openly in the military
    –They already do or had you not noticed??

    The Public Option
    –Yeah, ObamaCare is working so well so far! I guess you like your Doctor or the steep increases in medical costs due to things like Adverse Selection. Full on Socialized Medicine has worked so well let’s do even more of it!

    Social Security
    Expand Social Security
    –Yeah, it’s already bankrupt so lets spend even more!! Sound economics my friend…

    –See ObamaCare
    “He said that we’re going to take money from people who can afford
    insurance, who are healthy and young and don’t have expensive illnesses
    and give it to people who are sick and older. Everybody knew that. Where
    else was it going to come from?” –MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on ObamaCare.

    Environmen­­tal Protection­­s
    — Luddites Unite!

    Allowing women to serve in units engaged in close ground combat
    –Again, really not paying attention. Too Busy with your peevish lists I presume.

    Medical Marijuana
    –Fake out for…

    Full legalization of Marijuana
    –Yeah, that’s why it gets rejected all the time and ” The results indicated that driving under the influence of cannabis was
    associated with a 92% increased risk of vehicular crashes. Important is
    the fact that such driving was associated with a 110% increase in fatal
    crashes.”–Potsdam Study
    Public Education
    –Yeah, The Liberals are doing a great jon with condoms on bananas and the racism of Thanksgiving.

    Publics schools with Federal involvement
    —Again, are you just not paying attention.

    Jobs program to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
    –Gee, I thought that was what the Stimulus and all the other $8 Trillion in spending was for? I mean Obama just gave work permits effectively to more workers here illegally than jobs that have been created so you should be happy now.

    No crushing debt with higher education
    –Well, that’s what you get you perv up the government monopolize the student loan process, dearie.It’s that hated economic principle called Supply & Demand. “government subsidies actually contribute to rising costs. “When you
    subsidize something, it’s cheaper for people to consume. So people
    consume more of it and demand rises,” Professor Lin (American University) says. A rise in
    demand will mean a rise in costs.” And if the government will subsidize even bigger loans to colleges why not raise the price because the government’s going to pay it anyhow.” Improvements to campus facilities and the addition of more
    administrative staff make college tuition even more expensive without
    necessarily improving the quality of education students receive. We now
    know the root causes of rising tuition—promises of higher wages and
    increased subsidies”
    So you’re doing it to yourself, dearie.

  219. rofomoreno says:

    GeneSmolko rofomoreno adambtroff  Why is it that your quips  have an uncanny familiarity with this guy? (and to be taken equally as serious)

  220. GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff I am not a big fan of the pledge of allegiance. It comes from the progressive era, with it’s creepy left-wing jingoism.

  221. indyfromaz GeneSmolko adambtroff Well done, IndyfromAZ. 
    Polls can be found that say a lot of different things. At the end of the day, what matters are results and facts. 
    So, for example, it is true that you will find majorities who support minimum wage laws. Generally speaking, two things are the case: 1) no one wants to look in the mirror and see an uncaring person, and 2) people, in the absence of having studied or been given good information about the minimum wage issue, wrongly believe that minimum wage laws are compassionate and will help workers.
    They aren’t. Minimum wage laws harm workers. They increase unemployment for those cohorts that can least afford a paucity of job opportunities. To borrow from Tolkien, like so many evil things, most of the left’s positions look fairer, but are in fact fouler. They sound good, but they don’t actually work.

  222. GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker I once spoke with wait staff at the Cheesecake factory who were forced–by laws supposedly designed to protect them–to take breaks they did not want to take. They hate it. It causes them to lose money and it messes with the schedules that they want to have. They could, but for these laws, arrange with their employers to have a mutually agreeable schedule. Instead, preening statists meddle in private, voluntary transactions and then pat themselves on the back for their vaunted compassion.
    Get out of the way. Stop interfering in human life. Just because you think we’re living in some Dickensian nightmare of Scooges and Oliver Twists doesn’t make it so. And it does not give you the right to attack human liberty because of your fantasies.

  223. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc WesternFreePress adambtroff The first Christians in Acts were communists–shared everything. The difference is volunteering and being forced by a government.

  224. TerryMc says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff All of the United States is “progressive” in that we don’t have a king. That’s why we can never have any true conservatives. However, modern-day leftists and liberals are just crazy.

  225. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker Christians really worked for the common people, didn’t they? Meanwhile those “liberal/progressives” achieved what was needed. Today’s losers who kidnapped that moniker are just crazy!

  226. TerryMc GeneSmolko adambtroff The difference between voluntarism and force is all the difference in the world.
    (That being said, the Christian communism thing doesn’t always work out too well either; see the Pilgrims’ experience:

  227. TerryMc GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker 
    “Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C
    to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B,
    who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and
    ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together
    and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.”
    That’s not crazy, that’s diabolical.

  228. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff Sorry you never met a real American during your stint. I’m sure you were in contact with many; it’s just too bad you never met. Regrettably, you don’t have to “play” stupid.

  229. TerryMc says:

    rofomoreno GeneSmolko adambtroff Gene’s funny. I suspect drug use.

  230. TerryMc rofomoreno GeneSmolko adambtroff The same might be said of Chuck Barris in the video above :-)

  231. GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker 
    “duped to shill against their interests.”
    Oh, Rofo, he thinks of you the way every preening paternalist on the left thinks of minorities: Too stupid to know your own interests. Unable to compete. Unable to think for themselves. Literally, less capable than others.

    Of course, you knew that before you asked. You baited him into showing his racism with precision and perfection, and he did not disappoint. I doff my cap to you, Mr. Moreno, for how neatly you did the thing.

  232. indyfromaz says:

    GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker Sorry, I don’t have 8 hr days. Overtime-No. Vacation- two weeks a year if I’m allowed to take them off in the first place. Retirement– If you think you can retire on the Social Security Tax alone you’re a fool. Medical Benefits- oh you mean the higher costs and less benefits thanks to ObamaCare, yeah thanks for that. Thanks for nothing.

  233. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko adambtroff
    Wow, alrighty then. I feel stupider just for reading that.

  234. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff
    Please, the RW loves its nationalist jingoism, you no doubt loved the Pledge right up until the moment you discovered it was written by a socialist.

  235. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc WesternFreePress GeneSmolko adambtroff
    Yes, we can have true conservatives, but what we call conservatives in America today are not conservatives, they are reactionaries. 

    No surprise that a reactionary would consider liberals crazy.

  236. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko WesternFreePress adambtroff
    Meanwhile today’s RWers have no problem using government to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us in other ways, just don’t use the government to help people.

  237. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress TerryMc GeneSmolko adambtroff
    Then you must be a anarchist, because any form of government requires some force.

  238. GeneSmolko says:

    rofomoreno GeneSmolko adambtroff
    Right, you don’t have the courage so here it is:

    Increasing taxes on the Rich

    Progressiv­­e Taxation

    Marriage Equality

    Raising the Minimum Wage

    Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants

    Universal Background Checks for All Firearm Purchases

    Opposition to Citizen’s United

    Homosexuals Serving Openly in the Military

    The Public Option

    Social Security


    Environmen­­tal Protection­­s

    Support for EPA Proposal to Reduce Power Plant CO2 Emissions

    Allowing Women to Serve in Units Engaged in Close Ground Combat

    Medical Marijuana

    Full Legalization of Marijuana

    Public Education

    More Funding for Public Schools

    Publics Schools with More Federal involvement

    Jobs Program to Rebuild our Crumbling Infrastructure

    Government should Do More to Help People

    Now I know how you RWers roll, you will look for any little toehold no matter how weak to dismiss this entire list, but that is dishonest. While you might be able to convince yourself that some on these aren’t accurate, there are many more that are unequivocal. These polls demonstrate that this is not the center right nation you believe it is. Just what do you base that belief on?

  239. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker
    So regulation has to be perfect or get rid of it all, is that it? Can we follow the same rule with the free market? It has to be perfect all the time or get rid of it? 

    The motivation for your pov is contained in your last paragraph, you simply don’t like anyone telling you what to do, you don’t care if it is for the better or not. 

    Hard to believe that the editor of a website would engage it’s posters on such a childish level, you are all emotional rage.

  240. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker
    No, I’m talking about you and anyone who is not rich who supports the RW economic agenda. I have shown no racism, what a joke. Minorities support the Democrats by and large, a few exceptions notwithstanding. 
    You are nothing but absurd caricatures and cliches.

  241. GeneSmolko says:

    indyfromaz GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker
    So what, you are playing stupid, you know very well these progressive actions are gains that the American worker has achieved. You RWers always look for your exceptions, you have disproved nothing. Work conditions in this country were horrible before progressive took action and reformed them – FACT, face them for a change.

  242. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress indyfromaz GeneSmolko adambtroff
    Of course, the RWer can spin the facts anyway he likes. You are great at spinning away facts, how did that work for you in 2012 with those “democrat skewed” polls?
    Keep believing your delusions, I like the sound of conservative heads exploding across the nation when reality smacks them hard.

  243. GeneSmolko says:

    indyfromaz GeneSmolko adambtroff
    What a load of BS, nothing but opinion here for the most part, BFD bigtime.

  244. GeneSmolko says:

    WesternFreePress TerryMc GeneSmolko rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker
    Where is it written in stone that an unfettered free market is the best and most moral distributor of wealth? NOWHERE, you wingers made that up. 
    What an unfettered free market does is concentrate too much wealth in the top, every time this nation moves in the direction of your ideal we see a widening wealth gap, wage stagnation and more poverty. Progressive taxation is needed to distribute wealth more fairly, progressive taxation was supported by T Jefferson and A Smith.

  245. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko
    You can talk when you learn the difference between an American liberal and a communist.

    I expect more proof of RWers lack of critical thinking skills after this comment, don’t disappoint me now.

  246. GeneSmolko TerryMc rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker Other than the period from Waterloo to the First World War, an unfettered free market has never existed. And that period of the 19th century saw the biggest wholesale move of human beings out of poverty in all of human history. 
    The 19th century—notwithstanding the imagery of dark satanic mills and Dickensian workhouses—saw rapidly rising birth rates, standards of living, and life expectancy, and rapidly falling infant mortality. People were pouring into the cities to work at the factories, not running away from them. Human freedom produced the greatest results, not regulation and rule of some men over other men.
    Of course the birth of modern capitalism and the unfettered freedom of the individual (both for the first time in the history of human governance) were messy, but it was just when the messiness was beginning to settle out and lead, through voluntarism and individual interest, to a more stable modern version of a free economy that control freaks decided to fetter it all. Then, to add insult, those control freaks and their heirs (you) claimed credit for the greatness produced by human ingenuity and freedom, saying, “look, see what our control freakery did? Aren’t we great? Now submit.”
    Also, every study of economic freedom in the world produces the same result: The freer the economy, the healthier the country (longer life expectancy, more political freedom, lower infant mortality, etc.) The less free the country, the worse all of those factors.)

    You think wealth isn’t concentrated at the top in communist countries? Have you ever been to one? I was in the USSR in 1991 and if you had said that to my Russian friends, they would have laughed at you. You think wealth isn’t concentrated in kleptocracies, dictatorships, social democracies? Wealth is concentrated everywhere. Only in free economies do the people on the lower rungs have the greatest mobility to earn more and become wealthy. Wealth is concentrated in every system, but it is most widely dispersed in a free system. Our poor and lower-middle classes live like kings in comparison to those same cohorts in other places.

  247. GeneSmolko TerryMc The core philosophy is the same; it is only different by degree of application. Both philosophies hold that the state is the primary solution to human questions. Both philosophies are focused on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Both philosophies are utopian, believing in the perfectibility of human nature and the notion that state force, properly applied, can resolve contradictions and eliminate tradeoffs. Both philosophies are collectivist, believing that the individual is an impediment to the statist project. The only difference, again, is in degree of application. 
    Imagine a continuum whose unit of measure is degree (amount, size) of government. To the left is totalitarian communism, fascism, democratic socialism, social democracy, and progressivism/modern “liberalism” (also, absolute monarchy/feudalism, ancient despotism, etc.). To the right is libertarianism and American-style core conservatism. Strip away the bits of identity politics here and there and it’s all just matters of degree. How much government? How much force? How much rule of some men over other men?

  248. GeneSmolko indyfromaz rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker  Thank you so much for continuing to prove the points in the article.
    Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all? 
    Why you, you magnificent progressive. You saved the average dumb worker from the evil employer. You are numinous and glorious in your munificence. Sure, you had to rob human beings of freedom and choice, but it was for their own good. And these awful right wingers who oppose your beautiful progressiveness? How dare they? Don’t they know that what you did for them? You saved them. You saved them from being able to make choices for themselves. You saved them from making choices that you, in your infinite wonderfulness, know to be the wrong choices. Anyone who opposes you deserves to be lectured like a schoolchild . . . or worse.
    I am with you, IndyfromAZ. I work seven-day, 60-hour weeks because I choose to. Because I have entered into a voluntary, mutually agreeable labor agreement. Just like many others who don’t (yet) fall under the tender ministrations of our know-it-all progressive overlords. Pity the poor waiter or truck driver or health care worker or a hundred other occupations who can no longer contract with their employers for themselves, but who are instead shackled by the rules imposed upon them by preening narcissists . .  . for their own good, naturally.

  249. GeneSmolko WesternFreePress TerryMc adambtroff 
    No, I am a minarchist. 
    Force by individuals is only justified if they are defending themselves or their rights.
    No one can cede to government a right that he or she does not have.
    Thus, government can only be given a monopoly of force if that force is used to defend and secure rights, and to balance them with the minimum possible disruption on those occasions where rights come into conflict, and otherwise leaves human beings alone to enjoy the exercise of their rights to the maximum degree.

    Government force is legitimate, but only insofar as it follows this rule. It is a rule that can be derived from the very brute facts of nature (man is inherently free and no one is born with natural authority over another). Anything beyond this is a fundamental violation.

  250. GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff 
    Nationalism is not fixed to one political ideology. It has been a feature of progressivism, communism, fascism (all left wing ideologies) and plenty of right-wing ideologies as well.
    That being said, I think you mistake the average conservative’s stance. Most are not nationalistic, they are patriotic. They are devoted to the core principles found in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, aspects of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, etc. It is to those ideals that they are most wedded, not to some concept of “my country, right or wrong.”

    A nuanced look at the history of the last 70 years or so will reveal that, in the ideological battle between this side of the Iron Curtain and the other, American and other Western conservatives certainly displayed a fervent support for our “side” that could seem nationalistic. But that was more of an ideological divide than anything else. I think that is reveled in the fact that as the ideological balance has shifted in America, American conservatives continue to hold to the same ideals, rather than continuing to hold to an unwavering, uncritical nationalistic support of the nation no matter what it does.

  251. GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff What ways? Other the attempt by some on the right to maintain the core heterosexual definition of marriage that has existed throughout just about all of human history, what ways?

  252. TerryMc says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff So parents do not have natural authority over their children?

  253. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc WesternFreePress adambtroff The US has no true right wing. We were founded under the idea of freedom to practice Christianity in all places. Leftists want to remove that freedom because being aware of their sins hurts their little feelings.

  254. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc Honey, I don’t want to talk to you. Currently there is no difference between American liberals and communists. Traditional liberals, like those who founded our country, are no more. Well, actually the TEA Party is the closest thing to being traditionally liberal. In these post-modern times, “liberal, progressive, leftists” all mean traitors.

  255. TerryMc GeneSmolko adambtroff For a time, yes. But is it parental authority, which includes a series of responsibilities as well. A child is still a sovereign individual; he is simply incapable of fully and properly discharging his rights, especially in the early years. In order for him/her to survive and learn, we as parents must temporarily assume control. But parenting, properly discharged, does involve allowing him to experience increasing communion with his rights as he gets older. Normally, this process unfolds fairly naturally. This is both consonant with rights theory and with millennia of accumulated human wisdom and experience. 
    When we say “no one is born with natural authority over another,” we are referring to adults. Children are a special case for obvious reasons. We are saying what Jefferson said when he observed that “no one is born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred and ready to ride.” To me, this is a self-evident truth.
    Oh, and as an aside, see John Locke’s devastating critique of Sir Robert Filmer’s contention that the right to rule stems from the right of begetting. Both devastating and hilariously biting, especially for a 17th century writer.

  256. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff How can you feel stupider? I think you’ve hit rock bottom.

  257. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko
    Well honey bun, you are talking to me. 
    And LMAO, thanks for proving my point about RWers lack of critical thinking skills perfectly, your thinking is driven by your delusional paranoid conspiracy fears – you didn’t disappoint! I provided you a link that describes what American liberals believe and support, but you choose to just dismiss it because like so many on today’s RW, you believe that no matter what we say or do, we are all really super seeekrit evil commies out to git ya! What a joke you all are, you’ve become loony tune conspiracy minded paranoid fools. 
    I am a USCG veteran who still works for his service as a military contractor, you would never have the courage to call me a traitor to my face coward.

  258. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc Sweetie, are you one of those old hippies? I thought McCarthy and Nixon got rid of y’all.

  259. GeneSmolko says:

    TerryMc GeneSmolko
    Right, all you are is petty insults, typical RWer.
    For not wanting to talk to me, you sure can’t stop. I however, am done with you, you are not worth another moment of my time.

  260. indyfromaz says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc “What a joke you all are, you’ve become loony tune conspiracy minded paranoid fools.”
    Speaking of dismissive attitudes.. :)

  261. indyfromaz says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko indyfromaz rofomoreno ErinKrumenacker 
    Like I have quoted before (from  the Mayo Clinic):
    DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:
    Having an exaggerated sense of self-importanceExpecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant itExaggerating your achievements and talentsBeing preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mateBelieving that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special peopleRequiring constant admirationHaving a sense of entitlementExpecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectationsTaking advantage of others to get what you wantHaving an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of othersBeing envious of others and believing others envy youBehaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
    Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem
    like having confidence, it’s not the same. Narcissistic personality
    disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so
    highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value
    yourself more than you value others.
    Sound like every Progressive you know? :)

  262. TerryMc says:

    GeneSmolko TerryMc Last word to me! Yea!

  263. Derrick says:

    Should mention I’m on my phone and its pretty late so please forgive any weird grammar
    OK so I’m a liberal that just happened to come across this and maybe this was a bad idea but I mainly read the first paragraph and skimmed some other stuff so feel free to correct me but I was kind of disturbed how you made it seem like we are the only ones throwing the verbal abuse (again I didn’t read much so I could be wrong) because I have been I have debated and argued with quite a few conservatives and they really like to throw lines and lines of insults at me (should mention the majority of times I’m argueing and debating is through the YouTube comments and these things tend to drag on) the guy I’m currently argueing with has yet to not use the word faggot in any of his responses and almost each line of dialog is usually an insult and I am pretty sure I have yet to insult him because I seriously wondered why he had such a sick hated for gays (I honestly think he wants them to die) and I have repeatedly asked him to stop with the insults because I honestly want to understand this guy because under all the bile in his heart he seems like an interesting person. I could go on and on and on about this guy (honestly he seems interesting) but I’m getting away from my point, I just hate seeing the liberals and conservatives fighting because no matter what we both see the worst part of each other and our own versions of irrationality being spewed from the opposing side. I’m definitely getting my version of irrationality from the guy im argueing with (he said all gauss are pedophiles and rapists, I seriously doubt Freddie Mercury or Tyler Oakley are either of those things)

  264. Derrick says:

    Meant to say gays not gausd

  265. Derrick says:

    Guessing you could tell but the tiny Grammer nazism know my head is telling me to mention that I meant to type gauss not gausd, this is a little meta, I’m fixing a Grammer error with another grammer error, damn you tiny phone keyboard

  266. Derrick says:

    Palin had been the joke of the left for years

  267. Derrick says:


  268. Derrick says:

    Denmark and Canada (plus a bunch of other countries) I believe are also socialisms

  269. Derrick says:

    What’s wrong with socialism, a ton of countries are socialist and are doing fine

  270. Derrick says:

    I’m on the left wing and I also have to admit that I don’t like the pledge, aside from my schoolmates sounding like brainwashed zombies from some old dystopia movie I don’t like the under god part because it feels alienating and it wasn’t in any of the other American pledge of aligences, our pledge was changed 5 times the most recent being in 1950 during the red scare

  271. Derrick says:

    Don’t really know if fascism can really be applied to the American left wing seeing as though Hitler and I think Missolini were religious and killed people (aarently Hitler was also into the occult) and I don’t think communism was ever given a fair chance (except I think Vietnam and I heard they were fine) seeing as though most communist leaders skipped some steps there never was a true communism. Should also mention I’m not a communist but I wouldn’t mind trying socialism seeing as though it’s been working out for others

  272. JohnLawry says:

    GeneSmolko adambtroff  Alot of these things there is plenty Republican support for let me go threw the list and respond to each point.
    (Increasing Taxes on the Rich) The top 1% already pays 36% of the tax burden in this country Taxes are fin if we stream line organizations and get rid of red tape. Ask anyone who works for the Government there are way to many redundancies.

