Personally, I try not to ask liberals much of anything, because they seldom have anything worth while to say in return. It’s always a mix of racial, socioeconomic, religious, or gender mumbo jumbo NONSENSE intended to strike an emotional nerve, rather than anything resembling facts. In my last post titled, The Most Honest Three Minutes on Television… Ever, I refer to them and others like them as “headline readers and soundbite seekers.” If it fits on a bumper sticker, it’s good as fact in their book.

No, thanks anyway, I can do without the talking wanna be pseudo-intellectual liberals most of the time. It’s always the same. I’ll ask a question, they’ll divert, dodge, and then attack on a totally different topic (one that strikes and emotional nerve of course), all while gradually raising their tone and talking over you. Sorry. I’ll pass. Should YOU have more patience with fools than I, The Federalist Papers reports that Brian Anderson over at Downtrend has ten questions that liberals can’t answer, and they are spot-on. Ask your liberal friends a few of these questions, grab the popcorn, and enjoy!



10. How many people should we let into this country?

Liberals want amnesty for the 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living in America. Let’s say that happens, then what? Do we grant amnesty to the next 20 million illegals that come looking for a better life? There are over 7 billion people on the planet, most of which would certainly have a better life if they moved to the US. I’ll ask again: how many of these people should we let immigrate to our country?



9. How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?

Liberals say that everything from the justice system to education is racist. They whine that voting laws that apply to everyone equally are somehow discriminatory. Why? I have no idea. If everyone is playing by the same rules there is no disputing that the playing field is level.



8. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?

Affirmative Action set quotas for minorities in hiring and college admissions. Obama's My Brother's Keeper program gives funds and opportunities to people of color. There are literally hundreds of liberal programs available to minorities only. Do not disadvantaged white people deserve the same help?



7. Do you know what a pyramid scheme is?

Wikipedia tells us: A pyramid scheme is an unsustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public. The people at the bottom of the pyramid do all of the paying and never reap any benefits. Sounds an awful lot like ObamaCare, doesn't it? In the private sector a pyramid scheme is fraud but when the government does it it's called progress.



6. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?

Liberals love abortion but hate the death penalty. Seems a little hypocritical since both involve the taking of a human life. The only difference is, unborn children haven't viciously murdered anyone. Why do liberals deem the life of a killer more important that that of an innocent child?


5. How does stagnating growth stimulate the economy?

High taxes and needless regulations are two things liberal lawmakers can't get enough of. They are also the two things that hurt business growth the most. I don't know if the libs are aware of this, but businesses are those things that give people jobs. When people have jobs, they have money to spend. Our economy grows when more people have jobs and spend money. This is not my opinion; it's a fact.



4. Does it make sense to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?

The social safety net, which includes welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and a whole host of liberal entitlements, has failed in its stated goal to pull people out of poverty. Instead, these programs have had the opposite effect, creating generations of people that are utterly dependent on government handouts. If these programs don't work, why should we continue them? Do liberals think that they’re bound to work eventually? Even worse, they want to expand these failed programs. Now that really is the definition of insanity.



3. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?

Every liberal gun control law either passed or proposed places arbitrary restrictions on law-abiding citizens. These laws don't apply to criminals because, by their very nature, they don't follow laws. If someone is going to commit a murder or assault, do you think they care if their weapon of choice isn't compliant to the local ordinance? No one has ever said, "I was going to rob that liquor store but the only gun I have holds more than seven rounds and that's illegal in New York."



2. How can you count to ten if you skip the number two?

The first ten amendments of the US Constitution are known as the Bill Of Rights. These enumerated rights were laid down by our Founding Fathers because they felt each of them was essential to ensure we live in a free society. Liberals are enamored with all of them except the 2nd, which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. They say all of the other amendments confer individual rights, yet claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right that allows only the government to possess arms. Why would the Framers list 9 individual rights, and one government right? Liberals also don't seem to understand that the 2nd Amendment protects all the others. Tyrants can't take speech and voting rights away from an armed populace.



1. Why was George W. Bush a bad President but Barack Obama is a good one?

To liberals, George W. Bush was the Devil incarnate. Their biggest beefs were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bank bailout, and Guantanamo Bay torture. When Obama took office he escalated the war in Afghanistan, gave even bigger bailouts, and after 5 years in office still hasn’t closed Guantanamo Bay. On top of that, Obama ignores the Constitution, spies on every single American, kills women and children with drone strikes, and has saddled the country with a health care law that will bankrupt the middle class and require an insurance company bailout of epic proportions. I'd say, even to liberals, Bush Jr. looks pretty good by comparison.

Liberal policies are filled with contradictions and hypocrisy all over the place.

http://www.thelastgreatstand.com/

They aren't very good questions.
Inherent to a lot of the questions is the idea that people are extensions of either the state or of business, that people are helpless or incapable without one or the other.


What should we do to keep them out? Murder them?
Increase the police force to go door to door and check papers?
Create a national DNA database and do random DNA searches?
Giant walls that can be tunneled under, climbed over, or just circumvented along the near 100,000 miles of coastline?
Turning the U.S. into East Germany?

