Collegiate Times

There is nothing new in this ridiculous diatribe - it comes straight from the left wing playbook. It only took you until the second paragraph to launch a personal attack on Sarah Palin's intellect. You say conservative ideas are a vile trash heap? Which ideas specifically? That to succeed requires hard work? That life is hard and requires sacrifice from time to time? That sitting on your a$$ making babies and collecting welfare is an unconscionable drain on those of us who work hard? Since you quote Jefferson, here’s one for you: "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents."

this letter expresses the right sentiments.

Dear Mr. Steele, You want to make the party hip-hop, but your game's as old as scrimshaw And then you go ahead and flip-flop and apologize to Limbaugh? So, if you think you're krunk, come battle with me But you're gonna get dunked like chamomile tea! Hunh! Sincerely, Stephen T. Colbert

Can someone explain to me why conservatives seem to think that the rich work as hard as the poor? It is called 'the working class' for a reason. Most rich people have gotten lucky or inherited their money and haven't worked a day in their life. People on welfare live in squalor and are working hard everyday to get out of poverty.

It's not my fault they screwed up and now live in a trailer. I worked hard in school and did everything right and the government wants to penalize me for achieving. I didn't receive any help from the government and they want me to shell out money just because people don't want to work hard like I did. I happily pay taxes for important government functions like defense and infrastructure but I will not sacrifice my pay for deadbeats that don't want to contribute.

Dangerous, as long as you believe the only way people become rich is because they got lucky then you are destined to be a leech on society. I am not wealthy (yet) but I don’t envy the rich – I want to be wealthy, too, and the only thing I need the government to do is get the eff out of my way. I’d be further along in that goal if the gov’t quit taking my money from me and giving it to the lazy. I worked in fast food when I was in high school and all of my fellow workers over the age of 18 had two things in common: they were all lazy and were all overpaid, even at minimum wage. I was 16 and made more than they did BECAUSE I WORKED HARDER THAN THEY DID. I wasn’t any smarter, I just worked hard. I also had friends in high school with relatives in the projects. They were on the dole and never lifted a finger to help themselves. Not my job to pay their way.

the government's welfare budget constitutes less than 1%.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for nearly half of the federal budget. None of these is remotely in the purview of the government as envisioned by the founders. Show me where in the Constitution any of these programs is authorized or even in the spirit of it? Of course with this latest bill to tax the AIG bonus recipients, the Congress isn't terribly interested in the Constitution. Left to their own devices, people do pretty well. Most, anyway.

I think the founding fathers were actually trying to get the state out of religion, not the other way around.... And I am tpretty sure that the idea of the seperation of church and state was to protect the religious freedoms of the people, not to protect the state from the evil machinations of religion.... Here is the quote from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Abandoning any sense of conservative values is not the right move for the Republican party. We may as well just all join together into one group if you think conservatives should check their values at the door. John McCain proved that a centrist candidate will not get the votes. Conservatives need to get back to their core values and principles. Welfare...there are some people that are truly in need, and conservatives have no problem helping those people. However, I think we can all agree that many people use welfare as a crutch rather than applying themselves to succeed. Nobody is entitled to anything, you need to work for your goals.

"Speaking as a radically left progressive who supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primaries" Wow. That about sums it up. Here's a bit of wisdom clearly absent from your sheltered life: No conservative cares what you think as you are the embodiment of the opposite of everything we stand for. It's hilarious how after one election socialist lefties like this guy think the conservative movement is dead, especially as the Democrats and Obama's approvals are plummeting after just a few short weeks. Last year's election wasn't a major shift in our country any more than the utter beat-down the Democrats took in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Of course, this is "ancient history" for a young junior Justin Jetson. You may want to read about history and the founding of our country from some real sources. I'd suggest logging off the DailyKook or Huffing-A-Ton-Post and pick up the Federalist Papers.

I'm getting tired of conservatives saying the Democratic Party and Obama are socialist. There was an actual Socialist Party that lost the election. If raising the rich's income tax from 36% to 39% is socialism, what do you call it when it is raised to 85% like it is in Sweden? Obama will just raise taxes on the richest 5% of people, and I doubt anyone here is pulling in over $250K. Obama will lower taxes on everyone else. Also, Obama's approval rating is higher than Bush's after his first 2 months. And I'm pretty sure having the Supreme Court stopping the recount doesn't qualify as an 'utter beat-down'.

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago: "[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth." (See next post for rest of comment)

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2). John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican JLof@aol.com PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself that at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

Please stop using me in political discussions. You are supposed to keep your religion separate from your government.