    (Progressive Taxation) Majority of Republicans support Progressive Taxation but think the Tax code should be streamlined. Get rid of tax breaks and have a simpler tax system getting rid of how huge the IRS is and making it simpler for the people who work there.

    (Marriage Equality) There is large support in the GOP for Gay marriage the only push against it is the Religious right and this is also true with Democrats except the margins are larger in the Democrat Circle.

    (Raising the Minimum Wage) There is large support for this with Republicans. Many Republican controlled states have already raised it on there own. They just need to do the research to fined out the best way to raise it and how much over how much time. 

    (Path for citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants) First off they are illegal Immigrants They came hear illegally so they are illegal. There is actually wide support to give illegal immigrants some form of amnesty and some form of path to citizenship as long as they come out get documented pay there back taxes don’t have criminally record. It is fine. We don’t like how the president just decided to do it on his own we would rather have some say in how it is done. Also one of the major things we want to do is secure the border also to stop the flood of illegals coming over.

    (Universal Background checks for all Firearm purchases) This is a tricky issue we don’t like government in our business we also don’t want there to be a gun registry. Also majority of guns used in crimes were already purchased illegally. gun purchases at a story should have background checks but private sales there is no need for them in my opinion.

    (opposition to citizens united) Yeah Republicans don’t like it but it works out in Democrats favor also there are plenty of big spenders sending money to democrats also
    .(homosexuals serving in the Military) 90% of Republicans think they have every right to serve they do not give a damn if they want to or not.

    (The Public Option) Actually this is difficult concept. Okay first off Obamacare is just not working (yes in some states it is) But in others it is falling apart. But there are actually many Republicans that have an idea on Health care that would seem a lot more “Liberal” Then Obamacare. That would actually work out a lot better.

    (Social Security) Republicans are not against social Security. What it is is that we need to figure out how to make it feasible again it is going bankrupt

    (Expand Social Security) I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean lowering the age or paying people more. the program isn’t feasible as it sits now its going bankrupt.

    (Medicare) Actually Republicans are very much for medicare they were actually trying to stop obama from siphoning billions from it to pay for his healthcare package.

    (Environmental Protections) We are not against reasonable environmental Protections. We all want a clean planet especially republicans who spend the most time in nature.

    (Allowing Woman to serve in units engaged in combat roles) This is a standered that dates back a long time ago. But a large portion of Republicans think they should be allowed to if they choose to.

    (Medical Marijuana) Many Republicans support it plane and simple

    (Recreational Marijuana) Same as Medical many support it and many use it

    (Public Education) Not against it just think that its broken and throwing more money into it is a waste with out changing the system. Some of the states with the highest per pupil spending are the worst in the nation while some with relatively low spending have really good schools.

    (Public Schools with Federal Involvement) Ever heard of No Child left behind passed by a Republican.

    (Jobs Programs to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure) Not against it just hast to be paid for.

    (No Crushing debt with higher education) Not against it its a hand up not a hand out helps the economy in the long run. Just hast to be paid for.

    Needless to say Republicans aren’t against spending money on things as long as its paid for so we as a country don’t have crushing debt. If we cut the fat in government streamline programs get rid of red tape streamline the tax system the country could run smoother spend less and help the citizens that is all we want.

  273. CommonxSense says:

    My problem with number 1 and number 2 is you’re saying the exact same thing. How about giving real reasons? Are you aware that our founding fathers were liberals? And what about the quote “Give me liberty or give me death” ???

    So I guess most red wings just hate freedoms? “Oh, gay marriage should be illegal because it disgusts me!” Can red wings be any more ignorant and arrogant? How about “Taxes are irrelevant” ? Oh okay so I guess you would rather your country suffer as a whole rather than just you? Very productive to our evolution, but you red wings wouldn’t believe in evolution would you? Or would you rather not pay anything at all so our military budget is obsolete, leaving us vulnerable to terrorists?

    You red wings are destroying America.

  274. agkcrbs says:


    “Conservatives are in their way” and “reality is in their way” are obviously
    not the exact same thing.
    The Founding Fathers were indeed liberals, but
    they were not the progressivist, Marxist-leaning liberals now calling themselves
    liberals. They were what is called “classical liberals”, most recognizable as
    either Libertarians or Tea Partiers today.
    Though homosexual marriage
    would have disgusted the Founding Fathers you proudly refer to, “disgust” alone
    is not why it should not be legally enshrined; the reason is that marriage is
    the union of the two genders in the interest of providing children with natural
    parentage. Surrogate parenthood or incidental infertility does not overthrow
    this concept, but removing gender from it does destroy it. Discrepant forms of
    companionship are other things, but they are not marriage. Homosexuals are
    already perfectly free to be together in modern America without marriage; they
    lack no right. Government benefits are not inherent to marriage, and can be
    created at whim. By itself, creating a marriage right in fact does homosexuals
    no tangible good whatsoever, except for the fact that their agitators can
    weaponize it against Christianity and conservatism, and disenfranchise those
    The military budget is not the part of spending programmed to
    grow until it consumes the GDP; the welfare budget is. Still, military spending
    needs to be controlled, as, of course, does welfare spending and all other forms
    of spending. Americans want to pay taxes for the things they want, in the way
    they want them; this is democracy and freedom. Not only “red wings”, but all
    people everywhere will resent the perception of an unequal tax burden, or
    revenue and spending decisions being made against their desires. Again, the
    Founding Fathers capitalized on “Tea Party” opposition to excessive or
    non-representative taxation; it seems odd for you to invoke their image, but
    rail against those who share their views. But thank you for validating this

  275. agkcrbs CommonxSense And thank you, agkcrbs, for your comments.
    First, I agree with you on the term “liberal,” and history agrees with you too. I used it in the title because it is still the term of art, but you will notice that I put in in quotes and referenced the fact that they do not deserve to be called by that label. 
    The good news on that front is that I believe things are changing, and that in a decade or so, they will be called almost exclusively “progressives”again, and in a generation, we may even be called liberals again.
    Well said regarding the military budget vs. entitlements. Big difference there. Finally, on the subject of marriage, what do you think of my argument of getting government out of the business of defining and licensing marriage entirely, as described here?

  276. agkcrbs says:

    Today’s social conservatives (like me) are coming a century late to the losing battle over the meaning of marriage.  Following the legalization of divorce itself for major spousal faults, which seemed necessary even in Bible times, the greatest blows against the institution include the old progressive push for “companionate” marriage, intertwined with birth control, and “no-fault” divorce; finally, we now have no-gender marriage.  All of these have followed the same trend of detaching procreative pleasure from procreative outcome.  The long definitional battle over marriage is essentially the same conflict of much longer ages past, between monotheism and fertility paganism, with its child sacrifice.  We Europeans were originally pagans, and we have now become pagans again.  Opinions on marriage and sexuality will wax and wane on religious lines, and personally, I have grown almost completely disillusioned with political efforts, and consider a religion the only useful focus left, to effect mankind’s welfare.  Whether the GOP wins elections is to some extent irrelevant to me — more important if they represent the good values of intelligent civilization, and less important if they abandon those values to gain votes, gain power to themselves, and preserve the elephant icon.
    But though I would preach against homosexual marriage on ethical grounds, inside the American context, I would not want to deny people the right to vote for it.  This right grows out of the most basic American concept of self-government, which has always had a stronger community or majority element than a strictly individual element — so majorities will always inflict their will on minorities, on some level, in this system.  Delegalizing all marriage is admittedly a good kill-switch approach for my side; we already feel government-validated marriage is worthless, now that it is genderless.  Indeed, the moment I learned that my state, having democratically defined marriage, was forced by a pro-homosexual judge to reverse its democratic choice, my first thought was something like, “Marriage now has no practical function at all; whether I legally (heterosexually) marry or not is totally irrelevant, except that it might earn me some tax advantage, and that is now its prime function; becoming a father in a permanent family relationship is something else, but it is no longer ‘marriage’;” and my second thought was, “Democracy is dead; my vote, our numberless votes, were overthrown by a single man in a robe.”  I do not actually want democracy to be dead, and if homosexualists can pervert a definition and win a vote (as they have already done here and there), I will readily leave it to them, and not begrudge them their democracy.  Delegalizing marriage will, I think, be a harm to self-government in those places that still want legal genderless marriage, but it may be the only option left for those who want gendered marriage.  Losing legality, we would also lose the instructional effect of the law, or the social strength of the symbol, as some conservatives have convincingly explained.
    Should the people recreate their culture?  Sure.  Should we create a new relationship, outside of the law, a replacement for the now-defunct real marriage?  Yes, but eventually it may work its way back into the law, which again may pervert its meaning.  The churches may be able to accomplish this; my (LDS) church already has a replacement marriage which is more valid to us, particularly now.  In summary, yes, I think your 2012 idea would not hurt, though I still prefer states’ rights, even for leftists.

  277. ajm1946 says:

    It’s like watching a liberal with shitty aim point a shotgun at RWer, miss, and then start throwing the rest of the shells in her pouch at him by hand while bawking like a chicken and running away.

  278. GeneSmolko says:

    Actually I am an excellent shot with a shotgun, handgun and rifle, military trained to boot!

  279. ajm1946 says:

    Just not so much at making a valid point

  280. GeneSmolko says:

    Neither did you, you never said why I didn’t make a valid point, you just said I didn’t. You didn’t back your contention.

  281. ajm1946 says:

    Sorry. My main intention was to illustrate the image I visualized every time I saw one of your pathetic comments/ responses. Every point you made was either a typical liberal talking point that has been proven ridiculous, childish, and flat out wrong on countless occasions over several years, or was an accusation of conservatives possessing traits that liberals are notorious for. At one point ( and I’m not going to scroll through every comment you posted on this thread a second time), you said something to the effect of conservatives being brainwashed* (not quoting the word) and at another point mentioned how liberals are always under attack by the media….um…. Well I think we both know how ass backwards that assertion is. The only right wing news I can find on tv is fox late and fox Sunday. But I prefer bipartisan news. I’ll form my own opinion. I wish I could be so blissfully unrestrained by facts that I could just agree with the vast majority of the opinions spewing out of my tv. That’s all I’m gonna say. I’m not going to hunt down links and regurgitate your nonsense verbatim for your arrogant, ignorant rebuttals. Good day

  282. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    The first point made in this article is true of both sides in all honesty… there are people on both sides who view each other as evil, and others view each other as misguided. So really, this is an unfair jab at liberals since both sides do it. (i.e. conservatives might think liberals are evil for abortion stance, and liberals might think conservatives are evil for gay rights stance.)

    The second point of this article is also inaccurate. No reasonable person expects a utopian society. The goal of liberals, however, is to do what we can to make the world a better place. In my experience, conservatives are the ones that think everything is perfect the way it is and we shouldn’t change anything. Don’t get me wrong, not all conservatives are like that, but the majority that I have encountered are. Personally, I don’t see what’s wrong with trying to change things for the better. Also, you have absolutely no grounds to base your claim that conservatives having a better grasp of reality… I mean one of the signs that someone is a conservative is that they disregard reality. (i.e. age of Earth/universe, validity of science, climate change, biological basis of homosexuality, etc.) 

    The third point of this article just doesn’t make any sense to me. Basically, you’re saying liberal policies don’t work and liberals base their decisions on emotion. Where do I even begin… Here’s what I see happening, at least in our current political climate: Liberals propose a good idea, conservatives do everything they can to stop it. Obviously not ALL liberal policies are going to work, just as not ALL conservative policies are going to work. In general though, I see liberal policies doing more good. On the topic of emotional influence, everyone bases decisions at least partially on emotion… that’s why politics is all about key words and phrases designed to draw on the listener’s emotions. Again, like your other points in this article, both sides do this, although I would argue that conservatives are far more inclined to make decisions based on emotion (i.e. Which party wants to jump into wars at the slightest provocation? *cough* conservatives *cough*)

    So… even though all of your points were either blatantly false or based misrepresentation, I’ll still address the main point of your article which was why liberals hate conservatives. First off, you’re missing a keyword, “some”. Not all liberals hate all conservatives. There are some good reasons to “hate” a conservative though. Examples would include; those that protest funerals, limit people’s rights, throw away human life in pointless conflict, etc. And even though those are all good reasons to hate someone, I personally still only hate a very few conservatives. Typically, I just feel sorry for conservatives because I know that they are simply ignorant.

  283. melissacpereira says:

    Liberal policies don’t work because they have been tried and been proven to not only not work but make people suffer more. And we now have historical evidence to make that point: from Detroit to various communist/socialist regimes. Filtering money through the government to abate suffering has never worked and never will work. The data shows the more excess money people have the more they give to charity. Conservatives believe that we have certain rights granted to us by our Creator and those have the moral superiority that need to be preserved in the law. That being said there have been plenty of conservatives from Regan to Freidman who have proposed such ideas as a negative income tax (bringing the working poor up to a minimum standard for a period of time), school vouchers that would create greater equality and opportunity for the poorest of the poor, incentives to business to hire the disabled, to name just a few. Obamacare is a tax that has left more people will less healthcare than ever before. What we need here was tort reform, as more than 50% of your doctor bill is put towards malpractice insurance. But politicians are lawyers. These ideas have all been shot down and defeated by liberals. Why? Because this would circumvent government involvement, maximize the benefit to the people, and they could not have their hand in the pot. You are very naive. I think you are the ignorant one.

  284. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    “Liberal policies don’t work because they have been tried and been proven to not only not work but make people suffer more.” 
    I’m glad you put specific examples in your reply (we’ll get to those in just a minute), but like I said before there will be bad policies coming from both sides from time to time. I just wanted to reinforce that idea before I continue.

    “Filtering money through the government to abate suffering has never worked and never will work.”
    If by this you mean redistribution of wealth (i.e. communist society where everyone is economically equal) then I agree with you. If, however, you are talking about something along the lines of using tax money to help people through programs such as welfare, or even something as simple as using tax money to help build roads, then I would have to disagree. There is no perfect system, but using money to help people certainly isn’t a bad thing.

    “The data shows the more excess money people have the more they give to charity.”
    Perhaps those people do give more money, but let’s look at the percent of income they’re actually giving away shall we? In 2011, the wealthiest Americans (those with earnings in the top
    20 percent) contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to
    charity. So yes, those people may give away millions, but when you look at what percent of income they are giving away it is smaller than what the bottom 20 percent are giving away (3.2 percent). 
    “Conservatives believe that we have certain rights granted to us by our
    Creator and those have the moral superiority that need to be preserved
    in the law.”
    Actually, your rights have been granted to you by the constitution, not some deity. I don’t know what religion you ascribe to, but if you would like to tell me go right ahead and I’ll proceed to give you examples of how your holy text limits your rights. Also, please specify which rights have moral superiority (genuinely interested in your prioritization here).

     “That being said there have been plenty of conservatives from Regan to
    Freidman who have proposed such ideas as a negative income tax” 
    Yes, conservatives have some good ideas too. No argument there. I would just say that in general, more good comes from liberal policies.

    “Obamacare is a tax that has left more people will less healthcare than ever before”
    Let me just share a few of the many good points about obamacare:
    -Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that
    they’ll insure them “except for” the preexisting condition. That’s
    called preexisting condition exclusion, and it’s out the window.
    -Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.
    -Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance.
    -Access to healthcare for 30 million Americans and lower premiums.
    etc. etc. etc.
    “But politicians are lawyers.”
    Pretty much. Politicians and lawyers in general are scumbags and love to twist language around to cause an emotional response. 
    “You are very naive. I think you are the ignorant one.”

     I have no claim of absolute knowledge, so yes, there are topics I’m ignorant of. To be completely honest, many of the points you brought up were ones I was somewhat less knowledgeable on. I’m much more interested in social issues and science (I’m gay and a biology major so naturally I’m more drawn to those discussions). Not that social issues have a greater importance, I just find them far more interesting. Still, simple google searches provide information that effectively negate your arguments. Am I naive? I don’t think so. I don’t take things at face value, and I love to fact check information. I tend to be rather skeptical.

  285. melissacpereira says:

    So it is your position that welfare works? Seriously? So they’re just knocking down all the projects because it’s working? Or that generations of people have made it a lifestyle? There is no possible response to someone who does not face reality or truth. These programs were all a catasophre. There are many reasons but most of all because the government is not in a position to manage these thing and most of the money, our money, went to line the pockets of fat cat burecrats not to the government programs intended to help the poor. How about leaving that to the business people that are actually in the business of property management and employing people and give them incentives to rent a certain percentage and hire the poor/unemployed?
    There has to be moral superiority in laws otherwise it’s tyranny. Whose right trumps whose? How do you suggest we determine that? The Ten Commandments has been the best so far and history proves that.
    There is nothing good about obamacare. For one, those ‘kids’ (not sure why you played the kid card) are being denied treatment for those preexisting conditions. And we now have less actual ‘healthcare’ for more money than I’ve experienced in my lifetime x 2 and I’m 55. So not sure what the heck you’re talking about here.
    And if you like to fact check a Google search doesn’t really cut. Seeing on the Internet doesn’t make it true.

  286. I_Am_Me says:

    LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira
    I’m only going to address two of your points here.
    – US Constitution
    You claim that your rights have been granted to you or us by the US Constitution. This is false, and patently so. You are born free. You are born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are not born yoked to the mind of another. You are not born where your mind and your actions are controlled by another (unless you believe in ESP and similar magic). These inalienable rights are described in the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution was crafted to prevent the government from trampling on or restricting these rights. The Bill of Rights would have been better named Restrictions on Government. As you can see in the 9th and 10th Amendments, your inalienable rights go beyond just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are broad and all encompassing. The government can only ever take away what is already yours, it can never grant you something new.

    – Obamacare
    There were many claims about Obamacare that have been proven false already. To wit: If you like your plan you can keep your plan. And: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. These both have been proven completely false. The CBO is now discrediting the claim that Obamacare is deficit neutral. Also, premiums are skyrocketing across the board, as they contain both the new hidden premium tax and forced coverages, for example single males having to pay for maternity care. The winners in this debacle are the people who get the subsidizes and those with pre-existing conditions. That is not really in dispute. But overall, you’ve been Gruberized.

  287. melissacpereira says:

    I never said anything about the constitution. You are correct that my rights are granted by God; however, the constitution protects those rights. So you are wrong.
    My claims about Obamacare are not claims they are fact bore out in reality and individual stories. Where have you been? And I could not keep my doctor under a plan that nothing had changed other than Obamacare so I can say first hand that’s a lie. And my premiums doubled for less insurance. So another lie. I don’t know anyone that has had a different experience. One unemployed woman told me Obamacare quoted her $800/month for her cheapest option. She was unemployed. People are dying with pre-existing conditions because they are being denied treatment and being told it’s not worth the cost. This never ever happened before. That is really not in dispute. Your claims are complete lies. You’re delusional. I can’t really talk to a person not dealing in reality.

  288. I_Am_Me says:

    My comment was to LostBibleBelt. Looks like the “reply” button sent it to you as well. Who is your reply to?

  289. I_Am_Me LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    Thank you, I_Am_Me and MelissaCPereira for your spirited defense of natural rights. That subject is my area of study and it is near to my heart.
    Of course you are correct that our rights are an ineluctable consequence of our personhood, and that they preexist government entirely. The notion that government is the grantor of rights is not only dangerous, it’s sick. If government is the grantor of rights, and if an Islamic government says that it is legal to tear out the clitoris of an infant girl, we have no grounds upon which to claim that that is wrong or that her rights as a human being have been violated. All we have are competing governments granting competing sets of rights.
    All of that said, while God is one explanation for the source of rights, He is not the only possible explanation. They can also be derived inductively, deductively, teleologically, intuitively, and in other ways. 
    I have spent the last few years studying rights theory for a book, and in my discussions, I never cease to be amazed and horrified at the core assumptions of people on the political left—simultaneously Hobbesian, elitist, and utterly dehumanizing and misanthropic. Yuck.
    I think you guys would like both of these posts:

  290. I_Am_Me melissacpereira Yeah, that took me a second as well. But I am betting that she figured it out after a second look.

  291. I_Am_Me says:


    I’ll check out your links on the source of natural rights. Everything depends on having natural rights be ultimately defensible, otherwise we are back in the stone age of might makes right and its attached politics of demagoguery.

    One thing I’d say as an admirer of yours is to look into cultural and non-religious (aka tribal) reasons for female mutilation. The Left likes to badger the Right for conflating African tribal customs with Islam on this issue, and they are possibly correct about it.