Punish businesses that hire illegals?
Great, lets keep increasing fines and taxes until we run all those bad businesses out of business entirely so there's no business hiring whatsoever.
Let's force them to do everything under the table, via cash, allowing them to hide even more in taxes, and incentivize them to hire more illegals since in for a penny in for a pound.


When the rules operate under the assumption everyone is the same despite evidence to the contrary.


Not a lot of midgets in the NFL or NBA, are there?
If you apply the rules "equally," then there would be requirements that would in effect, be equivalent to forcing midgets to play these games the same way as everyone else.

So there are rules for different games, forcing everyone to play with helmets and pads and safety gear for some, but not others, to minimize the negative impact to certain groups that simply can't play on a "level" playing field that they have to play.


Because they theoretically don't take away from another group.
"Disadvantaged white people" get the same help, from other avenues.

There's a difference between "if you are going to hire then you have to also hire" and "you are not allowed to hire."


Same with SS, the military, medicare, medicaid, farm subsidies, fannie and freddie, the DOE, school loan programs, and any welfare program.

All government redistribution of tax dollars is ultimately a pyramid or ponzi scheme.
Government does not create anything, it simply shifts wealth and provides/applies force.

Government is not a business. It should not be run like a business.
Comparing it to a pyramid scheme is implying the government is run as a fraudulent or inefficient business.


If the U.S. government followed GAAP laws the entire system would be in prison.

#7 is trying to apply rules to everyone assuming everyone and everything is the same. Same motivations, same desires, same purpose.
Equal and same are different things.
The purpose of a business, an individual, and a government are different.


Liberals don't think it's okay to kill unborn children.
They think it's wrong for the state/fed/government to remove the choice from the parent.
Killing a murderer is permanently removing the choice or right to life of a living, thinking, reasoning individual.


Based solely on the wording of the question it can lead to people wanting to chase growth, chase returns, chase innovations to get away from stagnation, to improve their life.


Demand, innovation/invention, desire, and competition give people jobs.
Relying solely on "businesses" to provide jobs is the same as promoting slavery.


The "economy" is not a good indicator of a persons life or lifestyle, or health/wealth of a nation.
The "economy" at best is an indicator of corporate wealth and maybe the velocity of money.
Velocity of money does not = wealth.
You ever read the "parable" about the pig farmer and the 100 dollar bill? "more people have jobs and spend money" is simply perpetuating that false idea.


Because they are still law.
And wherever the government follows law, it's a good thing.
If you don't like the law, work to change it or just bloviate on the internet.


No. But that's why there are continuous changes to the programs.
Like EBT cards rather than paper food stamps, which cut down on fraud since they can be tracked.


Maybe.
A lot of murders and crime are chances of opportunity, a desire for immediate gratification, due to rage or desperation.
If someone is going to commit a premeditated murder or assault and they sit around and plan it for days, weeks, months, they may not be stopped.
But if you take away the tools or ability for them to react to their immediate emotional impulse, it may offer enough time for their rational selves to make a better decision.

Unfortunately you can't really measure how many lives saved or assaults prevented because someone didn't have access to something.
Not a lot of polls out there asking "so if you happened to have a gun at that time, would you have really killed them or mugged them? Really really?"


All laws are arbitrary.
Why is the drinking age 21? Voting age 18? Driving age 16? Speed limit 55? Abortion cutoff 24 weeks? Drunk driving limit .08? Legal minimum for politician 35, 30, 25 for pres, senator, rep, respectively? i.q. for legal decisions 75?

If you want to get rid of "arbitrary laws" then a 4 year old or all the chinese should be able to vote, jail sentences are nothing, an 8 year old can get drunk and buy a handgun, and anyone can just come into your house and say "mine, now get out."

Lines have to be drawn somewhere, or no lines will be drawn anywhere as they're all ignored and meaningless.

The lines politicians try to draw are those they believe will lead to a reduction in actual harm done. Not absolute universal final solutions.


Because they weren't perfect?
Because they were working as a large group trying to make everyone content if not happy?
Because they were working from a lot of other material from other countries and laws?
Because they were in a war with a superpower and they weren't a superpower?
Because they were all from what were almost other countries trying to make one country?
Because they didn't consult the future first?
Because why would the framers list 10 rights and not 123?
Why would god allow bad things to happen?


Why would the framers only provide one right to protect all the others rather than make it so all rights protected each other!
I'm outraged! It's inconceivable!

Oh wait, first amendment also protects all the others, just not via applied force.
Oh wait, so does the 3rd and 4th.
Oh wait, so does the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th...

All together they represent a means for an individual to protect their rights from the government by assembling, talking about things like how to protect themselves, post in the press, keep the government from stealing their papers and plans on protecting themselves, having big brother quartered in their homes, to have public trials and get their community/peers to possibly help protect them...