Wow. This kid is thinks that America is frustrated because "the GOP has lost all credibility"? Sorry, Junior. We tax-paying American grown-ups are actually frustrated by a government that turns a blind eye to tax fraud and countless other types of scandals (ie.: Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Charlie Rangle, Rod Blagojovich, Ron Kirk, Elliot Spitzer, Rahm Emmanuel, Vincent Fumo, Charles Freeman Jr., to name a few.) We are frustrated by a government that constantly increases our taxes and redistributes the wealth. We are frustrated by a government that spends billions of dollars in “stimulus bills” and effectively increasing the debt of our families for generations without reading even the bill text. We are fed up with a government that makes decisions about OUR Social Security and our retirement futures when they themselves do not pay a DIME into Social Security. We are fed up with a government that would rather, during an economic crisis, flit across the country to play celebrity of the week on some late night show instead of dealing with the filth and corruption in his own cabinet.

Oh, and by the way, “God:” – perhaps you should read the U.S. Constitution before asking to be removed from all political discussion. In our Constitution, it is NEVER mentioned that there should be a separation of church and state. What is mentioned in the Bill of Rights is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (1st Ammendment) The term "separation of church and state" only comes from a letter from Jefferson to Madison when Jefferson was minister to France and Madison was writing his Federalist Papers. Aside from the fact that Jefferson wasn't part of the Constitutional Convention debate, Jefferson uses the phrase to argue his belief that the state can not impose a state religion (a separation between church and state), not that there can be no religious expressions in the state.

Please resubmit this substandard draft to your Political Polemics for Non-native English Speakers TA.

Funny, I didn't say anything about economic policy in this article. As a matter of fact, I didn't on purpose because the Republicans soap box IS to "spend less." However, when was the last time you morons actually reduced spending? NEVER! Hence, you lose credibility. If anything, the GOP is always the party that adds to the deficit, increasing in spending, and ruining of the economy. Whatever, though. Continue on with your bloated defense budgets, spying on the American people, starting illegal wars and torching the Constitution. NC, your condescension is unneeded. I've been paying taxes since I was 15, I've been paying capital gains taxes since I was 18, and I've been paying my tuition and rent on my own. I'm not telling you to embrace left wing economic theory, you're missing the point of this article. Maybe it's going over your grown-up head.

Posted by Eric Wood: "Obama will just raise taxes on the richest 5% of people, and I doubt anyone here is pulling in over $250K. " If you really believe that, I've got some prime property in a lunar crater to sell you. You might want to try to run the numbers. Obama's spending plans are so bloated, there's no way he can pay for them all by limiting his tax increases to 3% of 5% of the population. In addition, despite what college kids might believe, those taxes will go right after small businesses which provide most of the new job growth for the country. Before you instinctively regurgitate the liberal/socialist mantra that most small businesses don't make $250k per year, please do a little homework. Those that do make over $250k per year are the same ones employing most of the people. Most under $250k are mom & pop operations which don't hire very many people. Obama and the socialists are going after the very people that can help pull the country out of a recession. Instead, he's taking the country down the path of socialist Europe, which has had a stagnant economy and double-digit unemployment (during the best of times!) over the past thirty years. Of course, most college kids don't bother looking back that far.

About "God and the Constitution:" The government's job wrt to religion is to protect individual faith from persecution, and to keep it out of the state. That's what I meant by "get religion out of the state." It should not affect our laws with bans on stem cell research, and you shouldn't go to war because "God told you to."

@ Badger, you seem to have as much understanding of our tax policy as ABC. Not many "small businesses" PROFIT $250,000 (you know, the part that's taxable). If you make $300,000 in revenue, they're not going to tax that if you spend $250,000 paying for expenses. Second, to respond to the news ABC was peddling, there are "brackets" for a reason. You don't jump your entire income to a new bracket if you make one more dollar than before. If you make $250,001, only $1 is taxed more.

Get off your soapbox Justin Seabe. Please. You want to come off as this intelligent, informed, and hard-working college student, but that's is not at all what you are. You sound like an egotistical brat who thinks he is better than anybody who dares to believe in conservative values.

Say all you want online where you have nothing to your name but anonymity, but please, if you're going to use ad hominems, please use your actual name. What I just gave you is true conservatism: getting the government out of your lives, and being true to not interfering with other governments through war. What you're pushing is Neoconservatism.