  292. FastRandy says:

    #3 made me laugh… because #4 should be:
    Liberals are lazy, cowardly, violent and spiteful… and because of Psychological Projection, they believe EVERYONE ELSE is too…

  293. FastRandy Happy to bring you joy . . . and yes, there is a fair amount of projection that takes place. 
    That is why is is even more fun to accuse them of the actual racism and lack of compassion of which they are truly guilty, but of which they like to accuse us . . . and then watch them go off like a volcano.

  294. I_Am_Me 
    I am glad you mentioned “might makes right.” That is exactly the attitude I have encountered when discussing this with people on the left. Instead of considering the possibility that rights are inherent, they are so wedded to the notion of state control (which is of course diminished if we have inherent rights) that they will double down, and say almost with pride that the only natural law is might makes right. I know GregoryConterio encountered that recently as well.
    “Admirer”— you’re very kind!
    I have read information about the tribal custom of female genital mutilation. I looked further and read that it was also an Islamic practice or had become one in north Africa as a result of the blending of Islamic and north African cultures as Islam expands into the region. Is that not so? If you have any information—especially non-biased information, that is, not coming from anyone with an agenda to make Islam look worse or better—please send it my way. I don’t want to be incorrect.

  295. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    “So it is your position that welfare works?”
    Of course welfare works.
    4.1 % of the US population is on welfare. To be on welfare, you have to be making less than $1000 a month. Out of 4,730 applicants in Utah, only 12 turned up positive on the drug test. 53.5% of people on welfare have been on it less than 2 years. Welfare is simply a program that helps people who are struggling. Welfare has strict guidelines so virtually everyone on it is deserving. 

    “our money, went to line the pockets of fat cat burecrats not to the government programs intended to help the poor.”
    That is one of the problems with our society today unfortunately. The rich and privileged have a tendency to take advantage of others. This issue of corruption and greed is separate though from the need for government programs to help the less fortunate. 
    “give them incentives to rent a certain percentage and hire the poor/unemployed?”
    No disagreement there. That could be a great idea. Of course, that depends on the incentives, restrictions, budget, etc. 
    “There has to be moral superiority in laws otherwise it’s tyranny.”
    There must be law, but who gets to determine whose life and/or rights are worth more than another person’s? Certainly when crimes are committed, freedoms can be taken away, and punishments assigned. (i.e. murder = death penality or life sentence) But God has absolutely no moral authority in this discussion (especially considering the US is a secular nation). The Christian God is homophobic, sexist, genocidal, etc. You forget that there was a time when religion ruled the world– we called it the dark ages. 
    “There is nothing good about obamacare.”
    Well I’ve already showed you that statement is false. Are there problems with it? Perhaps, but there is certainly good in it. As far as “playing the kid card” I was simply listing a few of the benefits of obamacare. 

    “And if you like to fact check a Google search doesn’t really cut. Seeing on the Internet doesn’t make it true.”
    Very true. That’s why I prefer to deal with more scientific subjects. That way I can use far more trusted sources like science journals and scholar google. Unfortunately, on these politically controversial issues, many facts are twisted and it becomes harder to find the truth. The best I can do on those sorts of issues is cross check with multiple sources and use common sense.

  296. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    I_Am_Me LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    “You claim that your rights have been granted to you or us by the US
    Constitution. This is false, and patently so. You are born free.”
    That’s an interesting idea, and I would love for it to be true. Those inalienable rights are constructs of the human mind. There are modern countries that still don’t grant these rights. Yes, if you live in the US, you are born with those rights, but that isn’t guaranteed everywhere else. The reality is, what we consider modern civilized society has determined that people have inalienable rights, but if society were to decide otherwise, we would no longer have those rights, thus we aren’t truly born free. 
    “There were many claims about Obamacare that have been proven false already.”
    Yes there have been many claims about Obamacare that have been proven false… such as the whole death panel scare conservatives made up. Granted, there are inflated claims from the liberal media as well, but the sort of fear-mongering I’ve seen from conservatives on this issue has been disgusting.

  297. Stevie Nichts says:

    LostMyBibleBelt You’re spouting group-think memes. Your premise is a great example:  “The goal of liberals, however, is to do what we can to make the world a better place. In my experience, conservatives are the ones that think everything is perfect the way it is and we shouldn’t change anything.”

    First, rational people would have expected leftists to learn, by now, from decades of evidence, that the programs and policies you’ve been espousing have decidedly and provably not made the world a better place.  But, as explained above, real-world evidence doesn’t sway leftists.

    Second, I challenge you — I double-dog DARE you — to name five prominent conservatives who “think everything is perfect the way it is and we shouldn’t change anything.” Name them, and quote them. You cannot, because it’s bullshite, and you know it. Whoever told you this crap has been lying to you.

    This is closer to the truth: Conservatives try (but generally do not succeed) to gently explain that no, liberal policies do not work, because they’ve been tried and they have failed. That’s not the same thing as your premise, is it?

    Rather than mindlessly mouthing group-think, you need to examine the evidence. If you don’t know how to do that — or even where to start looking — ask a conservative. We’re not the cartoons you’d like to pretend we are.

    (Extra good-li’l-leftist points for your parting ad hominem, by the way. No, I won’t tell you what that means; look it up.)

  298. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    Those are certainly interesting articles. I don’t have time to address all the points made in the first article (some of which I think actually do have vaildity to them). 
    On the issue of violation of free speech, I would simply like to point out that the IRS didn’t just target conservative groups. Just throwing that out there.

    On the issue of gun control, why would it be right to have no control on guns? Are you suggesting we should allow mentally unstable individuals to own firearms? What about young children? There has to be some limitations, otherwise one person’s right to bear arms, will wind up trumping someone else’s right to life. To be clear, I believe that we have a right to bear arm’s, but there must be some limitations to ensure safety.

    On the issue of being forced to bake a gay wedding cake, there are some interesting points to consider. For starters, a gay wedding cake isn’t going to hurt anyone. It isn’t sending a hate message, and it certainly isn’t attacking anyone. If a bakery can deny service to gay people, then what’s stopping them from not baking cakes for black people? And of course, if a bakery can refuse service to gay people, then why can’t a hospital? “It’s a violation of my religious liberty. I don’t want to save his life,” they could say. The color of your skin and sexuality are determined by biological factors and thus neither should be discriminated against. Of course, your side claims this is a violation of religious liberty, but I just don’t see how. You aren’t being forced to affirm someone else’s beliefs. You can make a cake and not agree with the message. (i.e. maybe you made a cake for a group party of alien enthusiasts) As long as the individuals requesting the cake aren’t being disruptive or rude, and the cake doesn’t have a derogatory message, then there is no reason to refuse service. I will say though, that if I am fortunate enough to get married and the bakery we go to doesn’t want to bake us our cake because we’re gay, I wouldn’t force them to. I wouldn’t want it. In fact, I would much rather bring attention to their homophobia and watch them lose business. The main concern here is how this issue could quickly turn into something far worse (i.e. as stated before, gay people being turned away from hospitals).

    I see that you also believe that people are born with natural rights. In all honesty, I would love to believe that. It would be much better than reality. Unfortunately, what really happens is that society determines who has what rights. For example, in some countries, women have no rights (must submit to men, can’t speak, must cover body, can’t get an education, etc). In others, they do. Perhaps as time goes on, society has a whole will be able to recognize everyone’s rights. At that point, you would technically be born with inherent rights, although there would still be the potential for society to reverse it’s decision. Don’t get me wrong, this is an uncomfortable truth and by no means is this the best way to determine rights. It is simply the way it is for now though.

  299. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    Stevie Nichts LostMyBibleBelt 
    Admittedly, the “think everything is perfect the way it is and we shouldn’t change anything,” statement was one of hyperbole. What was meant by the statement was that in general, conservatives fight change. They like things the way they are (i.e. the fight against interracial marriage, gay marriage, women’s rights, etc.) and want to keep it the way it was. As I stated right after that, “Don’t get me wrong, not all conservatives are like that, but the majority that I have encountered are.”
    “First, rational people would have expected leftists to learn, by now, from decades of evidence, that the programs and policies you’ve been espousing have decidedly and provably not made the world a better place.”
    Several of your peers have made similar arguments already in this comment thread, and I have already addressed them. Please see above. Also, please note that I have also mentioned that not everything the left does is good, and not everything the right does is bad.
    “We’re not the cartoons you’d like to pretend we are.”
    That’s an interesting analogy… some of the crazier right-wingers (and left-wingers) may actually deserve that comparison, but most conservatives don’t. As far as examining the evidence, I have. Sure, I haven’t seen all of it (there’s far too much, especially when my main focus isn’t politics, but rather science), but I know how to make an informed decision.

    “Extra good-li’l-leftist points for your parting ad hominem, by the way. No, I won’t tell you what that means; look it up.”
    I’m aware of what ad hominem means. While I’m by no means fluent in all the fallacies, I know the basic ones by heart, and am familiar with some of the more uncommon ones (as I’m sure you are as well). I didn’t bring it up because I’m actually trying to have a discussion here. Sure, on twitter I’ll point out grammar problems and fallacies to stir people up and have a bit of fun, but that’s not what we’re here for. (By the way, can I turn in my “good-li’l-lefitist points” for a cookie or something?)

  300. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress I_Am_Me GregoryConterio 
    My understanding is that the practice of FGM (female genital mutilation) predates Islam in Africa, but Islam has reinforced the idea since then. Also, there are apparently several different types of FGM referred to in the Quran. The less severe type is known as type 1 by the WHO (World Health Organization) and is considered female circumcision. The more severe types are the ones considered inhumane. I’m not familiar though with which types the Quran mandates or recommends so if anyone has that information I would be glad to hear it. 
    I also just wanted to briefly mention that I don’t really have a bias for Islam being good or bad, since I’m an agnostic atheist. In my view, all religions can be used for good or bad, depending on the leaders, culture, etc. Personally, I have known good Christians, Muslims, etc, but I have also known bad ones.

  301. Stevie Nichts says:

    WesternFreePress GeneSmolko TerryMc adambtroff It’s been two months, with no reply. That speaks volumes.

  302. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    I’ll assume by lazy you’re referring to the support for programs like welfare. 4.1 % of the US population is on welfare. To be on welfare, you have to
    be making less than $1000 a month. Out of 4,730 applicants in Utah, only
    12 turned up positive on the drug test. 53.5% of people on welfare have
    been on it less than 2 years. Welfare is simply a program that helps
    people who are struggling. Welfare has strict guidelines so virtually
    everyone on it is deserving.

    I’ll assume by cowardly you’re referring to the issue of war and how liberals tend to try to avoid conflict. There is a difference between cowardice and using diplomacy. Personally, I feel war should be a last resort. Is it not more reasonable to try diplomacy first?

    On the issue of violence, I’m completely lost… please explain how liberals are violent. I mean, liberals are the ones who try to avoid conflict, remember? Plus isn’t it almost always the conservatives that wind up being violent towards minorities (i.e. gay bashing, extreme racism, etc.)?

    Also, how are liberals spiteful? The people who are motivated to hurt or humiliate others are the ones who are extremely homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, which have all traditionally been traits of conservatives. 

    NOTE: Since you weren’t very specific, I did have to assume a few things so if I assumed incorrectly please correct me. 

    WesternFreePress Would you mind explaining to me how liberals are the racists? I can’t recall any examples of this. If there are actually racist liberals in office/power I would like to know about it.

  303. I_Am_Me says:

    The reason people on the Left, at least the garden variety true believers (useful idiots have no clue what any of these discussions are about – it’s way beyond their intellectual pay grade), believe in might makes right is because they have to. They cannot believe the individual has natural or god-given rights which are delegated by informed, revocable consent to a limited government, lest their worldview completely collapse into Chernobyl rubble. There has to be a belief in a man-made “something bigger than myself” cause or movement that has superior authority over the individual, and it is held as a dogmatic faith. (In their perpetual quest to hide their true intentions and deceive questioners of their motives, in modern times they reflexively deny that they have a dogmatic faith or even an ideology, which is absurd. The deeper they go into the Leftist psychosis, the more they deny they are Leftists. “Don’t label me!” they shout as they espouse every single collectivist meme on the planet.) And we know with this two-caste counterrevolutionary worldview that there is an elitist political class and the Leftist masses. All dissenters get sent to the gulags. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

    “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

    In regards to female genital mutilation, my understand is right about what yours is. It’s why I typically avoid it in any anti-Islam rants, as I’ve heard nominally Christian people in those same regions used to also do it, or also still do it.

  304. I_Am_Me says:

    LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira
    The only reason you do not believe it to be true is because you were never told the truth. You’ve been surrounded by authority your whole life and have become accustomed to it. And honestly, many, many people are just fine with this for one main reason – it absolves them of responsibility, or at least gives them this illusion. “How can I be held accountable for my failures when I am just following what authority has told me is allowed or acceptable?” It’s an escape from reality, as much of Leftism is. And in this vein, you’ll hear things like, “It’s morally acceptable because it is legal.” Think abortion. Then think slavery. It’s abhorrent.

    But backing up a bit, you said that in the US you are born with those rights, but not in other places. This is incorrect. All humans are born free. Free of mind. Free of will. It doesn’t matter when or where you were born. Humans are not insects, nor are they primitive apes. They can certainly be manipulated or indoctrinated like Pavlov’s dogs, but that is cognitive violence. And it is the first job of the elitist political class to create their next cohort of mind slaves (think Beverly Hills/Hollywood types versus Detroit). In those other countries you’ve mentioned, their cultures are oppressive. They are denying various classes their inalienable rights.

    Now to your comment on inalienable rights being constructs of the human mind, I completely agree. If you consider the human animal as a set of sensory organs connected to an emotional center surrounded by and collaboratively interacting with a self-aware, rational being, then what is the highest state of this animal? It is of course the rational mind. And what is the rational mind? It is a free, reasoning agent. And thus you are free.

    On a side note, cultured and civilized humans have learned to refine and control their baser passions as they lead to all of the wrongs of the world, and when passions are given full reign you return to pagan-esque cultures that can hardly keep the tribe together. It’s barbarism, and it is part of the new Western Left, “If it feels good, do it.”

    So what do you want to be? Insect, ape, or man?

  305. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    I_Am_Me LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    “How can I be held accountable for my failures when I am just following what authority has told me is allowed or acceptable?”
    You are forgetting that the people have the authority over the government. We live in a democracy, where we elect our officials and have a system of checks and balances. Our officials are heavily influenced by the majority opinion. Our failures are still our own, and we can be held accountable for our actions.

    “Think abortion. Then think slavery. It’s abhorrent”
    Abortion and slavery are two completely separate issues. With slavery, there is always a victim. With abortion well.. it’s more of a grey area. It really comes down to when it is actually alive. It also depends on whether or not the mother’s life is in danger and/or if she was raped. There is no grey area with slavery like there is with abortion. 

    “All humans are born free. Free of mind. Free of will.”
    Except in cases of disabilities I agree on this… I was thinking more along the lines of freedom of speech, religion, etc. We should all be born free, but there are freedoms that many have never had. Yes, the oppressors are the ones denying the individuals their rights, but if they’ve never experience the right to choose their own religion for example, how can we say they were born free? Realistically I don’t see much point in arguing this further. I agree that we are born with certain freedoms (see quote above), and while we aren’t born with all of our freedoms, I think we should be. We differ very little on this point.
    “It’s barbarism, and it is part of the new Western Left, ‘If it feels good, do it.'”
    From a biological standpoint, it does make sense that humans in general
    would be more likely to do what feels good, since that means dopamine (a
    neurotransmitter) is being released which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. It is simply part of human nature. However, I don’t base my political decisions on what feels good, but rather on what I think is right (these can overlap). I would hope that others do the same.

  306. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me GregoryConterio 
    On the subject of FGM . . .
    You understanding of it sounds similar to my own. It is an African tribal practice, but also somewhat an Islamic one. There’s a lot of competing information out there, and I too would like to know more dispositively what the deal is. Either way, though, it is a barbaric practice. And whether it is inherently Islamic or it has been absorbed by Islam from tribal cultures doesn’t matter much to the victims, and given the status of women in Islamic society, I don’t see a change on the horizon any time soon.

    On the subject of religion . . .
    Yes, there are good and bad adherents in every faith. But ideas and ideological paradigms not only matter, they are arguably the most important influences on human behavior. And the question then is this: Is a particular set of philosophical or religious teachings more prone to helping people to do good or abetting people to do bad?

  307. I_Am_Me Your statements about the left comport with my own understanding perfectly, and are so well-states that I am compelled to ask, Do you write anywhere? Would you like to write here?

  308. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    “On the issue of gun control, why would it be right to have no control on
    guns? Are you suggesting we should allow mentally unstable individuals
    to own firearms? What about young children? There has to be some
    limitations, otherwise one person’s right to bear arms, will wind up
    trumping someone else’s right to life. To be clear, I believe that we
    have a right to bear arm’s, but there must be some limitations to ensure
    It is interesting that you mentions the mentally unstable and children. Children and non compos mentis adults are two areas where the government does have a few special roles to play. In terms of rights theory, this is justifiable because in the former case, we deny children full communion with their natural rights until they are capable of discharging those rights safely and properly, and in the latter case because they are incapable of discharging those rights (to varying degrees, obviously) properly. So there is room for exceptions in these cases. 
    And in the latter case, you can also make a justification for preemptive action vis-a-vis guns on the grounds that their possession of guns creates imminent hazard.
    But other than that, preemption of rights is a big no-no. Person A’s guns aren’t putting Person B’s life at risk. They’re just guns. We properly have laws against people shooting each other. But that is far different than restricting the rights of nonaggressive people on the grounds that they could possibly exercise those rights in a way that harms another. I own a box of matches with which I light candles. I also have a can of gasoline for the lawnmower. I could take those two things and do far more damage with them in an hour than I could with a gun. But you cannot preempt my rights to own these things based on what I might do.
    Now, back to the imminent hazard notion: You could preempt my right to own biological weapons like smallpox on the grounds that just my very ownership of it puts others at risk, since the smallpox could get out accidentally and ravage the lives of thousands or more.
    Other than that, I do not agree that there are any limitations that are justifiable. I have the right to defend myself, and I have the right to resist tyranny. Both of those things require weapons. No one has the right to tell me that I cannot choose the most effective means possible of discharging those rights. I know the implications of that statement, and I do not back down. ANY weapon useful for those purposes—with the exception of imminent-risk weapons like smallpox—is entirely justifiable under the social contract, and any restriction thereof is illegitimate.
    I made a video a while back that explains this further:

  309. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    On the issue of gay wedding cakes, etc.
    Your defense on the grounds that some things are hurtful and other things are not is extremely dangerous, because it inevitably leads to judging some people’s feelings and impression as as more important and worthy of protection than others.That is a dangerous road to walk down. We would be far better off establishing a fixed standard and applying it equally to all human beings.
    I argue that standard should be that no one should be forced to labor for anyone else, for (virtually) any reason. Hospitals occupy an exception which can be justified in rights theory based on the notion of trumps: I have property rights, but if someone stumbles onto my lawn bleeding to death, I do not have the right to watch him bleed to death just because it’s my property. Rights sometimes come into conflict, and when that happens, they must be reconciled with minimum disruption. In this case, his right to life trumps my right to do whatever i want on my property. I don’t have to pay for his care or support him in his convalescence, but I do have to try to keep him from dying somehow.
    Hospitals, similarly, do not have to treat you for anything you want for any reason if you cannot pay—they too have the right to refuse service. But they have to save you in exigent circumstances. That exception is consonant with rights theory.
    Beyond that, I can best speak to your other points by pasting the link to an article I wrote on exactly this subject. I know it’s annoying to answer a comment with a link, but I’d just be re-writing it all anyway. Read the article and then I will happily answer any further challenges you may have.

  310. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    “I see that you also believe that people are born with natural rights. In
    all honesty, I would love to believe that. It would be much better than
    reality. Unfortunately . . . ”
    This is a much tougher nut to crack. Since you are an atheist, I will have to derive natural rights for you another way than simply citing Divinely inspired Natural Law, as the Framers and Enlightenment thinkers did.
    I can do so, but it will not be quick. There are intuitive, deductive, ontological, and teleological explanations that are possible. I will write on this, but it will take some time. If you send me an email at info~at~ *~, I can contact you when something is written.

  311. I_Am_Me LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    Ah, a spirited defense of natural rights and freedom from coercion! NO MORE MASTERS!
    I would like to hear more about what sounds like a rational-inductive explanation for the preexistence of inherent natural prerogatives. Please tell me more about how you use your rational mind to deduce or induce natural rights. (Can you tell how much I love this stuff?!)

  312. Stevie Nichts GeneSmolko TerryMc 
    Yes, I think we’ve been the victims of a drive-by. Luckily, most of the bullets missed their mark by a fair distance.