When this was actually a significant meme or theme Obama was still unfamiliar, hadn't "reigned" all that long. The hopium balloon hadn't deflated.
Now, towards the end of his crap, if you hold polls to having any significance, the majority of people do not believe Obama is a good president and haven't for a very long time.

It's only a minority that have simply never changed their mind and still believe Obama is a good president.

so why is a big problem now when it wasn't 30 years ago? is it fair for the people that are doing it the "right" way, spending thousands of dollars and waiting for years to be turned down when all they have to do is do it illegally? making 10 million people citizens just because they choose to break the laws? come on, your smarter than that...

i think the first paragraph says what happens when you ask a liberal these questions... thanks for showing it was right...

10. We should enforce immigration laws, we should 'let in' those who follow the laws and meet the requirements, going forward. To address those millions already here from young ages who have contributed, worked, etc,,,we should provide a path to legal immigration so they can continue contributing.

9. Cause things are never EQUAL. If I have a class of children and before the race I hobble all the blondes with a stick. Saying then that I will have everyone run a race and get a treat for running,, to be applied 'equally' to everyone,,,,,does not make it 'equal'.

8.IT depends upon the group. Adults cant have sex with kids, but thats not discriminatory as much as it is LOGICAL and RELEVANT to that groups situation.

7. Yes. I know what a pyramid scheme is. IT sounds like the insurance business period. Those who have it pay for those who dont. Obamacare thins out that obligation by spreading it to more people.

6. I feel premeditated/planned killing is wrong, from conception. I dont agree with abortion or death penalty.

5. ,,I think thats called begging the question.

4. No.

3. another begging the question, how are law abiding citizens 'punished'?

2. Counting from 1 to 10 by 1 includes 2.


1. where should I start

"mission accomplished"
5000 soldiers dying for wmd that werent found
never finding osama
applauding fema lead for their great job in Katrina response
historical job loss
near depression economy


vs

troops pulled out
finding osama
hurricane sandy
consistent job growth,,,
economy in recovery

troops pulled out was bushes timeline, not obarrys... and he still didn't follow it...
finding Osama? i'm still pretty "iffy" on that one, no pics, no body, and a convenient burial at sea...
since Katrina was the only time thats ever happened in the US, hard to say anyone could have been better or worse...
historical job loss? not really, if you compare the population then/now to 1929, more jobs were lost then....
and speaking of which...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/07/record-93770000-americans-not-in-labor-force/

and the "near depression" economy is no better now as then...

the only thing Obarry has done that i remotely agree with was opening up Cuba....

Here's a question I have about immigration. In Europe Hungary said it is going to build a fence to stop illegal immigrants from coming over the border via Slovenia. They just can't handle the numbers. People cried that's terrible, how awful.

To me this says to first world nations that they should be ashamed of their success. They must help the rest of the world by letting them come live in their country. Why? Why should Hungarians who worked hard for their freedom, for their success, let all of the Middle East and Africa go live there, no one helped the Hungarians, they fought for what they have.

The same is true for America. Americans fought and worked hard for what they have. There is the lesson, you want a better life, don't run to another country. Stay and fight and yes possibly die, to build your own.

Last Friday's nonfarm payrolls report of 215,000 new jobs in July with its attendant announcement of an unemployment rate of 5.3 percent drew mostly yawns from the media. That wasn't the case on February 3 of this year when Jim Clifton, CEO of the polling company, Gallup, wrote a stunning opinion piece on the company's web site calling the U.S. unemployment rate "The Big Lie." Clifton raised more media frenzy the next day when he appeared on CNBC and suggested he might "disappear" for questioning the government's unemployment rate.

Back then, the official unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. Today it's 5.3 percent - a very healthy looking rate for an economy that is supposedly on the rebound.

One of the bogus aspects raised by Clifton in his opinion piece about how the U.S. government calculates the unemployment rate was this:

"Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%."

Even for a government hell bent on putting the best possible spin on overcoming the Wall Street train wreck of 2008, which brought on the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, characterizing someone working one hour a week in a lawn job as "employed" seems like the height of duplicity. We decided to check it out.

We went directly to the source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Federal agency that calculates who is employed and who is not. According to the BLS, the bogus nature of who is counted as "employed," is even worse than Clifton suggests. Not only is a person counted as employed if they are working one hour a week in a lawn job paying $20, but a worker who makes no money at all donating his or her services to a family business for 15 hours or more per week is also considered employed.

Throughout the rest of America, one's donation of services typically defines one as a volunteer not an employed worker; but the BLS doesn't see it that way.

Read the rest of the article here

if by building your own we mean occupy and kill off and enslave others to help build,,lol


the brits who founded america certainly did not feel they needed to stay there and die ,,,they came where they had the chance to take over someone elses lands,,,,

thats the nature of man throughout history, to move around and find the best homes for their families

I see no issue if people want a better life, I believe immigration is a necessary reality for countries to continue to grow and evolve and not stagnate

we grow and learn from the best parts of others cultures,, its important


we just need to enforce the immigration requirements since we do not have an ENDLESS supply of resources