Posted by Justin Seabe: "However, when was the last time you morons actually reduced spending? NEVER! Hence, you lose credibility. If anything, the GOP is always the party that adds to the deficit, increasing in spending, and ruining of the economy. " Have you given any thought in your diatribe to historical facts prior to when you were in high school? You may want to look back at when the conservatives took over Congress in 1994. When we had a split government, there actually was some fiscal responsibility. Prior to that, the Dems never showed fiscal constraint any more than they are now. Here's something to consider: The economy was doing great until 2006. Then, everything began to fall apart. What happened in 2006? Oh yeah! Democrats took over Congress, which controls the government's purse strings!

(cont.) As for the rest of your charges that the GOP has "bloated defense budgets, spying on the American people, starting illegal wars and torching the Constitution", it's all liberal propaganda you can find at any common coffee shop. I find "torching the Constitution" especially amusing considering it's the lefties who try to promote the idea of an "evolving Constitution". Here's one last question for you: Why is it that in the places liberals/socialists have assumed the greatest amount of control in both the cultural and economic arenas, we see the greatest levels of poverty, single parent broken homes, gang fighting, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and high school dropout rates? Your side has had control of urban environments for the past 50-100 years, yet they have steadily gotten worse. Why is that? The left's cultural dogma have systematically destroyed the very people they claim to champion. The dirty little secret is that the left doesn't really care about improving people's lives. They care about destroying religion, family structure and job-creating private environments in order to make sure people have no where else to turn besides Goverment. It helps secure their voting base.

@Justin: No, the government's job was never to keep religion out of the state. Go read some historical books on the founding of our country. There were plenty of examples where they involved church in the state (chaplans giving prayer over the opening of Congress, carving the Ten Commandments over the heads of the Supreme Court, etc). Our laws were based on Judeaic-Christian values, so there's complete precedent for using religion as a moral benchmark in making our laws. (BTW, no one in the US ever went to war because "God told me to". This is just an immature little statement to make on your part)

Junior, not sure how I can stop my "condensation," as you put it, but since you've paid into the system for a whopping 5-6 years (or more, depending on what education track you're on), you're right, losing 60% of your retirement savings must really be hurting right now...but I digress. We're not talking about one party or another spending too much. That's the point - both parties spend too much, but last time I checked, it was the current administration that just passed the LARGEST spending bill in American history. It passes far and beyond the total cost of even WWII. I'll take the bloated defense budgets because it keeps our country safe. You can keep your crooks in Washington DC. You can take every single one of them, because America doesn't want them running the country. Here, take their tax fraud, take their sex scandals, take them all: Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Charlie Rangle, Rod Blagojovich, Ron Kirk, Elliot Spitzer, Rahm Emmanuel, Vincent Fumo, Charles Freeman Jr... need I keep going???

@ Justin: "Not many "small businesses" PROFIT $250,000 (you know, the part that's taxable). " Did you even read my post or did you just reflexively post your dogmatic talking point? First off, the one's making under $250k(aka: "profit", which is a naughty little word on the left) are not the job-creating small businesses. Most of the jobs from the small businesses are from those making more money. I know you have never had any real job or had any real responsibility before, but if someone is making a good living at $250k, what's the incentive for them to work a little harder or hire another person? Normally, it's because they think they can earn more money. However, if your socialist plan is to tax them at higher and higher rates, that incentive is diminished or eliminated. Ergo, they don't make the extra investment and no more jobs are created. Congratulations! You just stagnanted the initiative of the most important people in our economy! P.S. The Democrats have also discussed making the $250k cap on gross income instead of net income. Do you even know the difference?

Last and final response that I will give here, as I don't have time to debate people in a YouTube comment style forum all night; I have a war protest to attend in an hour. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html Why is it always the conservative states receiving the most federal aid?

Thanks, Justin. Great letter! Glad someone is thinking.

I denounce your selectively edited history with some of my own selectively edited history that I just finished reading about on someone else's website. It is in fact YOUR SIDE that is the cause of all the wrongs in our nation. The leaders from my side of the aisle are far less corrupt then the leaders on your side. And yes, assigning blame is far more constructive then actually discussing viable policy changes that are needed. In conclusion, the people on the other side are like sheep, their policies are like Hitler, and our side loves America more. Feel free to cut and paste anywhere in your post as you see fit, regardless of party affiliation.