  313. The Orphan says:

    “We’ll have those niggers voting democrat for the next hundred years.” – Lyndon B. Johnson
    The only rebuttal I’ve ever heard to this was that he was allegedly trying to convince other democrats, but wasn’t racist himself. Of course, that would only shift the blame onto the party, not absolve it.

  314. The Orphan I believe LBJ gave other indications of personal racism, but I am blanking on the quotes or instances right now (must have had too much chips and dip during the Super Bowl last night!). rrowe1961, do you have those quotes/ that evidence on hand?

  315. MJ says:

    LostMyBibleBelt FastRandy WesternFreePress

  316. Ivan says:

    LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira You obviously don’t understand the Constitution.  Our rights are not granted by the document, they are protected by it.  Big difference.  If you look at the specificity of the language used to craft the document, it is pure genius.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention rights being endowed by a “deity”.  It does say rights are endowed by our “creator”.  Think about that for a second.  If you are an atheist – as you are free to be – then your creator is your parents.  Your rights are a birthright, regardless of whom you interpret your ‘creator’ to be.

    Please take the time to understand the document before professing to know what it says.

  317. schutzengel says:

    The soft racism, of lower expectation, lower standards, and paternalistic attotudes towards minorities of all stripes.

  318. schutzengel Yes indeed. I am not sure I like the inclusion of the term “soft” in there. I think it would be better to use the word “quiet.” The quiet racism of . . . .

  319. I_Am_Me says:


    My only writing (and arguing) has been in business and in college, where of course my classical liberalism caused some grief with the benevolent indoctrinators of Postmodern Deconstructionists and Utopian Statists, the former being the primary intellectual tool of the later in recent times.

    More recently I’ve been active on certain liberty loving blogs. This is all because I was awoken from my political slumber by certain anti-liberty actions of the Obama regime. In fact, I ran across your article about two months after I stopped everything I was doing to research this Statist cancer in America.

    Since then, I’ve spent an enormous amount of time (and at great financial expense and future risk) educating myself on culture, history, sociology, philosophy, psychology, political science and economics in order to write a book. There are many books published in the last 10 years talking about the decline and fall of the West and America in particular, and all of them roughly end with the admonition to act now or lose it all.

    And as time progresses, the number of people who would be willing to put everything on the line for freedom continues to dwindle at a more rapid pace. It’s really down to a chunk of the American “red states” to uphold global human freedom. And to get them organized will take education that covers the following in a Thomas Paine 
    style pamphlet:

    1. The Conservative mind. (Covers classical liberals, libertarians, modern conservatives and minarchists.)
    2. The Leftist Mind.
    3. What Conservatives think of Leftists.
    4. What Leftists think of Conservatives.
    5. What Leftists want to do to Conservatives and why.
    6. What Conservatives want to do to Leftists (i.e. nothing now accept vote for incompetent GOP Establishment).
    7. What Leftists want to do to Conservatives who know what Leftists are up to. (Most Conservatives have no idea what or why this “hope and change” is going on.)

    There is even more, as economics and liberty are so closely entwined that they have to be deal with together. This gets into Adam Smith, neoclassical economics, the Keynesian statist frauds, and alternatives like the Austrian school.

    Underlying all this is a strident attack that is required against all forms of relativism and subjectivism, which have been used as nuclear weapons against truth and natural rights, starting with Kant.

    It’s such a massive undertaking that I can’t spend time blogging on individual aspects, but I greatly appreciate your offer and look forward to more of your own articles. There is truth in the world no matter how hard the elitist globalists want to restore a two caste system of masters and mindless, neo-pagan hedonist slaves.

  320. I_Am_Me The work that you are doing is very much needed. Keep it up!  And thank you for your sacrifice. If those few of us who truly get it do not act, no one will.
    I am also working on a book (on rights and governance, natch!), though it is taking a long time because it is so hard to find the time. Occasionally, though, I will write something on the site that I intend to put in the book (albeit in somewhat modified form). It helps me to work out my thoughts, build an audience for the ideas, test the ideas, etc. It can be very helpful to my process. If you decide you’d like to do some of that, let me know. You’d be great!

  321. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    The Orphan Like I said, traditionally racism is a trait of conservatives. I didn’t say that only conservatives were racist. Research shows that low-intelligence adults gravitate towards socially conservative ideologies. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, which are attitudes that can contribute to prejudice.

  322. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    It would seem then that we have the same view on gun control. I’m aware that there are liberals who want to take gun control way too far, but I simply advocate for safety. Guns shouldn’t be taken away, but limitations must be in place.

  323. LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan Oh, seriously? You’re one of those contemptuous elitist types? How disappointing. 
    Racism is actually distributed fairly evenly throughout the population, without regard to political alignment. And as for the self-serving pseudoscience that suggests that conservatives are less intelligent—balderdash. In addition to the fact that these studies—usually done by réchauffé Marxist college professors—eventually get discredited as junk science—we have the simple fact of education distribution. Conservatives are more represented among those who have college degrees; people on the left are at the extremes—more likely to have graduate degrees or not even to have graduated high school. And these hacks doing these onanistic surveys aren’t going into the hood and gauging the intelligence of high school dropouts as a part of their studies. 
    They—and, tragically, you—prove all the points in my article with every bit of vitriol and preening, self-serving dishonesty.

  324. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    First of all, there is no problem with posting a link in a comment. It would be a waste of time to rewrite something that you have already written or something that someone else has already explained. (i.e. research article)
    “I argue that standard should be that no one should be forced to labor for anyone else, for (virtually) any reason.”
    Current law says that business can’t discriminate for arbitrary things (i.e. hair color, religious belief, etc). If society allowed businesses to refuse service for any reason (except in instances of life and death) it would be a catastrophe. Every time you walk into a store you’d have to worry about being thrown out and having to find a different place to shop. You could be thrown out because the owner doesn’t like your clothes, the way you walk, etc.

    Of course, there are cases in which businesses should be allowed to refuse service such as being unable to pay, being disruptive or rude, etc. 

    The problem with the specific issue of christian business owners being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding comes down to the fact that the law defines both religious views and sexual orientation as arbitrary and thus both are protected from being discriminated against. In this instance, it comes down to who is being rude, causing a disruption, etc and in this case it is the christian business owner. Imagine if the tables were turned– would you want a gay business owner refusing to bake you a christian wedding cake?

  325. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    Are you sure we have the same view? I have tried to find objections to private ownership of tanks, battleships, and combat helicopters and I have not yet been able to develop a supportable objection thereto. WMDs, yes, because A) they are primarily for external defense; and B) because they present an imminent danger even when not in use (radiation, escape of biohazards). Other than that, I am not sure I have an issue with my neighbor having a combat-ready artillery piece in his front yard.

  326. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    @Ivan LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira The question though, is whether or not these inalienable rights can really be considered a birthright if so many people across the world have never experienced them (i.e. freedom of speech).

    There really isn’t any using in arguing over this issue though because whether or not I think we are born with these right, I at least think that we should be.

  327. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    Let’s start with the last first: If a gay baker refused to bake a Christian wedding cake, no one would come to the defense of the Christian. The media would be silent. There would be no cries of outrage at the discrimination. And that is a big part of the problem—with deciding what does and does not constitute discrimination, we are playing favorites—pitting one group against another; saying one group’s rights and feeling s matter more than another’s.
    But more to the point, I DO want a store owner to be able to throw me out because he does not like my shirt or my Italian ancestry. I want to be that free. I want to live in a society where no one is forced to labor for another, even if his reasons are totally crappy.
    And then I want that freedom to allow me to stand outside and tell people, “Hey, this jerk doesn’t serve Italians” and let them decide whether they want to keep patronizing an establishment run by someone with repellent views.
    Freedom takes care of things. Human beings can run things on our own. A business owner who turns away good business for stupid reasons will not long be in business. Problem solved. Problem solved without force being exerted on nonaggressive human beings. Problem solved without setting one individual or cohort above another. Problem solved without compelling the labor of anyone.

  328. LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    Of course they have the rights. Just because those who exercise force over them do not grant them enjoyment of or full communion with their rights does not mean the rights do not exist. 
    If inherent rights do not exist, then you cannot see an injustice done to a person and say, “Hey, they cannot do that!” A woman is stoned to death for adultery. A gay is hung from a crane for being gay. If you deem that top be a violation of that person’s individual sovereignty, you are claiming that rights exist. Without that, there is no way to condemn what was done. No way to say, for example, that “slavery is wrong.”

  329. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan 
    Contemptuous- manifesting, feeling, or expressing deep hatred or disapproval.
    Elitism- consciousness of being or belonging to an elite.
    I display neither characteristic. If I hated conservatives or thought that I was so much better than them, I wouldn’t take the time to have a rational discussion with them free from name-calling. You automatically assume that I view someone with lower intelligence as inferior, which is not the case. You’re essentially telling me that IQ tests are prejudiced when they’re used to prove that people
    with socially conservative ideologies tend to have more prejudice.

    (Information for the study I was specifically talking about) Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (in press). Does lower cognitive ability predict greater prejudice? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 454-459. DOI: 10.1177/096372141454549750.
    I should also point out that these studies are very clear that these conclusions are based on averages and that there are plenty of intelligent, well-established conservatives, and many idiotic liberals. 
    You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the word pseudoscience (a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation). This study is not pseudoscience. Could the study’s conclusions be false? Yes, but it would still not be pseudoscience.

  330. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    “If a gay baker refused to bake a Christian wedding cake, no one would come to the defense of the Christian.”
    I would have to disagree with this, especially since the vast majority of the US is christian. Also I, along with many other gays or atheists, would defend the christian in this instance. (This is inferred by my discussions and experiences with people that I know both online and in real life.)

    “I DO want a store owner to be able to throw me out because he does not like my shirt or my Italian ancestry.”
    I understand that if this were the case, one could simply protest and tell people about the injustice and then over time the business might be shut down or change its stance, but why go through all of that? Why not just have protective, anti-discriminatory laws in the first place? It seems like a much quicker and fairer solution.

  331. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    But there are societies where those acts are perfectly accepted and considered moral. If human rights are inherent, then why doesn’t everyone naturally recognize them?

  332. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira
    Well on the specific issue of gun control we do have the same view. I’ve never gotten into a discussion over private ownership of military grade weaponry though. I would argue that such weaponry should be considered high risk and an imminent threat to the surrounding area. I would be extremely uncomfortable if my neighbor owned one of these weapons because of how great the potential for disaster would be. IF private ownership of said weapons were to be legalized, at the very least I would want rigorous psych testing and intense training on how to properly handle the weapons. There would also need to be restrictions on when and where those weapons could be fired so as to not harm other individual’s property or livelihood.

  333. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    WesternFreePress LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan 
    Also, even if there is no link between low intelligence and social conservative ideologies, there is still a link between those ideologies and attitudes that can contribute to prejudice.

  334. The Orphan says:

    LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan


  335. schutzengel says:

    Ok, let me stop you right there for a second…
    On the issue of gun control, why would it be right to have no control on guns? Are you suggesting we should allow mentally unstable individuals to own firearms? What about young children?
    There are natural restrictions on rights, when someone is a danger to themselves or others (tthe mentally infirm, and violent criminals) or when they lack the capacity to understand and make a truly informed decision about their actions (aagain the mentally infirm, and children. ) This is also why we do not allow these grouos of people vote, or why we dont let the sevond group enter into contracts, that are legally binding. Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you honestly not see the difference?

  336. schutzengel says:

    A few small things first
    If a bakery can deny service to gay people, then what’s stopping them from not baking cakes for black people? And of course, if a bakery can refuse service to gay people, then why can’t a hospital? “It’s a violation of my religious liberty.
    There is the right of free association, if you are un familiar with this concept…
    While anyone may find the idea of discrimination abhorant (as I do) we are all free to chose the people we associate with. Anti-discrimination laws are in and of themselves a violation of free association, but it is just another inalienable right that we have given away.
    As far as the “right wingers” always fighting for the status quo, and want things to remain the way they are… I am sure some republicans like King and Douglass would vehemently disagree….
    I’lI wager as well you believe the Dixiecrats became republicans, and that the “Solid South” turned republican in the 60s when the civil rights bills were passed….
    Or that the KKK was a christian, and not a political organization.

  337. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    The Orphan LostMyBibleBelt 
    The author of that article basically said the study is invalid because he doesn’t like the definitions Hodson used for “conservative” and “racist”. He also essentially argued that a large sample size was a bad thing. Specifically he said, “These effects mostly have small p-values, but as I said above, small
    p-values are practically guaranteed in large samples (> 1000).” To start off with, 1000 is not a large sample size. Secondly, the smaller the p-value, the larger the significance because it
    tells the observer that the hypothesis under consideration may not
    adequately explain the observation. The abstract for Hodson’s study reads, “We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability
    predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement
    of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing
    authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups.” This means that small p-values would make their hypothesis far less likely to be true.

    The author of the article you posted also said, “This articulate person (language warning on the link) says that social
    scientists mix in red herring questions with “real” ones so that
    interviewees can’t figure out what’s going on. This person also says
    that I was unaware of this. Not true. But even if I was, it would have
    been irrelevant.” How in the world is that irrelevant? That is a perfect explanation for why he doesn’t understand how certain questions were linked to social conservatism and/or racism.

  338. schutzengel says:

    LostMyBibleBelt WesternFreePress melissacpereira
    Just because a society does not adhere to natural rights either out of fear or dogma, does not negate their existence.

  339. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    “Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you honestly not see the difference?”
    What are you talking about? The difference between what? Gun control boils down to not allowing people who are a danger to themselves and others to own guns. That group is made up of the mentally ill, children, etc. So what difference are you talking about? No one is trying to take your guns away in any other case.

  340. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    schutzengel LostMyBibleBelt WesternFreePress melissacpereira As we’ve already established though, rights are a construct of the human mind. If certain societies don’t recognize these rights / have never thought of them, then they have never existed for those people.

  341. schutzengel says:

    LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan
    Sorry, but socially conservative =/= racist . 
    It is the collectivist / statist, and not the individualist who sees people based in identity politics, and in the politically correct. 
    it is the collectivist / statist who sees people based on race, gender, sexual orientation… and who bases policy, and law on these things. 
    it is the collectivist / statist who does not see the individual, and who buries “lesser groups” in paternalistic and racist “protections” that do nothing to actually protect them, and make them more dependent on the state and / or the collective. 
    It is the collectivist / statist who lowers the bar for certain groups because they in their racist view do not believe they can compete on their own without help, and in doing so perpetuate and strengthen the stereotype. 
    I could go one but at this point if you don’t get it, you can not… or will not.

  342. schutzengel says:

    LostMyBibleBelt schutzengel
    you stated we have to gave gun control laws to stop the mentally ill etc from owning guns, and implied that those who are against gun control are FOR handing the mentally ill shotguns, or giving AR-15s to 5 year olds…  (hopefully obvious hyperbole)
    When in fact, those people due to either their diminished understanding, or their diminished capacity, are not fully capable of expressing their natural rights, and for the protection of themselves and society at large we do not allow them to exercise those rights.
    We don’t allow those with a diminished mental capacity or understanding (due to age or impairment)  to vote, hold political office, or own a firearm…  which does at times make me wonder how liberals get elected at all…   :-p 
    None of that is contrary to the expression of natural rights.

  343. LostMyBibleBelt says:

    schutzengel LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan 
    “It is the collectivist / statist who sees people based on race, gender,
    sexual orientation… and who bases policy, and law on these things.”
    Just because the collectivist wants to pass laws protecting people from discrimination based on arbitrary things, doesn’t mean they only see people based on those things. Sure, race, sexual orientation, etc are defining factors of an individual, but they don’t tell the whole story. They are simply pieces of the greater picture. We have to pass laws on these things because prejudiced individuals that do define people based on race, gender, etc. see certain people as lesser and feel that they don’t deserve the same rights.

    “It is the collectivist / statist who does not see the individual, and
    who buries “lesser groups” in paternalistic and racist “protections”
    that do nothing to actually protect them, and make them more dependent
    on the state and / or the collective.”
    Wow… this is probably one of the most ignorant comments I’ve read. You literally just equated minorities with “lesser groups” (you aren’t doing a very good job disproving the fact that conservatives tend to be more prejudiced). Then you proceeded to claim that having laws against discrimination based on arbitrary things wouldn’t protect anyone and is somehow racist. The whole freaking purpose of the laws is to protect the minorities. You make absolutely no sense.

    “It is the collectivist / statist who lowers the bar for certain groups
    because they in their racist view do not believe they can compete on
    their own without help, and in doing so perpetuate and strengthen the
    Yes because having the capacity for empathy makes me a racist. You keep telling yourself that. You should be careful, you’re reaching the dangerously high stupidity levels of people like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham.

  344. LostMyBibleBelt schutzengel The Orphan 
    schutzengel  put “lesser groups” in quotes to point out that it is paternalists who think of them as lesser—as incapable of competing, as incapable of achieving or living up to the same standards as others. Setting aside the relative merits of the statement itself, it was not an indication of racism on schutzengel’s part, it was an accusation of the quiet bigotry of lower expectations on the part of paternalists.

  345. LostMyBibleBelt schutzengel The Orphan 
    “We have to pass laws on these things because prejudiced individuals that
    do define people based on race, gender, etc. see certain people as
    lesser and feel that they don’t deserve the same rights.”
    Every such attempt, though, ends up actively diminishing the rights of others. 
    And we have to talk about what we mean by “rights.” You do not have a right to be treated nicely. You do not have a right to make someone (or have someone else exert force to make them) provide you a service. 
    But the act of forcing people to be nice, to give other people things, to labor for them—that act actually does violate REAL rights.

  346. LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan 
    You have been a comparatively respectful commenter, and that is much appreciated. I will probably tell you that again sometime, because it is rare in this field. 
    So I will try to be respectful in return when I point out that, 
    “Yes because having the capacity for empathy makes me a racist.”
    kind of helps to prove my point in Reason #3. I know that you did not come right out and say that schutzengel lacks compassion, but the statement is kind of a left-handed way of saying so, and it is something to which we conservatives and libertarians are quite accustomed. The difference is that we prefer compassion and charity to be private and voluntary, whereas statists consider it entirely acceptable—and even desirable—for the state to force people to be “charitable” and “compassionate.”
    Add this to the fact that conservatives give more in personal charity (whereas the left gives more of other people’s money) and you have a great source of frustration for us.

  347. LostMyBibleBelt schutzengel melissacpereira 
    I am not sure we have established that. Yes, some of the explanations for the existence of natural rights depend on reason for their derivation. But there are other possible explanations, including evolutionary-teleological explanations and deontological-theological ones.

  348. Thank you The Orphan, for posting this.  LostMyBibleBelt , I retract my use of the term pseudoscience (critique accepted) and replace it with crap science. The Orphan is entirely correct—the questions themselves are skewed and biased—and several of them do not even lead to a proper conclusion that one is on the political right.
    The best example of that is the notion of authoritarianism. The right-wing is only authoritarian in the left’s fevered imaginings, and in the political brinksmanship of Stalin and the communists when they were fighting the fascists and Nazis over the same piece of political turf. 
    The right, properly understood, seeks less authority. The further right you go, the more libertarian you get, until you finally reach anarcho-capitalism. The fact that conservatives favor law and order is based on the notion that that is the first concern when any polity decides to transition from pre-state to state. Internal security, external security, and neutral justice are the sine qua non of even the most minarchist society.
    Identifying people as conservative based on their tendency to prefer authoritarianism is not only going to give you bad results, it’s likely to give the exact opposite result.

    I have to apologize for the degree to which I lost my temper over your initial slam on our intelligence. The reason should be obvious, but I will lay it out anyway. 
    The tendency to sling these sorts of insults is an artifact of being on the political left. For the first half, and more, of the 20th century, progressives created a cottage industry of psychological crap-science devoted to identifying those holding conservative beliefs as suffering from a mental disorder. (Goldberg has an excellent section on this in “Liberal Fascism,” documenting some of this history. I cannot tell you which chapter because I have it on audio CD.) It is utter nonsense—all of it.
    But, since it keeps rearing its head and won’t go away, I will respond in kind. The fact that progressives feel completely comfortable labeling an entire cohort as racist, on average less intelligent, or suffering from mental illness for adhering to a different political ideology comes from exactly the place I lay out in the article above. And the fact that they would actually attempt to “prove” this through “science” shows the depraved depths to which the progressive mind will sink. This combination of utopianism and narcissism leads to an attitude of disdain and contempt that dehumanizes entire groups of people. Here in the U.S, you just treat us like crap, deny us employment, harm our reputations, and calumniate us for it. In other places and at other times, you slaughter us by the millions for it.
    All because we believe in private rather than government solutions; in voluntarism rather than force; in the individual rather than the collective; in equality of opportunity rather than outcome.
    And for all this abuse, we still don’t treat you as bad as you treat us.
    I thank you again for the fact that you have come here and been fairly respectful. And even in making your statement that we’re all a bunch of stupid-heads, you did it with a fair amount of grace. But the way that thinking is so integrated into your world-view is deeply, deeply disturbing. It is—and I know you will protest strenuously, but I maintain it is—just a milder form of the exact same thinking that puts human beings on cattle cars on the train to Siberia, or worse.

