We do not moderate comments at this time; we welcome and encourage different thoughts whether in agreement or disagreement, even those critical are acceptable — disagreement and discussion is needed and encouraged. Even if a commenter is wrong and states 2 + 2 = 5, it’s our policy not to delete or moderate comments just because they’re false (unless they’re inappropriate — see below). If you want to discuss a falsehood, that’s your prerogative.
Comments are the opinion of the individual user and do not necessarily reflect the views of this site — we make no claim on the truth, accuracy, or merit of any person’s statements.
However, we are interested in civil discussion. To that end, we may delete any comment, for any reason, at any time, solely at our discretion (however, if we don’t catch an inappropriate comment, don’t assume it’s acceptable — we don’t pre-moderate comments so it’s possible for something to slip through).
Disagreeing or critical discussion is fine as long as it’s conducted in a civilized way. Particularly, the following are a few (but not the only) sure-fire ways to get your comments deleted:
- Abusive speech.
- Wildly off-topic.
- Ad-hominem attacks.
- Foul language.
- Obvious spam.
- Anything non family-friendly.
Be Polite. Be civil. That’s not too much to ask — if you can’t discuss without a f-bomb or other impolite behavior, save us both time and post elsewhere. If you don’t think a respectable newspaper would publish your comments, it’s likely also not acceptable here either.
Your comments are your own, however, you grant to the operator of this website a permanent, non-revocable right to use and display them at our discretion. As the Internet is a public medium, if you wish to remain private please refrain from commenting.
To comply with various regulations regarding children, minors under the age of 18 (or not of legal age in their jurisdiction) should not submit any information or comments.
Constitutional Conservatism 
thanks much, dude
I am officially part of this movement. I don’t know why more conservatives aren’t.
How conveniant you left out the fact that PRESIDENT OBAMA’S spending is kept here at home, focused on American recovery, and bush’s was wasted on an illegal war, spent abroad, on anything but sound American enterprises!
The difference is substantial!
You also offer no solutions of your own and just sound like a gripe session. How conveniant.
Why don’t you, since your so smart, (more like snarky) provide your own plan- and let me ask you, will major spending/borrowing, w/oversite problems, be part of your plan? Say no.. so I can call you a liar.
Conservatives should get out of the way or become a team player. You all have screwed things up enough!
Hold your own to the same standards you hold others.
And if you don’t have anything constructive to say.. well enough is enough!!! Sit on your hands and shut up!
I will only say that conservatives are the ones who spent spent spent, during the reagan and bush years. Set new records in fiscal irresposability, removed “PAY AS YOU GO” etc. etc. etc… So quit blaming PRESIDENT OBAMA for being forced to take unpalitable actions in response to THIS utter conservative disaster!
Please admit/remember, it was Clinton who reduced the deficit and left Surplus $$ !!! Not nixon, not reagan, and not the bushs!!
“SURPLUS” IS A WORD you will NEVER HEAR WHILE A republican/conservative is/was in office.
so quit blamin PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR THE HARDSHIPS OF CLEANING UP YOUR KINDS MESS!!!
Oh and conservative claim to be the people of smaller goverment and more fiscal responsability. Tell me when since 1980 you have ever been anything BUT THE OPPOSITE?!! The historic facts speak for themselves.
Comparing bush/crook to president OBAMA. HUH! WHATTA LAUGH! Even @ this time.
THANK YOU FOR POSTING AND HEARING ME OUT. If you dare.
I really find it funny how “conservatives” call themself fiscally responsible when the last 2 excuse me 3 “conservative” presidents left this country in the worst economic state in u.s. history. Reagan had the 3rd worst defict in U.S. history and good ole bush beat him wow ! the nerve.
John, do some fact checking.
I believe in personal responsibility. That is the way I have always lived my life. However, government is a representative of the people and should reflect in it’s laws and policies compassion for those less fortunate, those who are unable to work due to mental or physical defect. Are there some who take advantage of such policies? Of course there will be some who do, but do we throw the baby out with the bath water…of course we don’t. Innocents should not suffer because of these people. We have created more and more checks to detect fraud for welfare programs. So much so that those who need our help cannot get it. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think it is a good idea to leave people out in the cold to fend for themselves while supporting the imbalance of power that exists in the market place today. A place where ceo’s of companies are making millions of dollars off the hard work of others who are sometimes making a measly minimum wage and require the aid of the government to keep themselves from becoming homeless. That is the situation that so called conservatives have created. I will never forgive them for their greed, I will always be aware of the terrible impact of their thinking and policies and I am not blind or stupid to their manipulative ways to create such an imbalance of power and money that has hurt and is hurting so many. So blat on all you want about your simplistic way of thinking and try all you can to justify your greedy and mean ways of looking at government, but I am hip to your rationalizations and so are many others.
Kathryn, what are your thoughts about a flat tax or a national sales tax?
Hello.
This comment is about something that is written in the ”About’ section but there is no comment section on that page so I post it here. I hope it will not be seen as an ”out of subject” comment by the blog’s admins.
I write this present post regarding the affirmation made in the ”About” section that ”atheism also being a religion as it requires beliefs which must be taken on faith”. First off, let me say that I completely agree on the fact that ”promotion (by the state) of atheism is also wrong”, and the fact that the non-existence of God is ”impossible to prove”. That being said, I respectfully want to say that this affirmation is false. Atheism is not a religion. More over, atheism is not a ”beleif wich must be taken on faith”. On the contrary. Let me explain:
1) It is not a religion. Atheism is not a shared set of values, beliefs and principles, as is a religion. Those called atheists share only one thing: the fact that they don’t believe in God (note: or any other deity. I will use the term ”God” for simplicity). For example, people who do not believe in the existence of dragons, shall we call them Adrakonists, share one thing: they don’t beleive in dragons. Adrakonism is not a religion. (THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. I am not in any way saying that believing in God is like believing in dragons. I studied theology in college, thus I am fully aware that Faith is far from being ridiculous, and many reasonable philosophical arguments can be -and have been- made in favor of God).
2) Atheism does not require faith. Faith is holding a belief in something (In this case, God) whose existence can not be proven. Not believing in the existence of God is an assumption. It is, in the absence of evidence, assuming that God does not exist. The same example can be used: Assuming dragons do not exist is not an act of faith. Choosing to believe they do exist would be an act of faith.
It is important to remember that inexistence is not provable. Only existence is. Of course, those who assume something (here: God) does not exist because it’s existence can’t be proven may very well be wrong. Or not. But knowing who’s right is impossible, so it is irrelevant. However, I envy the faithfull’s certainty.
“Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed,” as said a man.
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known,” as said another.
The issue with ad-hominem attacks raises this question: What if someone interprets a disagreement as an ad hominem attack, when no personal attacks is intended?