@Badger: You can't have your facts more backwards. You really think Europe's economy is stagnant? So, how is the dollar doing compared to the Euro? The Euro has been stronger than the dollar since 2004. Let's do a quick comparison of the US to Norway, arguably the more socialist country in Europe. Norwegians have lower unemployment, lower infant mortality, higher education rates, higher life expectancy, higher GDP per capita, and the highest human development index. You also claim that liberal areas of the country have higher teen pregnancy. Sorry, but the opposite is true: (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=37&cat=2). Red states also have a higher divorce rate: (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate). Finally, the states with the highest drop out rates are: South Carolina, Nevada, and Georgia.

Justin: "Last and final response that I will give here, as I don't have time to debate people in a YouTube comment style forum all night; I have a war protest to attend in an hour." What are you protesting? Afghanistan? Yeah, that's aweful that we're trying to prevent the Taliban from taking over and having a more stable staging ground into Pakistan where they can get nukes. I have a feeling you just feel frustrated that someone called out your rhetoric and have no logical reply. Go back to your fellow, insulated clique where no outside thoughts are tolerated. Lastly, here's a critical question for you: Why are Democrat-controlled states much worse off economically than Republican-controlled states? What is it about Democrat/socialist policies that destroy economies? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html

@ Eric: "Let's do a quick comparison of the US to Norway, arguably the more socialist country in Europe. Norwegians have lower unemployment, lower infant mortality, higher education rates, higher life expectancy, higher GDP per capita, and the highest human development index." Norway is the fourth largest oil exporter in the world. Oil revenue is one quarter of Norway's entire economy, yet you either ignore this significant fact or are ignorant of it. Are you willing to fund at least 25% of our economy via oil, coal, natural gas and other raw material exports? Judging by the liberal mantra of blocking any new energy developement, I doubt that. Yes, socialism can work if you are willing to exploit a valuable natural resource (Norway) or your human capital (China). Why don't we discuss countries with more balanced economies like the US's or Japan's? France? Double our unemployment during their best of times (10% in 2005, and that was a good year), Germany? 10-12% unemployment over the past 10 years. Italy? 9% in 2005 while the US was 4-5%. How did Cuba's economy do? Soviet Union? Poland? East Germany? Face it. Unless you're willing to toss out your liberal environmental policies or turn the entire country's population into indentured workers for the state, socialist theories like the Dems and Obama are peddling are sure means of economic disaster.

Once more, Badger has his facts opposite from reality. "Why are Democrat-controlled states much worse off economically than Republican-controlled states?" Instead of citing a paper run by News Corp (Fox News), here is some actual unbiased raw data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

@ Eric: Be honest, Eric. Did you even bother to read the article? You completely ignored the points in it. Democrat-controlled states are faring much worse in the economic recession that Republican-controlled states. Why is that? I know, I know. Those facts don't fare well with your desired reality, but they are what they are. P.S. Believe it or not, just because a fact is listed on Fox News or a paper associated with Fox News, doesn't make it any less of a fact. Granted, it may not be a fact mentioned by the liberal MSM, but it's still a fact.

BTW, the "anonymous" post at 6:57 was from me.

I said I wasn't going to respond again, but I decided to go around for one final whirl. What I'm emphasizing is what Barry Goldwater tried to emphasize to the growing Neocon coalition back in the 1980's. I'd vote for him over half of the democrats that we currently have in office. At least I know where he's going to go when it comes to economics, and he supports the rights of gays and wanted to end the drug war; the blue dogs are countlessly unreliable, and by far one of the stupidest blocs that the Democrats have. Why? Because they're the second half of the coalition of Dixiecrats. The rampant racist ones went to the Republicans, and we got stuck with the other half.

@J. Seabe: How'd your rally go? Did you change anyone's opinion or did it just make you feel good?

I love the comments on here. It's so fascinating to watch conservatives fart themselves crazy. "OMG it's soshulist speak! oh noe communism we're all gonna die!" Jim Jones got nuttin on all y'all.

We mock, Melisa, what we don't understand.

Well, I did read the article. It was written by a former Republican senator for the WSJ, and I summarize it like this: "3 GOP states have gained employment recently while one Dem state lost jobs, therefore we Republican are so smart and have the best anti-tax policies!". Whenever I cite data, it is by an independent non-partisan raw informative source. Nothing in Badger's article changes the fact that liberal states have stronger economies than conservative states. Also, Badger should learn the difference between adopting some socialist policies and outright communism. And before you classify me as a typical Democrat, I'd like to tell you that I'm the rare liberal who supports the invasion of Iraq; but that is a different discussion.