  349. LostMyBibleBelt schutzengel 
    “No one is trying to take your guns away in any other case.”
    That really isn’t true. There are efforts underway to do everything from taking away gun ownership rights entirely to severely constraining them to defining them into functional oblivion. It’s an ongoing effort involving many people and millions of dollars, stopped only by the resistance of many other people and other millions of dollars.

  350. schutzengel LostMyBibleBelt Stevie Nichts 
    The KKK was “the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.” That is, I believe, verbatim from the Congressional record.

    And thank you for the mention of freedom of association. Again, that is an actual RIGHT. It is an individual prerogative that stems from each person’s freedom and imputes negative obligations on others. That’s what a real right is. Laws that require people to serve people they do not wish to serve (for whatever good or bad reason) do not preserve rights, because no one has a right to force another to serve him. All such laws do is destroy rights. That is not a good thing; it is a bad thing.

  351. LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan schutzengel Stevie Nichts 
    Can you give us an example?

  352. LostMyBibleBelt melissacpereira 
    They are natural because they arise from the brute facts of nature. 
    1. Man in a state of nature enjoys exclusive control over a (theoretically infinite) range of actions and choices. Call it free will, if you wish.
    2. No one is born with natural birthright authority over another (parents and children are an exception which we can deal with separately)
    Through a series of logical arguments, we can derive from these brute facts of nature the existence of natural freedoms, then natural prerogatives, and then finally natural rights—all of which end up being different terms for the same concept. I intend to do this in my book, when I find the time necessary to finally finish it.
    These rights are real; they exist as a brute fact of nature, which is what, in part, makes them “natural.” But they are not natural in the sense that they are instinctual—you do not know them they way you know that you must eat and procreate. 
    Some societies—most notably those of the Anglosphere—have made the leap and realized that these exist. Assuming an upward progression of humanity, more and more societies will eventually figure it out.

  353. LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira Stevie Nichts schutzengel The Orphan 
    “If a gay baker refused to bake a Christian wedding cake, no one would come to the defense of the Christian.”
    would have to disagree with this, especially since the vast majority of
    the US is christian. Also I, along with many other gays or atheists,
    would defend the christian in this instance. (This is inferred by my
    discussions and experiences with people that I know both online and in
    real life.) 
    I should have been more specific: No one among the self-anointed, self-reinforcing cadre of American elites would. Those who exert near-hegemonic control over the primary mechanisms of mass-information dissemination: entertainment, mainstream media, academia.

    “I DO want a store owner to be able to throw me out because he does not like my shirt or my Italian ancestry.”
    understand that if this were the case, one could simply protest and
    tell people about the injustice and then over time the business might be
    shut down or change its stance, but why go through all of that? Why not
    just have protective, anti-discriminatory laws in the first place? It
    seems like a much quicker and fairer solution.

    Because quickness and (that kind of) “fairness”  are not—or ought not be—goals of any government. Government needs to treat people equally, not treat people unequally in an effort to force people to be nice to each other or serve each other or have certain thoughts about each other. Doing the latter requires force and violence and the violation of rights.
    Let’s put this more simply: I can tell you exactly what rights are being violated when government uses its power to help one citizen force another citizen to bake them a cake: freedom, self-ownership, property, freedom of conscience, and freedom of association. 
    Can you tell me what rights are violated if the baker refuses to bake the cake?

  354. The Orphan says:

    LostMyBibleBelt The Orphan 

    Sorry to post and run, I had to get to work and this was more of a placeholder until I could get back and fully address it.  The study, “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes” is based entirely on a cross-section of the British population, and doesn’t actually conduct any meaningful research on the American population.

    Hodson and Busseri recycled survey questions to poll a total of 254 undergraduate students from a single, undisclosed American university, looking for “prejudice against homosexuals” and indexed the results against a poll designed to look for “right-wing-authoritarianism”.  They then used measurements of what they deemed to be homophobic behavior as a *direct correlation* to racism without ever directly testing for racism in the American sample.

    The 21-question quiz they used to identify homophobia holds an obvious bias and is full of loaded questions.  Do I “find the thought of homosexual acts disgusting”?  Well, I’m straight… the idea of being with a man does repulse me.  That’s why I’m straight.  incidentally, I find mayo disgusting… but I don’t think people who eat it are inferior.  Would I vote for a homosexual?  Sure… but not BECAUSE he’s gay.  Do I think that “the increasing acceptance of homosexuality … is aiding in the deterioration of morals”?  Well, I mean there’s a pedophile organization (B4U-Act) piggy-backing on the homosexual civil rights movement… and are deliberately hoping that when homosexuality is finally accepted, they can roam around diddling kids.

    And I didn’t even mention the fact that a full 50% of the IQ test was based on vocabulary; which inherently measures education rather than cognitive ability.  IQ tests have long been criticized for this.  

    And this was all in one paragraph.  Meanwhile, all you have to do is be a black republican to be bombarded by liberals and democrats with racially-charged vitriol:

  355. The Orphan 
    Would you consider writing for Western Free Press?

  356. schutzengel says:

    LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira
    “Abortion and slavery are two completely separate issues. With slavery, there is always a victim. With abortion well.. it’s more of a grey area. It really comes down to when it is actually alive. It also depends on whether or not the mother’s life is in danger and/or if she was raped. There is no grey area with slavery like there is with abortion. ” 
    You cannot honestly tell me that you believe that the fetus is not both human and alive? Maybe it is poor wording but your conflict should not be with “Is it human?” The embryo/fetus/child is clearly human, you could not take a sample of cells from the child and tell me those cells were not both human and alive, the have human DNA, so therefore they are human(sorry simple scientific classification) and that those cells are alive, they meet ALL of the scientific qualifications for life. 
    7 requirements of Life
    1. Homeostasis 
     2. Organization
     3. Metabolism
     4. Growth
     5. Adaptation
     6. Response to stimuli
     7. Reproduction 

    Your argument should be person hood…  not humanity, because scientifically you will lose the argument without your opponent even trying if you try to base your pro-abortion on the foundation you just placed it on. 

    You’re Welcome.

  357. The Orphan says:

    WesternFreePress The Orphan

    If this is a legitimate offer, I’d be happy to write for WFP.  Where do I sign up?

  358. ClaraPerisho says:

    Some liberals are just sad, stupid, deluded, hateful human beings..

    Just check Facebook.

    Of course, if you comb through Facebook selectively, you could probably come to the same conclusion about every group, every religion, every political position, and every spots teams fans.  So, call me unimpressed by a quote from a Facebook-y retard.  One can easily find similar moronic comments from conservatives on Facebook, or, even in this articles posts.

    The attacks accused of going one way, both sides then mirror the other..  Both sides are, amazingly enough, dumb tools, and brilliant manipulative strategists.  Both are racist, and racially blind.  Both are tyrants, and helpless victims..

    From the perspective of one with both strong conservative values and ideals, and some strong liberal ideals, and values (and thus considers herself an independent, and a middle path sort), the perpetual villain painting, done by both sides, and victim playing, also done by both, is tiresome.  Heck, I can probably find 12 extremists of horrifying stupidity and repulsiveness from both sides lightning fast by combing through Facebook..  Wish we could get past that, identify our common goals, and work towards them..

    Mainly, I find it funny, and slightly hypocritical (and this author sadly, isn’t alone, even his political opposites pull this) that the author says, ‘Liberals suck’ because..  a)  b)  and c).  Then he does….  a),  b)  and  c).

  359. schutzengel LostMyBibleBelt I_Am_Me melissacpereira 
    The abortion question is tragically simple. Two human rights are in mutually exclusive conflict: The fetus’ right to life and the mother’s right to make decisions about what is going on with/in her own body. The facts of human reproduction make the conflict utterly unique and nearly impossible to resolve. Respect the right of one and the other’s right is violated.
    It seems, then, it would have to come down to personhood—at what point does life, which, as a right, trumps other rights when rights come info conflict, trump the right of a women to make decisions about a process taking place inside her?
    Personally, I would rather see us make progress on promoting adoption as an alternative, because I think the legal fight is getting us virtually nowhere.

  360. Fromafar says:

    Great Article Chris!…Keep up the good work.

  361. Link says:

    Care to refute even one point above with substance?

  362. Moderate says:

    You said that liberal homes are 6% wealthier, first of all you come across in your writing as talking down to second of all you said that that a b c d thing and made c conservative, if taxes go up liberals have to pay also so by saying that there 6 percent wealthier your saying that they pay more in taxes as well. This is a good article and your wriing is easy to read it’s far better writing than mine, also in this article you point out several major truths but you generalize and don’t show Both sides as well. Not all conservatives are racist but a lot of racists are conservative and liberal.

  363. PaulPopa says:

    I cannot even describe how awesome it was to read this article. Always impressed by someone that can put honest thoughts into words. Keep it up Christopher! We need more people like you.

  364. PaulPopa You are very kind, sir. Years of desperately trying to figure out why the left is so vicious certainly has helped concentrate my thinking on the subject.

  365. PaulPopa says:

    WesternFreePress I have experienced everything that you have written and have wondered the same thing. I will never understand how an educated individual (assuming the leftists who would stoop to such lows are, in fact, educated) could resort to slandering and straw man arguments. To feel superior, perhaps? I will proudly share this article on Facebook page for others to peruse as well.

  366. PaulPopa Thank you, and yes, please do share. I want everyone on the right to have this as ammunition and everyone on the left to know that we’re on to them.
    Many who stoop that low are educated. Virtually everyone in the Chinese communist party went to college and then came out the other side as communists, and we know how vicious they were. Look in America at the slander and libel and vicious calumny done by media and elected officials, nearly all of whom are intelligent and/or educated.
    Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It’s self-image. The leftist, first and foremost, preens his own self-image. Then, once he is satisfied that his plumage is beautiful, it’s a quick hop, skip, and a jump to telling you how ugly you are.  He doesn’t need to test his assumptions in the real world. He doesn’t need to prove anything. He doesn’t need to make any legitimate points. He is numinous; you are scum. That is all he needs to know.
    Thank you for your confirmation via your own personal experiences. Though anecdotal, it adds to the data set!

  367. Alex says:

    WOW. What nonsense. head start which was started by a rich white guy, Col. Shriver ( yes, Maria Shriver Kennedy’s father) was started not so that he felt good about himself. He saw that many children of minorities were testing below average and not doing as well as their white counterparts. Not because they were dumber but because their parents did not have the resources or education to teach and prepare their children for kindergarten. Once these children started attending head start, the program showed that statistically these children started doing as well as their white, rich counterparts. If not all conservatives are evil, then not all liberals are out to FEEL good about themselves. Please!! I would rather spend in the front end than the back end. Another example… most conservatives are against abortion and birth control. Well then when these unwanted children are being abused, killed and neglected don’t complain about the welfare system!! I would rather the problem be prevented then try to deal with these unwanted children draining the welfare system, prison system, child protective system etc… this is not about making me feel good about myself. This is about being realistic! Abortion is not good but I would rather a child not be born if he will be unwanted and unloved and become a drain on many systems. One of the most pathetic articles ever written.

  368. gaguy1967 says:

    @Alex He is correct. Liberalism is about creating utopia. Conservatives stand in the way, so they are hated. Liberals also ascribe all conservatives motives as racist.

  369. MattBaker1 says:

    Not specifically racist, but motivated by hatred. Since they believe everything they do is motivated by love, if you oppose love it must be based in hatred.

  370. MattBaker1 gaguy1967 Yes to you both. And do you also notice that they rarely feel the need to prove their assumptions in the real world?
    Minimum wage laws help workers. Everyone knows that, and anyone who says otherwise or stands in the way is evil.
    Never mind the fact that nearly all the evidence shows that minimum wage laws cause unemployment for those who can least afford it!

  371. Joe Cee says:

    Everything that he, or she said, about conservatives is 100% spot on! That is exactly how you come across. Every idea, and policy is designed to either hurt the powerless or help the powerful.

  372. rockribbedrushy says:

    @Moderate  “Not all conservatives are racist but a lot of racists are conservative and liberal.”

    You have any data or evidence to back up your assertions?

  373. rockribbedrushy says:

    ClaraPerisho  ”
    Some liberals are just sad, stupid, deluded, hateful human beings..

    Just check Facebook.”

    Funny you should mention Facebook. I was reported to Facebook by those same Liberal Socialist Democrats who could not or would not answer questions.

    I cannot even get my old account back.

  374. rockribbedrushy says:

    @Link  All you need to do is read the typical comments at Politico, Politifact or Politicooties.

  375. rockribbedrushy says:

    @Joe Cee  And yet, Conservative Christians give more to charities than Liberal “Christians” or secular liberals.

    Remember, the Republican Party was started by Christian Abolitionists to end Slavery, while democrats defended it.

  376. rockribbedrushy, @Joe Cee doesn’t care about facts. He is not interested in history. He has made up his mind. He has swallowed the lie of the left that everything we do is for wicked purposes. He is walking, talking proof of exactly what I wrote in this article. He is good, we are wicked. That is all he needs to know. Historical, statistical, and factual data are beside the point. He has his narrative, and that is what matters to him.

  377. rockribbedrushy ClaraPerisho’schallenge is not entirely unreasonable. There are some very nasty people on our side. In response, though, there are several points. 
    First, there have been studies done that have determined, with more objectivity than simple anecdotal observation can produce, that the rank and file of the left are nastier in their comments.  (Unfortunately, I don’t recall the source of the study now—it was more than a decade ago.)
    Second, we have to look at the difference between what is said by people in the rank and file and what is said by the leaders in each movement. The lies, the calumny, and the vileness are epidemic throughout the elites, the spokespeople, the media, and the elected officials of the left. The calumnious things that left-wing media people say are not mirrored in vileness and hatefulness among right wing media. The “Republicans just want poor people to die” or Republicans are racists” or whatever that comes out of the mouths of Democrat politicians, including presidents, simply has no analogue among conservative or Republican leaders. AZgaina dn again, we can compare apples to apples among people in leadership positions and find that calumny and the ascription of wicked motivations comes from people in the leadership of the left in ways it never does from their counterparts on the right.

    Third, I believe that a broad spectrum study of both sides would reveal that while you may have rotten people on both sides who make things personal or say things in nasty ways, the left is FAR more likely to question the personal morality of people on the right. You simply don’t have people on the right, be they rank-and-file or leaders, pitching their arguments in terms of moral indictments of the motivations of their opponents. They make consequentialist arguments. They operate on moral defense. But they do not say, “Hey, lefty, you support that policy BECAUSE you have wicked motivations (hate the poor, hate other races, greedy, venal, etc.).”
    Frankly, I wish they would pitch their arguments on moral grounds. The ideology of the left, as an aggregated phenomenon, contains the worst and most wicked ideas ever devised by man. It is worthy of moral opprobrium. Moreover, I do think that many of the rank and file choose this ideology because it has marketed itself well as the only choice for compassionate and decent people; it appeals to their narcissism and makes them feel good about themselves, and beyond that, no thought is required. They don’t actually have to test their assumptions in the real world; they just know they’re good and decent. And from there, it’s only a hop, skip, and a jump to vilifying anyone who disagrees with them as being morally wicked with terrible motivations. And from there—as we have seen time and time again in history since the French Revolution, it’s only one more hop, skip, and a jump—and a little more power and control—away from putting people in camps.

  378. MattBaker1 says:

    WesternFreePress rockribbedrushy ClaraPerisho The left loves to spout “judge not, lest ye be judged.”  That prohibition isn’t about judging the actions of another human being, but their heart, reason, and motives…  No man can see into the heart of another, you cannot know their actual reasons, you can only see their actions. So, that is what we can judge another man on. 
    The left loves to spout that thinking it is damnign to the right for judging the actions of another, when in reality it is damning to them for judging the soul of another.

  379. MattBaker1 rockribbedrushy ClaraPerisho Well said. And I believe that many of them know darned well that they do not have that insight into the motivations of others. They simply use it as a cudgel to silence them.

  380. TrueRomaineSpence says:

    Thoughtful bump.

  381. TrueRomaineSpence Thanks.

  382. DanMcCormick says:


  383. sn90401 says:


    You are right about this hate of conservatives first and everything else second.  What they don’t realize yet but they will soon is that there is a new ‘player’ in town and it will hide behind liberalism until its force is felt on its own.

    There will be liberals vs conservatives as a distraction for a few years to come and then it will be what it really is now … Radical Islam against everything else.  Liberals will allow the movement to grow without regard to the fact that Radical Islam hates all that liberals stand for such as women’s rights, gay rights, education, etc.

  384. sn90401 says:

    What if Hilary Clinton was given the label of Republican.  All of her virtues would become SINS.  Her actions would be misinterpreted and spun rather than extolled or ignored as they are now.

    The best way to defeat Ms. Clinton if you are a Democrat is to associate her with Republican rich and big business, oil rich cartels and a leader of a tax avoidance scheme called a TRUST.  (Wait, those are her friends but they still just gave her hundreds of thousands in Hollywood!)

  385. sn90401 gaguy1967 Yes.

    1. Islam has been at war with everyone and everything that is not Islamic for 1,400 years. That has not changed.
    2. “Liberals” in the West are not only gleefully surrendering, they seem, in a way, to be actively helping. For Western civilization, that is a change. We didn’t used to have so many people acting as a 5th column in our own culture.
    There is no doubt of the former, and though “liberals” would no doubt argue the latter bitterly, their actions put the lie to their protestations.

  386. sn90401 If Hillary Clinton has been a Republican, she never would have been able to get away with all these serial scandals over the years. Her public career would have ended after the first one or two of them, and few people would know her name outside of Arkansas.
    Instead . . .

  387. MichaelO61 says:

    WesternFreePress rockribbedrushy ClaraPerisho Western Free Press has proved everything that Clara Perisho has said.  There is no moral or logical reason that one side is better than the other.  I am 61 and have been around long enough to see the vitriol from both sides.  Nuff said.  I feel truly blessed when I see someone who seeks the truth and has an independent mind and keeps it real.  Thank you @ClaraPerisho!

  388. MichaelO61 rockribbedrushy ClaraPerisho 
    “There is no moral or logical reason that one side is better than the other.”
    If applied to the level of ideology and the results of application of various ideologies, that statement would be very hard to justify. We can look at the application of ideologies and the impact thereof upon human lives, and we can apply both logic and morality to judge the relative merits of those ideologies. We have a couple of centuries of excellent data on the subject. Many people prefer to ignore the data, and history, substituting their own beliefs and emotions, but there data are there.

  389. Top10 says:

    Why don’t you actually debate the person’s arguement with facts if you’re right than they look like a fool and if they are right…..well

  390. TalibHassan1 says:
  391. richsmith21 says:

    ISIS and Al Qaeda are conservatives too for their own cause, being that they too have rigid religious “we are completely right and you are completely wrong” mentalities. These groups are conservative too in that all change in the world is threatening to them, and so they get violent about it.
    I don’t recall the last time a liberal committed a mass killing with the goal of feeling good about themselves as the author says. Meanwhile, hate crimes are committed by ultra and extreme conservatives because they hate how the world is changing to challenge their simple rigid beliefs.

  392. richsmith21 says:

    Yes radical Islam is ultra conservatism for Islam, being that they hate change and anything that challenges their strict religious or racial beliefs, and they sometimes get violent about it. This is true of conservatives in the U.S. as well, regardless of the rigid religious and racial belief systems used.

  393. richsmith21 says:

    ISIS and Al Qaeda are conservatives too for their own cause, being that they too have rigid religious “we are completely right and you are completely wrong” mentalities (which only comes from organized religion, which is the ultimate system of mind control). These groups are conservative too in that any change in the world is threatening to them, and so they struggle to form arguments reconciling evolving modern knowledge with their rigid beliefs.. or they get violent.
    I don’t recall the last time a liberal committed a mass killing (with the ultimate goal of feeling good about themselves as the author says). Meanwhile, hate crimes are committed by ultra and extreme conservatives because they hate how the world is changing to challenge their simple rigid beliefs of race and religion.
    The author faults liberals for believing in a utopia. In other words, the author faults people for believing in a better world and trying to make the world a better place for everyone. Apparently, the logic used for the author to dislike this positive proactive philosophy is that making the world a better place is for selfish “feel good reasons”. That is such a reaching, pathetic argument.
    Striving to improve the world for everyone is almost always good. The effort is imperfect, but it is far better than doing nothing and living in fear of the dirty dark world as it is. And believing in a better world doesn’t mean these liberal people are naive, it just means that despite the rigid evil out there, there is cautious optimism that the world can always change for the better as people grow and improve their perspectives to embrace peace and kind empathy for all.
    Nearly every positive change to improve the quality of life in the history of modern civilization has been made by a liberal just trying to improve the world (and they’ve been violently opposed by a rigid, communication-inept, fear-based, conservative backlash at every step of the way). And as much the author’s mind can’t accept a changing world and a truly positive outlook embraced by liberalism, I can assure you that, as a liberal, there is no evil conspiracy end-game. Democracy and capitalism and anything that logically drives a more economically prosperous and free society for everyone are all good things worth fighting for.

  394. richsmith21 
    On the first point, this is why “conservative” and “liberal” are often poor terms for political ideologies. In America, conservatives, generally speaking, are seeking to “conserve” the gains of the American Revolution; that is, a social contractarian government of limited scope whose sole legitimate function is to secure inherent natural rights. Generally speaking, that sort of classical liberal formulation produced the tolerant, pluralistic, prosperous, secularly governed societies we see in America, the other English-speaking nations, and all other places that have adopted that approach. That is what conservatives (and libertarians, as well) are seeking to “conserve,” nurture, and to whatever degree it has been  diminished, restore.
    Conservatives of the ISIS/al Qaeda variety, by contrast, are seeking to conserve/restore/impose a vision of Islam going all the way back to the 7th century—following a religious doctrine the strict interpretation of which calls for the imposition, by force, of Islamic religion, governance, and law as a complete package. 
    Now, while American conservatives of the Burkean/Kirkean variety also seek to conserve a measure of tradition, community norms, accumulated human wisdom, constructive social stigma, etc., they bear no resemblance to ISIS conservatives (outside, perhaps, of the fevered imaginings of American “liberals”).
    Conservatives and libertarians (kindred movements separated by some issues and degrees of application) are technically classical liberals, and perhaps best called, just in terms of the meanings of words themselves, “libertarians,” in that the core focus is on the preservation of inherent, natural, negative human rights, id est, “liberty.” American liberals, that is, people of the left, are better called “statists,” in that their preferred solution to social questions usually involves the state and increasing the power of the state and the collective at the expense of the individual. When you strip everything away, that is the core ideological dividing line.
    As far as mass killings of statists, we can point to Stalin (25+ million), Pol Pot (2.5+ million), Hitler (7+ million, not counting war dead), Mao (65+ million), etc. The ideology that say that we can build utopia—if only these pesky classical liberals (conservatives, libertarians, capitalists, individualists) would get out of the way—will always, if given enough power, start killing. What the average “liberal,” as you refer to them would do today is not really the question. The real question is what they will do if you ratchet up their power and control. And the 20th century gave us our answer.
    And even at points not even close to that, we see a glimpse—there were years in the 1960s where there was a bombing almost every other day. It wasn’t “conservatives” doing that.

  395. Red Mayo says:


  396. Red Mayo Do you come to Western Free Press often? (We have a lot of content that falls into that category :-)

  397. pjbauer52 says:

    WesternFreePress Red Mayo

  398. pjbauer52 says:

    richsmith21 “The author”, this website, and the ‘moderators” who add fuel to their own one-sided articles – are a perfect example of how conservatives have a huge – I mean YUGE – problem with ‘projection’.

    Page one of the Republican playbook is “Accuse Democrats of our most blatant faults before they have a chance to call us out on them”.  They are the ‘haters’, they are the ‘racists’, they are the ones ‘in bed with wall street’, they are the ones who believe in ‘junk science’. The GOP logo belongs in the encyclopedia next to the word ‘projection’.

    That, and the ‘both sides do it’ arguments they will always use – despite false equivalencies are 2 of the biggest ‘debate tactics’ used by ALL right wing media.

    Conservatives are good at what they do – if only what they do could ever be considered ‘good’. They make a mockery of the word ‘Christian’ by preaching hate over love and tolerance – while “bearing false witness against thy neighbor” to the point that it is now considered not only acceptable but a virtuous trait worthy of pride. 

    Conservatives have a huge problem with reality, self reflection, or admitting any of their faults. That’s because CONservatives truly ‘believe’ what they say –  they are always ‘holier than though’ – perfect human beings, you see.  And their innate inability to change is what makes them conservatives. 

    In their eyes, their dogma and ‘religion’ tells them – the rest of us are beneath them – which is why they have no problem treating us as such while ignoring those of ‘their kind’ who are in fact the biggest haters and some of the most immoral and selfish/greedy people on the planet .

  399. pjbauer52 says:

    WesternFreePress richsmith21 After doing this all day, how do yo sleep at night?
    Next you’ll be telling us Hitler/Nazis were leftist. (Oh wait – you just did! Hilarious.) And the Brownshirts were homosexuals, too I suppose? 
    Nazis are about as far right as it gets – which is why any White Supremacist organization in the USA aligns with the GOP and your implores your favorite buzz-words like ‘Christian’, ‘family values’ to sucker individuals into their hate through fear-mongering. (Basically the same mantra as Fox News)

    Ditto for ISIS, The Taliban, Al Qaeda – they are all far-right extremists – or ‘extremely conservative’ in their world views. The Christian Evangelical ‘wing’ of the GOP are America’s brand of these right-wing extremists – complete with militant groups and terrorists who would bomb abortion clinics for ‘their cause’, impose Sharia Law Lite on the rest of the nation, and turn the USA into a “Christian Nation” Theocracy if they could. THAT is the goal of many on the right.

    EVERYTHING is ‘leftist’ to you folks because you refuse to see any faults in your ideology – past, present, or ‘future plans’. Seriously, are you willing to admit there is anything  in the history of the world’s evils that was ‘right wing’? Anything? 

    You are undoubtedly well versed in your spin and have all the typical conservative arguments down pat – but that’s all it is – and what you’re being paid to do. RIGHT WING SPIN.

    Conservatives are conservatives. In a nutshell, stuck-in-the-mud ‘puritan’ types who fear change and fight to keep their ‘traditional values’. THAT is the central definition of ‘conservative’ worldwide. If anything, it is the modern day definition of the word ‘socialist’ that is distorted in America when compared to the rest of the world – thanks to the long era of “The Red Scare”.

  400. pjbauer52 says:

    WesternFreePress sn90401 I can’t stop laughing. Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Ted Stevens, Newt Gingrich – I could fill this page. Republicans seem far more ‘forgiving’ to their crooks and liars than Democrats. You folks sure are great at projecting your weaknesses as well as playing the victim.

    The ‘Clinton Scandals’ are mere works of The Clinton Witch Hunters, Inc. – founded over a quarter century go. All of them involve connecting invisible dots and wild conspiracy theories. But hey, don’t let me stop you folks from continuing to make fools of yourself while exposing the real ‘nature’ of the haters who support and control the Republican Party – as they fight to defend their antiquated ‘values’ and failed ‘trickle-down’ theory, while upholding the status quo of the Corporate Oligarchy they have created and embrace.

  401. pjbauer52 says:

    rockribbedrushy You mean they give more to their ‘churches’ – which is mostly spent to enhance the lives of their family and the lives of their congregation and people they consider ‘their kind’. Little of it is true charity in the biblical sense.

  402. pjbauer52 says:

    WesternFreePress rockribbedrushy ClaraPerisho  There have been studies done that have determined just the opposite of what you claim about “the left being nastier in their comments” – and all within the past decade. My guess is that your source, that you conveniently forget, to back up your bogus factoid was WND or some other far-right website noted for publishing yellow journalism.
    I have been commenting online for over 35 years and all I can say is your observations are way off base – especially since the rise of the Tea Party over the past 10 years. 
    As the internet grew in popularity, so did the ignorance and hate that breeds from the fear-mongering of the right wing media, with Fox News as the cheerleaders. That quickly morphed into the ‘right wing noise machine’ and the birth of the ‘right wing bubble’ whose online presence far exceeds the left (unless, like most conservatives, you consider anything not far-right to be ‘leftist’). 
    No one group of Americans is more indoctrinated with right-wing propaganda and a willingness to parrot the exaggerations, prejudices, and outright lies they promote than the parrots who fly out of the right wing noise machine, thinking the drivel they’ve been programmed to parrot means they know it all and have the ‘facts’ straight. Poll after poll has shown that, for folks who spend most of their days living in that right-wing bubble, nothing could be further than the truth.

  403. RenoBob says:

    Guess you have never been to Mother Jones, Slate, Salon, Politico, Daily Kos, HuffPost, et al. They are so gentle and truthful!

  404. mattbehnken says:

    The inherent problem with these facts is they are based so many completely different issues. Just because some liberal tried to stop homelessness with a wasteful plan doesn’t mean every single push to improve the country is destined to fail. Conservatives try to label people as liberals even if they are moderate with a conservative lean. When a conservative leader tries to implement change why isn’t it labeled as a liberal effort toward utopia? That’s because it goes along with the conservative agenda. That sentence makes this whole utopia and all past policies failing argument kinda weak. 

    Many conservatives base their hate of liberals on Jesus and the bible although not directly. For instance, they hate gays because God destroyed whole cities of gays. Also, many liberal policies are in contrast to the conservative agenda, ie. gay marriage, gun control, minimum wage (wealth redistribution). If you group up liberals by ALL of the issues then you are simply blind to the fact that not every liberal is the same on every issue. Conservatives think every liberal wants the government to pay for birth control and food and housing for everybody. On top of that, conservatives think any government program is socialist and or communist. Of course, government programs that suit them do not apply. ie social security, dmv, police, etc. They go to church and hear that the devil is homosexual then see it in real life and they are queued to act according to how the pastor told them, this is their chance to stand up for God. They also think liberals don’t work as hard as they do. In fact, this narcissistic tendency is rampant throughout the Conservative side, which they believe is equally rampant among liberals. 

    Imagine Donald Trump running for president under the Democrat party he was in before. Would the conservatives stand up and praise him like they do now? No. Because they would lump him in with the “liberals.” They hate liberals because they make conservatives blood boil. They wonder, “How could anybody be so stupid.” They are not afraid to use juvenile name calling on a regular basis among adults. Mostly because they are insecure as a person.

  405. mattbehnken says:

    WesternFreePress MattBaker1 gaguy1967
    It’s true, but hurt the few to save the many. When they do find another job, at least it will pay more. Maybe we need a recession and some unemployment to raise the quality of life for those on minimum wage. It doesn’t surprise me that nobody who makes minimum wage has ever commented on raising the minimum wage. These jobs probably suck anyway so if they aren’t meaningful enough to pay $13/hour let the job go. Nobody wants to make minimum wage. Further, there are probably very few conservatives who make minimum wage. Coincidence? You might say they are too smart for that. I would say most did make minimum a long time ago but no longer do.

  406. mattbehnken MattBaker1 gaguy1967 
    There are a lot of things that are very wrong with what you have said.
    First, minimum wage jobs are very often starter jobs—they are for people with no skills and no resume, just getting into the job market. Teens and college students are among those who tend to work these jobs. People do not tend to stay in minimum wage jobs for very long—they move up and on to higher positions. But they are important ways to get a start in the job market, get some skills, develop a work history, etc. They are important things.
    Second, it is disgusting to suggest that it is okay to cause unemployment in some human beings to artificially raise the wages of other human beings. These are people. People who need jobs. All we need to know is that a willing seller of labor and a willing buyer of labor are connecting for their mutual gain. Your suggestion makes you just like every other social engineer in history, substituting your “wisdom” for the decisions of (formerly) free people. That attitude eventually puts people on cattle cars.
    Third, do you know the provenance of minimum wage laws? They were originally created by progressives specifically to cause unemployment among blacks. The first crop of progressives were a vile lot—they were into eugenics and they were none too fond of various nonwhite groups. (Modern progs are still racist, but in a different way.) But as vile as they were, they at least understood the economic reality that minimum wage laws cause unemployment. And, just as today, they cause the worst unemployment among minorities, especially blacks. But for many people today, that’s apparently okay, because it allows them to feel good about themselves by advocating for things that sound good.
    Finally (though your smear on conservatives does not deserve the dignity of an answer, I will say that) plenty of conservatives have made minimum wage. My nine-year-old son said just yesterday that he cannot wait to work at McDonalds. He does not expect to work there forever; he knows it’s just a place to start. Which means that at nine years old, he already has a better understanding of economics than most of the people making arguments on behalf of minimum wage laws.

  407. mattbehnken says:

    In arizona there are very few high school age people working minimum wage jobs. Take mcdonalds for instance, they all appear to be at least 25 and many even older. However, i see some young kids working minimum wage jobs as well. Consider the current unemployment rate. It’s it disgusting to think it’s in acceptable range? Or that it would be if it was 2% lower? These are poeple after all.
    And yes my rude and mostly incorrect smear on conservatives was unwarranted.

  408. mattbehnken This is a deep and complex question, one to which a simple answer does not obtain. 
    First, I must quote the greatest living economist, Thomas Sowell, who said, “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.” He’s right, of course—there’s no such thing as a perfect answer to any question.
    Ideally, we want the lowest possible unemployment rate—recognizing, of course, that 
    A) there is always going to be some rate above zero, due to industry changes, technology shifts, people moving from one job to another, etc. 
    B) efforts to lower the unemployment rate by government tend to make the problem worse.
    Moreover, generally speaking, government activity is far more likely to increase unemployment by creating artificial pressure on markets, distorting what businesses and individuals might otherwise do, creating perverse incentives, and removing wealth/capital from the private sector that might otherwise be used to generate new economic activity (and hence jobs).
    Right now, the unemployment rate is appallingly high once you add in the fact that the LFPR is at 30-year lows. Simply put, millions of people have simply given up trying to find a job.
    And yet—and this is the most messed up thing of all . . . . employers are actually having trouble filling positions right now! They are faced with a new generation of workers who are more likely to display characteristics such as laziness, entitlement, attitude problems, etc. than in previous years, and many of them are content taking aid instead of trying to find a job at all. I have gotten this from employer after employer, in multiple sectors. 
    So, we’re really faced with multiple problems here.

  409. mattbehnken says:

    If u cant find employees try raising the pay. Thats the “market” youre referring to. Regardless of percieved outside factors like laziness and entitlement.

  410. mattbehnken I have had employers tell me that they’ve hired people who then proceed to give a list of demands: “I want this, I want that, I won’t work this day or that day” etc. Why would anyone want to pay more for that?
    Employers are not the enemy. 99.9% of them are not fatcats trying to get rich on the backs of the the exploited worker. Most are trying to provide a good or a service and are faced with a thousand different pressures, costs, regulations, and responsibilities that most of us know nothing about.
    Some businesses have huge profit margins, but most do not. Most business owners cannot simply raise pay and take it out of their next yacht payment. Most don’t own yachts.

  411. mattbehnken says:

    WesternFreePress mattbehnken agreed. I didn’t mean to imply that raising wages wouldn’t hurt business. Sorry for the confusion. We need employees who will dedicate their lives to somebody’s else’s business for relatively low pay.

  412. mattbehnken In the absence of artificial pressures and controls, perverse incentives, etc., what you are left with is a buyer of labor and a seller of labor. In such an environment, costs of production and other factors work together to create a market-clearing price for labor in that industry. Serious deviations by one business from that wage price will result in workers moving to other businesses. But generally speaking, in the absence of artificial influences, wages tend to standardize in each industry. Then it just comes down to whether the worker wants to sell his labor and the employer wants to buy. Both should be free to negotiate, voluntarily, to try to come to a mutually agreeable arrangement.

  413. mattbehnken says:

    WesternFreePress mattbehnken generally that holds true but not without outliers. Take in and out burger for instance who pays their employees around $11/hr while the rest of the competition in the industry averages around $8. Which is almost a 30% deviation from industry average. I imagine this increases employees production, moral, effectiveness and other things. I agree that wages are more or less determined by market to sell and produce goods at equilibrium price and cost. 

    There is no actual negotiation between employers and prospective employees who’s salary range will be below 35k/year. Those are take it or leave it salaries. 

    I hate that I actually believe the means justifies the end. Possibly because it’s so typical of a liberal. I have always hated when leaders “Create Jobs” that have low pay and harsh working conditions. But are proud of the achievement. I disagree with most if not all legislation to create jobs because similar to what you said, its stands as long we pay for it to. 

    As I was saying yesterday, raising minimum wage hurts everybody short term except those who make minimum wage. However, I wouldn’t have invented the minimum wage law. But I am trying to embrace it and possibly justify it’s existence. The Dept of Labor has a bunch of propaganda about how minimum wage hikes don’t hurt business, but it’s all unsourced and survey based. As if they haven’t taken an economics course. If we try to accept it a good or necessary program, then it should raise in relation to inflation. At least then we have baseline instead of some arbitrary wage hike ($15/hr) like liberal Bernie Sanders. At least business can plan on the small wage increase yearly. It’s hard to trust business owners to the job of paying employees enough. Especially because the employees work so many hours they literally don’t have to time look elsewhere and embrace their options in the “job market.”

  414. mattbehnken In and Out’s decision is a part of freedom—they are free to offer a higher wage and see if that works better for them. If they can make it work with their costs of production and it attracts better workers and keeps them happier, then their decision will have been justified. i hope it is!
    You’re right that many lower-wage employees don’t negotiate in the classic sense, but the take-it-or-leave-it approach is a form of negotiation. If the only takers at some low wage are incompetent or poor workers in some way, that forces the employer to consider increasing his offer. Just like if I am selling my old green vase at a garage sale and people look at my asking price and put it back down and walk away, and that happens Friday and Saturday, I am forced to consider lowering the price on Sunday. People send signals with their choices to do things and not to do things.
    Also, some negotiation does take place even at lower wage levels. Business models are changing, and it’s not all fast food and fruit picking anymore.
    And on the subject of the Dept. of Labor, agreed!  I am not easily disposed to truth their statements.

  415. Brody says:

    I like how the article says liberals are smearing conservatives, but then cries about how liberals are so bad and evil. Want to know why liberals say you hate everyone? Because conservatives blatantly fail to support any piece of legislation that helps anyone. Originally I was going to back down and say that maybe liberals do exaggerate a bit — but honestly I don’t think so. What have Republicans done to help anybody?

    It’s so conservative to play the victim. Liberals are just a bunch of hippies. Oh noes!

  416. MrRight101 says:

    The country was originally founded on freedom and capatilism. We need to get back to that. Helping others should be through volunteering and donations ONLY!!! And tryst me…last time I checked I donate more dough than and left winger I’ve ever met! All the bleeding heart legislation is killing our dollar. Keep living in lala land.

  417. mattbehnken says:

    MrRight101 “trusting” enough people to be as gracious as you might be bad strategy when many peoples lives depend on this meal or that meal. One might say you live in “LALA” land if you think enough people will give their money that don’t have to. If they don’t give enough voluntarily, people die.

  418. MrRight101 says:

    Here’s the thing Matt. If you are talking about welfare for a single mom of 3 or 4 that has a deadbeat dad that doesn’t pay child support….or a person that is “unemployable” due to health or mental issues…or even unemployment compensation itself….then I agree. However, the legislative spending problem goes WAY WAY beyond those things. I was raised in a family that taught me that you have to get off your ass and make it happen for YOURSELF and that there are no free lunches in this world. We all are a result of the choices we make. So I guess I’m curious as to exactly what “legislation” the right is against that is being referred to or that you may be referring to?

  419. mattbehnken says:

    MrRight101 I agree on most of those points. However, I was really simply replying to your quote. ” Helping others should be through volunteering and donations ONLY!!!” When clearly it cannot be only because as you listed there are some people who need financial help, certainly not deadbeats who aren’t trying and are leeching.

  420. mattbehnken MrRight101 Actually, that really isn’t true. Surveys show that individual Americans are the most charitable people on planet Earth; IOW, as individual people, Americans give more than anyone else. The amounts are staggering—close to 400 billion dollars a year. To suggest that Americans would not give is incorrect.

    Now, the U.S. government sucks a trillion dollars out of the private economy for these sorts of purposes every year and spends it very inefficiently. If that money were left in the private economy, there would be plenty of money available for Americans to fund every legitimate need through private charity alone. 
    (As an aside, private charity also employs millions, and would employ even more if donations increased.
    Then we have the fact that government “charity” is not only inefficient, but clumsy and lacks discernment. Worse still, it creates dependency . . .
    Right before they passed the Great Society programs, many worried that they would encourage dependence in people who otherwise could work, so a test was done. They created a negative income tax and tested it with real people and sure enough, that is exactly what happened—people who could work made the rational calculation that they could “earn” almost as much by sitting around and collecting government transfer payments, so that’s what they did. They went ahead and passed the programs anyway.
    That is why if you look at the curve of poverty, you’ll see it was plummeting right up until the Great Society programs were passed, and then it leveled off and metastasized into a permanent dependency class. Yes, there are always some who truly need help, but then atop those are the people who don’t need help, but take it because it is there for the taking.
    Private charity alone could handle all the needs of those who truly need help, and very generous Americans would make it happen.
    (As a final note, anything that serves to create dependency is not only wasteful it’s cruel. It robs people of drive, determination, dignity, and the joy that comes from earned success.)