First of all, Eric, you cited WIKIPEDIA as your 'independent' 'raw informative' source; I don't know what they teach you in Computer Science but wiki is not a credited source. Second, Stalin had a famous quote that I hope you will allow me to summarize 'first brown then red' which means socialism is a very small stepping stone to communism. Please note that all the major 'western civilization' dictators and war crime violators of the past century have been socialists or communists. Third, you misunderstood Badger's article. It was comparing 3 'GOP' vs. 3 'DEM' with notable states such as Arizona (McCain), Texas (Bush), and Illinois (Obama). That was the point in between the lines that a real unbiased journalist can not directly tell you; hence why you apparently didn't catch it. Still need help? With respect to economy the states of the GOP president candidate/ex outperformed the DEM president. The article also addresses Michigan's failing auto industry due to labor unions; if you want further proof that this liberal concept is the reason for Michigan going down the drain look into why Alabama (a non labor union state) is becoming the new 'auto' state. In general Conservative economical policies outperform Liberal spending policies (Reagan vs. FDR). If anyone wants to debate that, i am all ears (try to keep your liberal slander out of the debate however).

Just wanted to say that "all the major 'Western civilization' dictators and war crime violators of the past century have been socialists or communists" is incorrect. They were all fascists. There has never been a true communist nation, and having a dictator isn't very communist-y or socialist-y. Just clarifying.

It is not important being a left or liberal vs. right or conservative. imho, what counts is is this, are the majority of citizens in a country (say, 80%) better off over a span of time (3 years, 5 years, 8 years), and extend the spans to see a pattern, I bet it has a lot to do with government policies, political forces (dem and rep)'s ability and willingness to compromise (to get things done), and the citizentry's general attitudide toward work, a fresh case in mind, I offer college students $12/h + a substantial commission to do some fairly easy work - it's their alley, however, response are lukewarm, are they expecting 20 dollars or more? (but you haven't proven yourself) Don't mean to deviate from the discussion...

To Anon, if you want to be picky about it then yes you are correct, let me clarify. It is a fundamental aspect of the definition that a dictator can not exist in a socialist or communist state. The dictators start off socialist or communist and end up fascist. What does that say about how easily a totalitarian state is created under those leftist ideologies. And before Justin tries to babble on again, totalitarian states are derived from leftist-liberal ideologies not conservative ones (Middle East the exception again), his article was just pure slander and i am surprised the CT even published it.

"And before Justin tries to babble on again, totalitarian states are derived from leftist-liberal ideologies not conservative ones" No they're not, they're derived from fascist ones, which is what the current Republican party is when it comes to who you can marry, who you can sleep with, what drugs you put into your body, and what you do to your body. I still fail to see how one of the most revered Conservatives, Barry Goldwater, was slandering conservatism, when these were his positions.

I think the country is like it is right now because we let people like Seabe and the author of the article he's rebutting run the country. Idealists without reason. How much insult can you throw around and still have the respect and right mind that it takes to see what's wrong with the world? It's trash. Empty promises, lies, name calling, finger pointing, and clingy idealists with no foresight that got us here. I'm glad to see that they are still in charge of the government and media.

Justin, do some research and read some books. Fascism is partially defined as a totalitarian state. "No they (totalitarian states) are not, they're derived from fascist ones', this comment does not make sense, a fascist state is already a totalitarian state. And before you try throwing fascist in front of the word 'Republican' try looking up what groups were first coined 'Fascist', here's a hint: look into Germany's and Italy's history. My original quote stands, if you had known a little history you would realize your error. Stick to airplanes - you are out of your league here.

Justin, you seem to be under the (unfortunate) impression that rights come from the government. Homosexuals do, in fact, have the right to marry - and many churches recognize that and celebrate such ceremonies. That a couple is not married in the eyes of the state is not particularly relevant in terms of anything aside from tax law, really, and a handful of other offshoots from that. But to be more precise, it would behoove you to be a little more diligent about your use of terminology and ensure that the context in which you use your words is correct. Keep in mind that the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal,' like the terms 'Republican' and 'Democrat,' have all meant VERY different things from their current definitions at different times in our nation's history. The fact of the matter is that the system we currently employ is broken precisely because we no longer have any real leaders willing to become politicians. We are now a nation governed by demagogues rather than patriots, and the buffonery of the Washington elite has been on full display from both sides of the aisle for the last 20 years or so.

Thanks, Justin, for repeating our lies and assisting our people control efforts. It's much easier when innocent young people regurgitate this than when we do.

You'll wake up when you get a real job and pay real taxes.