  421. Neutral says:

    Your Mom, daughter, (someone you care deeply for) goes to a foreign country. Then something happens… Perhaps they get lost, injured, or require help from some of the country’s citizens… They are, essentially, at the mercy of others in that moment.
    Who do you hope they run into? A bunch of conservatives, or a bunch of liberals?
    Think hard about that.

  422. Watj says:

    And I hear the same kind (but different accusations) of mean spirited statements from my friends on the right. The media is making a financial killing playing the extremes of both side against the most of us in the middle. We are all pawns in the hand of f the left wing and right wing media!

  423. Watj I will agree that you hear rancorous talk from the rank-and-file of both sides. And I will also confess (I am the author of this piece) that I wrote it from a place of fairly strong resentment. But I do not think there is an equivalence here. Certainly not from leadership. Conservative politicians, for example, do not say that their ideological opponents are Nazis or want poor people to die in the streets or old people to eat cat food. They do not call them racists or fascists. They do not invent things that didn’t happen (like Conyers and the supposed slurs/slights by tea partiers) in order to brand people as racists who did nothing. The left does these things all the time. The rank and file of the left do similar things. Rank and file righties get crude, for sure, but the actual accusations are very different.
    Then there is the fact that the right (properly understood as being in favor of individual rights and limited government, i.e., the further rightwards you go, the more you approach minarchism and anarchocapitalism) has never engaged in democide or mass oppression.
    That said, I would be very interested in the kinds of accusations you are referring to that come from the right. If you can, please do share.
    Thanks for commenting!

  424. Licky lick says:

    @Brody @Brody  Ha ha ha ha. Jeez, I guess you skipped over the part where the author lists how and to what degree conservatives are charitable vs liberals. Conservatism absolutely does not equate to either refusing help or taking help from someone. Conservatives think the end does NOT justify the means, nor do libertarians feel that way. Libertarians and conservatives both not only view robbing peter to pay paul as morally, ethically and fundamentally wrong, they also correctly see it as theft. To enrich oneself at the expense of another is wrong. And all the cries about conservatives only interested in making money at any cost are examples the author could use showing the liberal utopian ideals for the limited amount of thought put into their action because their results merely allow the implementer(liberals) to feel good about themselves while causing harm to many others. But the liberal doesn’t care because the end justifies the means and it makes them feel good about themselves since they also harmed the big bad conservative who probably employs someone in their group of liberals.

  425. Licky lick says:

    @Brody Ha ha ha ha. Jeez, I guess you skipped over the part where the author lists how and to what degree conservatives are charitable vs liberals. Conservatism absolutely does not equate to either refusing help or taking help from someone. Conservatives think the end does NOT justify the means, nor do libertarians feel that way. Libertarians and conservatives both not only view robbing peter to pay paul as morally, ethically and fundamentally wrong, they also correctly see it as theft. To enrich oneself at the expense of another is wrong. And all the cries about conservatives only interested in making money at any cost are examples the author could use showing the liberal utopian ideals for the limited amount of thought put into their action because their results merely allow the implementer(liberals) to feel good about themselves while causing harm to many others. But the liberal doesn’t care because the end justifies the means and it makes them feel good about themselves since they also harmed the big bad conservative who probably employs someone in their group of liberals.

  426. Licky lick says:

    mattbehnken The only names liberals get called though invariably refer to the liberals intelligence level because of the sheer amount of it being displayed by them. Conservatives don’t go around hammering gays any more than liberals do. I’ve seen plenty of it from both sides.  And conservatives do not think every gov’t program (to help others) is socialist or communist, they merely understand that the system has been built in a way that not only allows for those programs to be havens of corruption, they also breed personnel who become indoctrinated to the idea that running an organization rampant with corruption is not only “just how it is done”, but also that it is normal and the right way to operate.  Just name at least ten big government programs that are not just rampant with corrupt practices like cost over runs, missing/unaccounted for funds, personnel on paid leave while being investigated for some possible policy infraction, theft of program supplies/materials, personnel using funding money for frivolous expenses and bonuses and/or other unaccounted for.  Heck name just one.  It can not be done.  All your arguments also do is support the authors points about the mindset the left holds about everyone “not on their side”.

  427. Licky lick says:

    TalibHassan1 Clear example of the lefts inability to argue rationally, citing facts and reality. After all it is much easier to just throw out some name calling than it is to actually take a llok at oneself and examine critically or maybe do a little research to back up a claim.

  428. Licky lick says:

    pjbauer52 WesternFreePress sn90401 No one needs to try and connect “invisible dots” who can use their own eyes. There are no conspiracy theories at all about the Clintons.  All of them have been thoroughly investigated and documented by numerous separate individuals and teams trying to show their innocence.  Facts checked and re checked by several different sources. Once again, a liberal hits with name calling rhetoric and absolutely zero substantiating evidence to refute the truths discovered. Opposed to Hillary? They must be “haters”, “trickle down theorists”, “failures”, “antiquated”, “conspiracy theorists”, “fools”. 
    Count em, six different names. Probably missed some too.
    Yep, “witch hunters”.
    Another perfect example for the author, this one tosses out numerous names and accusations with nothing to back it up but really my point on this bit is that the author clearly does not deny that there are bad elements within conservatives who operate within the political arena as well as supporters of the republican party. The facts that have been presented show how liberals merely or rather defiantly turn a blind eye to corruptions openly displayed by liberals in politics and many times use those corruptions as badges of honor to support their narcissistic mentality.

  429. mattbehnken says:

    Some valid points lickylick. Large govt programs are corrupt. Probably most large scale endeavors are. Should we do them anyway? Like taking the bad with good? Obviously i hold some liberal views and this article is pointing directly at them. Here’s an example i just read from Glenn Beck today:::::
    The progressives in power are truly sick.
    We know their goal is to destroy the second amendment. But in your wildest nightmare would you believe that they would allow or at least seemingly enjoy the death that terror has brought?
    Loretta Lynch just said this about the terror strike in San Bernardino:
    “We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.”
    The death of 14 people is nothing to them but a “wonderful opportunity.”
    Rather they only see that opportunity death presents to them.
    This is beyond sick. It is evil.
    This is name calling. Cleary the word wonderful has multiple meanings and surely she meant overjoyed. Or she used the word to mean extremely good.
    inspiring delight, pleasure, or admiration; extremely good; marvelous.
    Im not a proponent of gun control myself but I dont think she is evil, sick, or that she considers the mass murder of 14 people delightful. This is an exaplme of what i was describing. It’s baseless hate and rhetoric that denies common sense and is rooted in consevative mindset. Literally millions of conservatives listen to glen beck and his opinion is lapped up like holy water. That being said, wonderful was not the right word choice. Identifying that is a good action and has merit. Changing the obvious meaning of a word to apply sick and evil labels is does not. It appears to me that these tactics are common place among conservatives. Im sure liberals do the same things but that doesn’t justify either sides actions.
    Here’s the link but it’s on Glen becks facebook page if can’t open it.

  430. I hear you, mattbehnkenBut perhaps I can get you to look at it from the conservative standpoint for a moment. We have our moral characters impugned by the left every day. Not disagreements about ideas, but vicious name calling. We’re told that we don’t disagree with a particular program on consequentialist grounds (because it’s inefficient, unnecessary, duplicative, liable to corruption, etc.) but rather, we’re told it’s because we’re racist, because we hate poor people, because we want old people to eat cat food, etc. We’re called fascists, racists, and Nazis every day. This kind of rhetoric comes not only from the rank and file of the left, it comes from officials, both elected, appointed, and in other sectors, like the media. Generally speaking, that has little analogue on the right. Yes, we get some crudeness from the rank and file, but there is very rarely a conservative politician, for example, saying the kinds of things that are regular said by politicians on the other side.
    That said, to some degree, I will confess that you are starting to hear more of this sort of attack on motives and morals coming from the right directed at the left. I believe that it is motivated by two things.
    1) A realization that when you’re sitting in a wooden chair and someone is standing in front of you punching you over and over, you have every right to stand up and punch back. There is an old aphorism—people on the right think people on the left are misguided; people on the left think people on the right are evil. I believe that to some degree, people on the right have A) decided they’ve had enough of having their motivations and very ethical core impugned daily and B) figured out what the left has long known—that from a tactical standpoint, moral attacks actually work better than a fretting defense on consequentialist grounds, punctuated by the occasional squeaky protestation that “I am not a racist (Nazi/fascist/etc.)!”

    2) A realization that ceding, at the start of every argument, that the leftist with whom we are arguing “means well” is not only tactically idiotic, it also does not have a guarantee of comporting with reality. I have no reason to believe, a priori, that anyone on the left means well. They claim to, but the ideology of the left has produced some of the most monstrous atrocities in human history, so I am not sure how much I care about the claims they make.
    And why should I, a priori and in the absence of any window into her soul, assume that Loretta Lynch’s first thought wasn’t, “Ah, this will give us an excellent opportunity to pursue our long-standing goal of disarming the general public!”? She has earned no such assumption. If your response is that we should always grant someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their humanity in such matters, then I respond in three ways
    1)you are a decent person, and I respect that, but

    2) history does not support that view, and

    3) tell that to lefties, the majority of whom NEVER grant me and my ideological cohort that same courtesy.

  431. mattbehnken says:

    While I hadn’t deeply considered her moral character, if loretta really did enjoy the deaths of the those citizens I would be in shock. Utilitarian/consequencialist decision making is the most common among humans. I see kantian ethics as more aligned with the consevative mindset. The individual freedoms are the overall guiding principle. It’s true that those who waste others money in an effort to help others is plagued with failure, along with most if not all of these liberal attempts. Likely from the a priori ethical decscion making as u said. Utilitarianly, the overall good outweighs the necessary inherient bad. Of course to say they (well-meaning but ignorant of actual results) dont realize the bad or even the failure of it is a gross over generalization. In Maine for example the results have been scary reforming welfare. Is this not an example of consequencialist thinking? The welfare people in Maine will go hungry but in the end they will become the american dream? Here, the end justifies the means as it were. Which is one of your biggest criticisms of liberal policy. This welfare policy in Maine is obviously aligned with the conservative mindset. Im not saying reform isnt/wasnt necessary but merely that the ideology is similar to liberals.
    There are people who are too dumb or stupid to work in this system or at least advance. The homeshelters arent empty and Im not sure if I really want all its attendees to make my dinner, clean my house or whatever job u want them to spend their life doing. All to prevent them from living horribly the way they do on public dollars. The system of working your entire life away cant be the only answer to a fulfilled life and we shouldn’t defend it as such. Paying for their entire life with public money isnt a good solution either but we need a better plan because the means of ending stupid liberal programs involves some real people, their hunger AND leeches too.
    i have just realized my hypocrisy in saying conservatives this and that and then challenging liberal notions as oversimplifications. At least I’m not using hate and name calling :/ like our counterparts.

  432. mattbehnken says:

    That is true

  433. mattbehnken says:

    Although when I studied economics I learned about the negative effects of the minimum wage and increasing it. The results from San Francisco and Seattle are not consistent with these economic theories. Perhaps a large increase in minimum wage caused unemployed people to go work. It’s hard to get verifiable results in the short run. But these two cities as examples defy well known economic theory.

  434. mattbehnken 
    I doubt Lynch actually “enjoyed” the deaths; I just think it is not unreasonable to believe that she very quickly saw them as an opportunity to pursue her own agenda.
    If by Kantian ethics you mean the notion that people should be treated as ends, not means, then I agree with you that that is more of a conservative position, and I am proud to hold that view.
    As far as the welfare policy in Maine, I have not heard what you have heard. I have heard that it is producing decent results, with more people going back to work. As always, it is easy these days to find eight sides to every story :-)
    Your second paragraph is very interesting to me, and I would like to unpack it a bit, and maybe you can further explain what you mean. If I am getting you right, I guess my first response must be this: For most of human history, life was a struggle to survive. It is only very recently that humans have been able to have more choices, more leisure time, etc. But if you think about it, the basics still remain. We need shelter, water, food, and some sort of way to heal ourselves if ill or injured. The basics have not changed. And yet, suddenly, all our abundance and success  and new-found leisure is leading some people to say, and it sounds like you are among them, that somehow working for one’s survival is unfulfilling, that we need a better way, etc. I dunno, bro—it’d be nice to get to a point where technology and abundance allow us more time to advance other interests and improvements in ourselves, but in the meantime, working for one’s survival is necessary, good, and dignified—no matter what job one is doing. 
    Finally, I very much like the fact that we are carrying on our discussion without name-calling. Having been called a “filthy fascist pig” only yesterday . . . well, I find this much more pleasant and productive.

  435. mattbehnken I have not seen data from San Francisco, but the data I’ve seen from Seattle are not encouraging.

  436. Watj says:

    Gee! You certainly don’t seem to mind calling me all kinds of bad names because I disagree with you. God will be your judge in eternity!

  437. Watj says:

    Well, for one, the oft repeated Rush description of some as “feminazis”, the phrase ” leftist commies” has been used by my most right of center friend when referring to me and others who vote D more than R, ” n… lover”, and “f…..t lover” are two other terms I often hear from the ” rank and file ” as you refer to them. So in this blog the conversation is pretty civil, but that doesn’t keep the dialogue from straying into a frustrating ” us vs them” point – counterpoint.

  438. mattbehnken says:

    Perhaps we split the country into two? Would then two opposing sides develop anyway inside each? Less left and more less as it were. If only the blue states weren’t so far apart. ..

  439. I did not call you those names, WatjIt is regrettable that you have been called those things. I was called a “filthy fascist pig” just a couple of days ago. (I didn’t bother me, though—I have learned to laugh about such silliness!)
    But the distinction here between rank-and-file and more “official” players is an important one. If the internet has taught us anything, it has taught us that a small percentage of people (of any political persuasion) are just rotten and will say just about anything, no matter how mean. The distinction I am drawing, however, is between official players on each “side.” There is a tendency among important players on the left (elected officials, media personnel, etc.) to say far more vicious things of the right than vice versa. We can find exceptions, of course, but they are exceptions that tend to prove the rule.
    This matters for a simple reason. The left has a history of oppressing and slaughtering people, a history the the right does not have. (Remember, the right, properly understood, is the classical liberal ideology of
    limited, social contractarian government; individual/human-rights; etc., born of the Enlightenment, that you find among today’s libertarians and core conservatives. Hitler was not “right-wing,” in spite of what Stalin got a bunch of Western left-wing intellectuals to believe.) So, when you have people on the official left regularly dehumanizing people on my “side,” it has a ring of a (potential) prelude to the kinds of horrors the left committed in the 20th century. After all, if we’re filthy monsters who hate poor people and women and want to see old people die in the streets, then what consideration do we really deserve, really? Is forced reeducation too far for such monsters? What about train ride to a very cold place? People who believed that “conservatives” (read: those who stood in the way of or personally opposed the growth of the massive statist governments of the 20th century) were standing in the way of their good and noble intentions felt no compunctions about sending 110,000,000 of us to our deaths. And it doesn’t take too many to do this, either. A small minority willing to bring about such “solutions” is all it takes.
    You may be a perfectly decent person, Watj, as many of your ideological fellows are. But your ideology makes me perpetually nervous. My ideology seeks to make you more free. Yours seeks to exert greater control over me, and looks at me as a threat if I reject being controlled. That dynamic presents a perpetual problem.
    (Thank you, by the way, for participating in and continuing WFP’s tradition of civil discourse. It is something in which we take pride.)


  440. mattbehnken How about the principles and concepts expressed here as a workable alternative:

  441. Shifter says:

    WesternFreePress Watj As someone who holds liberal views but sees many of the shortcomings in the left that you have pointed out and views adherence to ideology and political spectrum thinking as stunting, I’d like it explained to me how some members of the right can correctly point out the values of freedom of the individual that many leftists now view as an inconvenience, then favour the denial of rights based on people’s sexuality… and the bullshit religious convictions argument only cements the hypocrisy. This in addition to in some cases childish religious beliefs flying in the face of science not to mention common sense, and for some a xenophobia that does not generally exist among leftists. (and I am not denigrating people who believe in religion as I’m not an atheist…just being stuck in dogmatic thinking, and clinging  to fundamental direction in a 2000 year old book written by social primitives).

    Society is made of a collection of individuals…therefore some measure of the benefit of the collective would be beneficial to the individual. To me these are the shortcomings of myopic thinking…the  leftists seeing less the individual and more his identity by race and gender to be slotted into an oppression hierarchy , while the rightist often thinks solely in selfish terms. Subsequent to that, I don’t really believe fully in the charity argument because when rightists are in power, the tired trickle down economics theory they perpetuate generally benefits the rich and increases deficits and wealth disparity…charity doesn’t begin to outweigh that.  

    To me people stuck in the parochialism of either side are just tools of division that shuts down constructive dialogue, and benefits those at the top of the pyramid who generally profit off of that. Where there’s no balance I feel you’re likely to find deep seeded issues. A benevolent anarchist society may very well be the goal, but by the current state of human nature we are a while off from that. However, to get back to the elements of your article I agree with, there’s no doubt that if I see any element of Orwellian thinking in society today, it’s definitely coming from hardcore leftists. Case in point…the idiots that recently got a yoga class at Ottawa U shut down due to “cultural appropriation”.

  442. Shifter Watj 
    Thank you for your detailed, decent, and comparatively irenic response. We seek to cultivate a civil comment culture here (without using censorship except in the most drastic of circumstances) and we appreciate it when people try to play nice. There are a couple of comments that maybe could have been phrased more productively, but no worries . . .

    like it explained to me how some members of the right can correctly
    point out the values of freedom of the individual that many leftists now
    view as an inconvenience, then favour the denial of rights based on
    people’s sexuality…  
    Let’s get specific. What rights? If you’re referring to same-sex marriage, I would argue differently from most conservatives, most liberals, and even, sadly, most libertarians.
    I argue that the actual right involved is this: the right to pairing, i.e, to choose a consenting mate/partner. This is separate from a government-licensed, government-defined marriage. That sort of marriage is not a right at all, for heterosexual or homosexual couples. It A) is a government recognition of an existing personal/human (and often religious) arrangement and B), insofar as it may confer certain tax breaks or other special treatment, and entitlement. Neither A) nor B) are, in and of themselves, rights.
    I understand the arguments of both sides on this issue. 
    Those in favor of expanding the government’s definition of marriage believe that if we are going to issue government licenses, with all the privileges and entitlements associated therewith, we should extend that to include the approx. 2–3% of the population (not an insignificant numbers0 who are homosexual.
    Those opposed to redefinition rightly see the nuclear family as the core building block of an civilization and worry that redefinition of marriage puts that at risk. They worry about the impact on children, and they generally hold that mucking about with long-standing cultural practices, especially those based on natural facts like human procreation, comes with risks and should not be done lightly (that is part of what makes them “conservative” as opposed to libertarian—they are trying to conserve something).
    My position is that we should do away with government licensure of marriage altogether. Please see my argument here and tell me what you think:
    Beyond the marriage issue, what other rights are you referring to?

    Society is made of a collection of
    I am glad to hear you recognize this important truth.

    therefore some measure of the benefit of the collective
    would be beneficial to the individual.
    Like police, military, a court system, general access roads, a stable currency, mitigation of third-party externalities that cannot be solved by private agreement, etc.  . . . sure, absolutely!

    To me these are the shortcomings
    of myopic thinking…the  leftists seeing less the individual and more
    his identity by race and gender to be slotted into an oppression
    Yes, an appalling practice that dehumanizes individuals supposedly in the name of saving them.

     , while the rightist often thinks solely in selfish terms. 
    The fact that conservatives are more charitable than liberals—with their own money!—even when you adjust for income and religion, tends to refute that assertion, does it not? The idea of the “selfish” conservative or libertarian is a societal trope, I agree, but what actual empirical support does it have?

    Subsequent to that, I don’t really believe fully in the charity argument
    because when rightists are in power, the tired trickle down economics
    theory they perpetuate generally benefits the rich
    Let’s get away from terms like “trickle down,” which is larded up with political implications. We have mountains of data, collected over more than a century, that indicate that the freer the economy, the more prosperous, healthy, and personally free everyone becomes, including the poor. In fact, the greatest march out of poverty in human history began exactly as economies were set free in the 19th century. Moreover, there is economic inequality in every system. There was actually a greater disparity in income between rich and poor in the USSR at the height of its power than there was in the United States. If we care about the poor, we need to look at data—we need to look at what actually works. If all we do is trumpet the left’s tropes about the poor, we condemn them to slower advancement. We need to look at what actually helps, and the data show that that is more freedom for all, not the left’s prescriptions of dignity-destroying dependence and restraint of innovation, accompanied by generous helpings of palliative and self-serving rhetoric about who “cares” and who doesn’t.

    me people stuck in the parochialism of either side are just tools of
    division that shuts down constructive dialogue
    Let’s keep having some constructive dialogue here, then.

    A benevolent
    anarchist society may very well be the goal
    Maybe, but perhaps minarchism would be a better answer. For starters, I’d just like to try “lessarchism” and then see when we find the sweet spot. If it is anarcho-capitalism, so be it, but I suspect that we need a little bit of government. 

    However, to get back to
    the elements of your article I agree with, there’s no doubt that if I
    see any element of Orwellian thinking in society today, it’s definitely
    coming from hardcore leftists. Case in point…the idiots that recently
    got a yoga class at Ottawa U shut down due to “cultural appropriation”. 
    That sickness appears as though it is going to get worse before it gets better.

  443. Shifter says:

    WesternFreePress Shifter Watj Yes I was referring to the gay marriage issue. Just to address the conservative position you mentioned, If coming from a private institution such as the church…it is one thing, but what some conservatives would like to conserve, or how they feel about the sanctity of a man and woman union (and I use sanctity lightly considering half of them fail), whether legally (as your other article addresses as a potential option down the line) or in the hands of government, there is no justification on any level for a representative secular state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another based on preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere to that preference. If any majority decides to deny the same right to other individuals that they themselves possess essentially based on taste or religious belief, the people behind that shouldn’t be talking about freedom and liberty. As such, in an equal society tradition and risk are pretty much irrelevant if the tradition is exclusionary. This doesn’t even really bear mentioning, but what is wreaking havoc on the nuclear family in modern society has pretty much nothing to do with gay people or giving them the right to marry. The impact on children? Legions of straight parents with poor parenting skills have been royally screwing up the lives of children en masse since the beginning of civilization. I’m really not worried about gay parents doing any worse.

    As for your article, I think the more you get the government out of people’s personal lives and bedrooms, it isn’t a bad thing. As long as nobody is denied what they want to do, government shouldn’t necessarily have to be involved if there’s a legal system to arbiter disputes at the time of failure. The vast array of spiritual institutions can accommodate everyone if a spiritual union is what people desire.

    “The fact that conservatives are more charitable than liberals—with their own money!—even when you adjust for income and religion, tends to refute that assertion, does it not?”

    No..not really when you’re speaking about the same people who routinely shame low income earners for being lazy and whose party’s economic policies increase economic disparity. Perhaps self-centered would have been a better term.  If the same people who are on average slightly more generous with charity, vote for those who enact policies that increase the wealth gap and put the state further in debt…your charity point becomes basically extraneous. Comparing the current state of economic reality to what happened in the failed ideology of Soviet communism is like saying at least I’m smarter than the retarded guy…but as to what you were alluding to, we all know there’s inequality in any society. In reality Republican governments make rich people richer and poor people not richer. Where is the mountain of evidence you’re speaking of let’s say during the Reagan era, the conservative equivalent of a political Jesus, when two things that increased dramatically under his policies were people living below the poverty line and homelessness. You often hear conservatives taking aim at welfare…but never, or at least infrequently, at corporate welfare. I guess it depends who is getting the handouts. I’m not saying we should have a nanny welfare state if we have to have a state, but I’m not seeing the conservative charity argument when examining who the real benefactors are when you give republicans the keys to the vault. What is actually working against poverty now that angers conservatives who try to no end to discredit it is social democracy, not American republicanism. Of course the government is still problematically coercive like everywhere else, but given current options I’d much rather be working class in Norway than I would in the USA and it ain’t even close.

    “That sickness appears as though it is going to get worse before it gets better.”

    This is why there is an increasing number of cultural libertarians, or people who have gotten out of the identity game altogether because of its increasing incoherence. There is a wanker quotient particularly on the far left that is now approaching a pathological state; kind of the ideological equivalent of the far right wing bible freaks. The level of victimization these people are caught up in is staggering and the fact that they see everyone first as either a race or a gender is something I personally want no part of. The thinking is very compartmentalized, and worst of all it seems that it’s many younger people who are leading the charge. You’re basically talking about a dystopian sci-fi society if you put the “social justice warrior” crowd in charge.

  444. Shifter Watj 
    (and I use sanctity lightly
    considering half of them fail), 
    Just real quick—that stat is misleadingly stated. It is 50% of first marriages that fail. 66% of all marriages last until one of the spouses die.

    whether legally (as your other article
    addresses as a potential option down the line) or in the hands of
    government, there is no justification on any level for a representative
    secular state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another
    based on preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere
    to that preference.
    I understand where you’re coming from. If feels like it is fundamentally unfair to deny to one cohort a privilege accorded to another. But . . .
    . . . we do that all the time. People in some cold state like, say, Minnesota, are given money to weatherize their homes, paid for by taxpayers most of whom are given no such assistance. Not fair. People with children are given tax credits that people without children do not get. Not fair. Married couples get benefits that others do not get. Not fair.
    None of those are fair, and I oppose them all. But they exist. So what we really have now is a situation where a new cohort is asking to be let in on a particular government-granted, government-licensed entitlement. The new cohort (homosexuals) is saying that they should fit the definition to be included in the way that the government defines this particular thing (marriage) for the purposes of inclusion in the benefits associated therewith.
    Opponents are saying . . . look, whatever twists and turns it may have taken, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual phenomenon, and it has long been understood as an institution whose primary purpose is to create stable environments for the raising of children . . . and now you’re telling us it has nothing to do with children, and that it’s no longer exclusively a heterosexual institution?
    They have a visceral reaction to this. Whether they understand that they are displaying the characteristics associated with Burkean conservatism—reverence for tradition, trepidation about radical change or change for the sake of change, respect for accumulated human wisdom, etc.—or not, that is what they are doing. They are saying that we muck about with basic institutions of human life at our peril. 
    Now, personally, I have sympathy with both sides of this discussion. I do think there is great value in tradition and accumulated wisdom, and resisting change just for the sake of it. I am not against change when the change is of value, though. And I can see how some people believe that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include new cohorts. 
    But that is how it needs to be understood. No one is denying a “right.” We all have the right to enter into conjugal relationships with a consenting partner. What is at issue here is whether a government definition of a human institution should be changed to include a new cohort. Do you see what I am saying? What is at issue is not a right, it is a definition.

    If any majority decides to deny the same right to
    other individuals that they themselves possess essentially based on
    taste or religious belief, the people behind that shouldn’t be talking
    about freedom and liberty. As such, in an equal society tradition and
    risk are pretty much irrelevant if the tradition is exclusionary.
    But the tradition also has excluded other things as well—family members, inter-species, group marriage, etc. The tradition gave rise to the government definition. Now people want the definition to change. Are their other cohorts that should also now be included in the definition? Can any line be drawn?

    doesn’t even really bear mentioning, but what is wreaking havoc on the
    nuclear family in modern society has pretty much nothing to do with gay
    people or giving them the right to marry. The impact on children?
    Legions of straight parents with poor parenting skills have been royally
    screwing up the lives of children en masse since the beginning of
    civilization. I’m really not worried about gay parents doing any worse.
    Generally speaking, I tend to agree that, in and of itself and on the merits, the existence of same-sex married couples would not cause more harm to the institution of marriage or the nuclear family than has already been done by a variety of other factors.
    As for your article, I think the more you get the government out of
    people’s personal lives and bedrooms, it isn’t a bad thing. As long as
    nobody is denied what they want to do, government shouldn’t necessarily
    have to be involved if there’s a legal system to arbiter disputes at the
    time of failure. The vast array of spiritual institutions can
    accommodate everyone if a spiritual union is what people desire.
    Yes, exactly. And getting government out of it would have one more advantage—it would end all this nonsense and fighting over the definition of marriage. People would do what they would do, and by and large, no one would know or care. And 98% of marriages would still be hetero.

  445. Shifter Watj 
    No..not really when you’re speaking about the same people who
    routinely shame low income earners for being lazy
    This is pregnant with possibilities for a response.
    Welfare does several very pernicious things. The problem is not so much that it rewards laziness . . . it’s more that it mucks about with human incentives. There are numerous states in the U.S. now where, if you add together all the welfare that can be collected, it is the equivalent of more than $20/hr for a 40-hr week. A rational human can look at that and say, “Well gee, I could work my @$$ off for 40 hours a week and earn 27/hr, or I could collect benefits and bring home the equivalent of $23.50/hr. Why would I bust my hump just to make $3.50/hr?
    They worried about this in the 1960s before the passage of the Great Society legislation—will this create dependence? Will it incentivize not working? They ran a test using a negative income tax and found that sure enough, people who could have worked made the completely rational choice not to work when an option was given to them that made not working a more attractive choice. That is bad. But they passed the legislation anyway. And now, you have many people who have been given a set of perverse incentives that, in the end, rob them of dignity and self-reliance. Worse still, they pass that dependence on to subsequent generations like a family heirloom. I think what government has done to human beings in this regard is vicious and cruel.
    Now, not ALL people who receive transfer payments/welfare fall into that category, of course. (There are other ways to handle the needs of the truly needy, though that is a subject for another time.)
    Try talking to grocery store clerks or Walmart cashiers about the kinds of things they see people buying with SNAP/EBT money, or the kinds of things that they’ll buy with cash right before they pay for a bunch of other stuff with SNAP/EBT. You will hear stories of people talking on iPhones, whipping out rolls of cash and buying luxury items and then buying a bunch of other things that are covered by SNAP/EBT etc. Annd these stories come not from conservative ideologues, but from 20-year-old cashiers who merely report what they see.

    If conservatives are guilty of seeing only those who are dependent but do not need to be, liberals are just as guilty of imagining and/or portraying everyone receiving welfare as being truly destitute, deserving poor. Neither of these views is accurate on its own.

    and whose party’s
    economic policies increase economic disparity. Perhaps self-centered
    would have been a better term.  If the same people who are on average
    slightly more generous with charity, vote for those who enact policies
    that increase the wealth gap
    But they don’t. Income inequality is upunder Obama, not down, and the GOP has not been able to ram anything through Congress that would have caused that.
    Income inequality is a poisonous term, because it raises a lot of very scary notions. If income inequality is “bad,” and you set out to fix it, how do you do that? Attempts were made in the 20th century, and they caused oppression, economic failure, and resulted in millions of murders by the state . . . and they still did nothing to address the question of income inequality. There will always be income inequality, in any system. Human beings differ in ability, luck, determination, etc. The real questions are these: How is each cohort doing? How much mobility is there? How long do people stay in various income quintiles, etc. 
    On that score, free markets do better than any other. Moreover, the freer the market, the better that poor people do, and in some cases, the lower the gap between the top and the bottom. Where that does not happen, it is usually because there is an uber-wealthy top 0.1% that throws off the stats massively.

    In reality Republican governments make rich
    people richer and poor people not richer. Where is the mountain of
    evidence you’re speaking of let’s say during the Reagan era, the
    conservative equivalent of a political Jesus, when two things that
    increased dramatically under his policies were people living below the
    poverty line and homelessness.
    We are not seeing the same data. Everyone in every income group began to rise in the mid eighties under Reagan, and that continued through Clinton and beyond. It was the largest economic expansion in human history, and the standard of living rose for all groups. This rise was attributable to a variety of factors. Minorities did especially well in the Reagan years, rising at faster rates than whites (largely because they started lower, but still, it was a good thing). The standard of living for people in the lowest quintile today (not counting the small fraction of the super-poor, which always exists)  is significantly higher than that of the middle quintile a half century ago. And homelessness went up sharply under Reagan immediately after the courts decided that it was no longer legal to hold people involuntarily in metal hospitals. Nothing specific to “Republican” policies increases income inequality to the detriment of any particular group. The question of what is beneficial is more complex than that.

  446. Shifter Watj 
    This is why there is an increasing number of cultural
    libertarians, or people who have gotten out of the identity game
    altogether because of its increasing incoherence. There is a wanker
    quotient particularly on the far left that is now approaching a
    pathological state; kind of the ideological equivalent of the far right
    wing bible freaks. The level of victimization these people are caught up
    in is staggering and the fact that they see everyone first as either a
    race or a gender is something I personally want no part of. The thinking
    is very compartmentalized, and worst of all it seems that it’s many
    younger people who are leading the charge. You’re basically talking
    about a dystopian sci-fi society if you put the “social justice warrior”
    crowd in charge.
    Right there with you on this!

  447. Finlander says:

    @Neutral Greetings from socialist Finland!
    If the ‘someone’ gets hurt over here, most people (liberals, or socialists as we call them in Europe) think “the welfare state will take care of her” and just walk past. A conservative on the other hand would feel compassion towards this fellow human being in need (instead of considering her just a number, a simple element in the colossal machinery of the welfare state) and help her out.

  448. silvrsurfr says:

    Shifter WesternFreePress Watj

  449. Shifter Watj 
    “there is no justification on any level for a representative secular
    state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another based on
    preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere to that
    So long as it is an actual right that we’re talking about, I wholeheartedly agree. 
    So then what do you say to something like progressive taxation, which says that one person’s property is subject to confiscation at a higher rate than another’s? Is that not a violation of the equal treatment/equal claim principle we are discussing?

  450. Shifter Watj 
    “there is no justification on any level for a representative secular
    state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another based on
    preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere to that
    Generally agreed. I am beginning to think, in fact, that government’s involvement inn marriage in the first place has wreaked at least some of the havoc.  But yeah, the decline in marriage began long before gays actually stated getting married.

  451. silvrsurfr says:

    Shifter WesternFreePress Watj If coming from a private institution such as the church…it is one thing, but what some conservatives would like to conserve, or how they feel about the sanctity of a man and woman union (and I use sanctity lightly considering half of them fail), whether legally (as your other article addresses as a potential option down the line) or in the hands of government, there is no justification on any level for a representative secular state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another based on preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere to that preference.

    Yet in this very statement, you assume your desires come before mine (a Christian business owner). I do not ‘hate’ gays, and shouldn’t even have to explain that. I DO, as a Christian, live out my faith every day. It is not a ‘Sunday’ thing, or an ‘in a church’ thing. That would be hypocrisy. In honoring God, I try to adhere to His word in all i do, which means I love (am out for the best interest of) my neighbor. Personally, I do not want to know what anyone does sexually, but since this culture feels the need to have me know it, I would still hire a gay person and treat them the same as anyone else. What I take issue with is being FORCED, potentially, to DO work which represents something which grieves the heart of God. I won’t expound on this, because i believe I will probably be mocked. I just want you to recognize that your ‘forced tolerance’ is not tolerance at all, and makes the author’s point that only in a free society where there are choices will people be able to thrive and interact with each other in a healthy way. You forcing me to do your will is anything but loving.

    Regarding 50% of marriages, this is quite an unfounded number, because its original researcher (not you) didn’t go so far as to qualify these marriages. If I marry someone on a whim, or because I ‘have’ to because of a pregnancy, or because I didn’t know the person that well but figured ‘I could get out of it if I needed to’, or I married them and they cheated, took up a career in alcohol, etc., these qualifications are more true to many of the marriages within that 50%, rather than gauging marriages where the man and woman took premarital classes, actually got to know each other, were not in a rush or any of the other flawed origins for the decision of marriage. ‘Gay’ won’t fix that statistic, either.

    As far as science goes, science is actually catching up to the bible. Even Hawkings’ statement that the world created itself is a study in philosophical folly, and is a ‘truth’ he purports that raises itself above his evolutionary argument that we are all ‘determined’ (no free will), and so implodes on itself. 
    Homosexuality goes against evolution as well, but in this society–a free society–people can practice their choices as they see fit.
    Evidence of the parting of the Red Sea was found in the ocean floor two years ago, with chariots, weapons and bodies indicating a dry ground crossing (as told in the Bible) which was suddenly deluged.
    I won’t go on with all of this evidence either, as you need to study it on your own, if you are interested, though I’m not sure you are, as the arguments you threw out don’t indicate that you’re interested in actual truth, but what fits your worldview; again, proving the author correct. That worldview takes much more faith than it does to believe in a loving Creator God who, by the way, loves you.

    I do find it interesting that the hateful leftist arguments and lawsuits against Christians, and the current mocking and attempted dehumanizing of Christians is the same kind of thing that happened to a different group of people in Europe in the 1940s, with devastating consequences. Again, the leftist National Socialist party trying to control everything and install ‘its’ idea of the ideal ‘person’, while eliminating its enemies.

  452. Shifter Watj 
    “there is no justification on any level for a representative secular
    state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another based on
    preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere to that
    I am not sure how much they actually do that, as opposed to being depicted as doing that. At least when it comes to elected officials, they’re usually smarter than to say that, especially in this day and age.
    It has been demonstrated, though, that welfare does actually inspire dependence in some people who do not need to be dependent. (in fact, there was a demonstrative study commissioned by congress right before they passed the Great Society legislation to see if it would inspire dependence in otherwise able-bodied people. The study showed it would, but they passed it anyway.) 
    I would not describe it as laziness, though. It is more a matter of incentives. In many  states, the cash value of all the benefits one can receive well exceeds $20/hour in the equivalent of full-time work. Why would someone work 40 hours a week for $15/hour if they could do nothing for $22/hr. For that matter, why would someone work like a dog for $28/hr if they could do nothing for $22—that’s like working for only $6/hr. The system creates perverse incentives.
    But even beyond all that, who cares what people say. The question is—what is true? 
    There are some who truly need help and others who are just following incentives but don’t really need the help. The social question is how to create the best outcomes and do so ethically. Right now, we are not doing that.

  453. Shifter Watj 
    “there is no justification on any level for a representative secular
    state to deny one citizen’s right to something over another based on
    preference or conviction, regardless of how many people adhere to that
    That is another trope of the left. Conservatives and libertarians hate corporate welfare.. You may get more talk about welfare, though, because in terms of sheer dollars spent, the welfare state has the economy on an eventually road to collapse, whereas corporate welfare spending is a drop in that bucket.
    That said, in my view, all forms of unequal treatment and redistribution are immoral, whatever the stated purpose.

  454. Star_1_Man says:

    Watj  I am tired of the left meaning well but the results are bad.

  455. mark says:

    Wow. As much as I enjoyed the article and found it to be spot on, The comments section kept me riveted. I am so glad I found this article and website.

  456. ChrisBlaesing says:

    This article does make some good points and I have witnessed a lot what has been said in my own life. I’m sure this article gets people on the left in an uproar. One thing I have learned though is that at least liberals have a standard of beliefs just as conservatives. But the independent seem to be the even bigger hypocrites and the most passive aggressive. With their wishy washy thoughts on politics that can’t seem to make up their minds. Some how they believe they are on a higher plain then the rest when the usual truth is they are just angry that they can’t get everything they want. That everyone is crooked. The only problem with that way of thinking is they never have any real solutions to bring to the table. They are the ones most likely not to vote at all but the first ones to complain about someone.

  457. ChrisBlaesing I must confess, not only do I generally trend to share this view, but in my ruder moments, have actually been quite harsh about swing voters, analogizing them plankton—just going wherever the tide takes them. As someone who has strong ideological and philosophical views, it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone could lack such a grounding, and in elections swing back and forth between such extreme ideological opposites. Like you say, how can anyone be simultaneously that wishy-washy and that smug about their wishy-washy-ness?
    One very good old friend whose intellect and intentions I have huge respect for did, a few weeks ago, give me his rationale for being a swing voter. (He is a voting citizen of the UK, but the principle is the same.) He said that he doesn’t want anyone to remain in power too long—by throwing each party out of office after a time, he believes that it prevents some of the corruption that would no doubt worsen with a long one-party rule. He also wants them to be forced to come up with better ideas, and believes time in the wilderness does that.
    I have more sympathy with the former rationale than the latter, but I did realize that he, as a British swing voter, does have at least some principle upon which he is basing his vote. I am sure many other swing voters lack even this rationale, and really are simply unaware of the stark differences at stake and just move with the current of the times, but at least my friend has an affirmative method to his voting pattern. I suspect he is not alone in that among the ranks of swing voters.

  458. Aaaa says:

    Conservatives love to think that liberals hate them. The truth is that we find some of their policies dumb and ineffective. Case in point: under Obama the national deficit actually went down. But conservatives completely ignore this, and brag about balancing the budget which they suck at.
    I will concede one point though- conservatives do donate more money. But liberals don’t mind being taxed. I would consider myself more conservative on this point- ID rather be taxed less and decide where my charity dollars go. It seems like the govt spends my money badly. If I were not to go to jail ID rebel against the tax system to put my charity dollars where I deem best.

The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives