by

NRA + Terrorists = BFFs!

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”

Is that the NRA talking? No, it’s from an al Qaeda video, telling its members how easy it is to get a gun in America.

Yep. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Edit: Link to the video doesn’t seem to be working. Here’s a few links that may help:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/06/new-al-qaeda-video-instructs-us-muslims-buy-guns-start-killing-people/38484/

Al Qaeda video resurfaces urging radicals to buy guns in U.S.

http://www.wptz.com/news/politics/Al-Qaeda-video-resurfaces-on-U-S-guns/-/8869804/19720374/-/76dd91/-/index.html

Editorial cartoon of the day

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Top 5 reasons to get rid of the Electoral College

1. It will make every vote count. I grew up in Virginia which, at the time, was reliably Republican. My vote meant little in the Presidential race. Then I moved to Massachusetts and later New York where my Republican friends’ votes were meaningless.

That’s ridiculous. With the winner-take-all elections we have now, people who are in the minority party in their states have no real reason to come out and vote.ElectoralCollege-638x370

By having a popular vote for the President, every vote will count. Democrats in Utah and Republicans in Hawaii won’t feel their votes are wasted.

2. It will force candidates to campaign everywhere. Right now, there are states that rarely see a political campaign, where the candidate visits only to raise money and then disappears. The candidates also pay an inordinate amount of attention to whatever issues are important to those states that are in play, even if those issues would hurt the rest of the country. (Admittedly, some of that will still go on with our current primary system.)

Getting rid of the electoral college means a vote is a vote, no matter where it is. A vote in Idaho is meaningless to a Democratic candidate now, but it would be worth just as much as one in a swing state if we get rid of the electoral college.

3. It will help get people in those non-swing states involved. It should increase voter participation, and even help the local economy.

4. It will get rid of “red states” and “blue states.” This concept does nothing to help political discourse, and only divides us more.

5. It will make it clear that the President represents the people, not the states. And, more importantly, all the people, not just the ones in the states that elected him.

Right now, a President can lose the election and still win. That has happened three times in our history, most recently when Gore got more popular votes than Bush yet Bush won the electoral college. We ended up with a guy a majority of Americans voted against. How is that democracy? That’s winning by a loophole. And it could easily happen again.

(EDIT:  Be sure to read the very extensive debate on this topic in the comments!)

(EDIT #2:  Obviously, this was written before the 2016 election, so now we have two examples of a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the election within a period of 16 years.)

(EDIT #3:  If you’re really interested in this topic, I dedicated an entire chapter to it in my book HOW TO ARGUE THE CONSTITUTION WITH A CONSERVATIVE.)

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

If God were allowed in our schools, there would never be a problem ever

If there’s one argument that really bugs me, it’s that one. “Our children aren’t allowed to read the Bible in school or pray! No wonder people who are not in the school come in and shoot them!”

Besides being absolutely wrong — you are allowed to pray in school and bring your Bible. You can even have Bible study groups after school and everything. What you can’t do is force everyone else to do it, too — this argument doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. What, if the kids had been forced to pray, then the gunman would have gone somewhere else? Should I point out the number of shootings that have taken place in churches?

Or maybe they are saying that God is so petty that he allows innocent children to be killed to make a point?

You want religion in schools, go to a private school. You want your country to support a religion? Maybe you should try one of those countries the Taliban runs.

by

Editorial cartoon of the day

(In case you don’t know, the only ones objecting to the treaty are the three countries above — and the NRA. Nice company, huh?)

by

Libertarians

You have to give libertarians credit for one thing: they are consistent.

Liberals want government involvement in economics (Health care! Welfare! Regulations!) but not in individual personal choices (Gay marriage! Legal abortion! No promotion of religion!).

Conservatives want government involvement in individual personal choices (Prohibit gay marriage! No abortion! Our religion in the laws!) but not in economics (No health care! No welfare! No regulations!).

And, of course, both are completely hypocritical even in that. Liberals want to regulate all sorts of personal choices (No smoking! No unhealthy foods! No assault rifles!) and conservatives want involvement in economics (Tax breaks for corporations! Subsidies to oil companies! Government vouchers to help private schools!).

Libertarians are consistent. No government!

There aren’t a lot of true libertarians, though. After all, libertarianism is practically anarchy. Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t really.

Take someone like Rand Paul, who says big government is bad, except when it is telling women that they can’t have abortions or gays they can’t get married — or when they give our tax money to corporations.

Not that you should ever believe anything this guy says, but especially pay no attention to him when he says he is a libertarian, because he isn’t.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Obamacare is not really socialism

With Obamacare, you are forced to buy insurance.

This was the plan supported by Republicans since Bob Dole was running for President. It’s the exact same plan Romney installed in Massachusetts that he bragged about until the GOP decided it was a bad idea. They originally thought it was a great idea, because it supported insurance companies and business. It promoted capitalism. It was the exact opposite of socialism, where the government provides the service.

Many of these same Republicans (well, at least the ones who have no morals about being completely inconsistent in their views) are now screaming against this terrible form of “socialism”.

Damn, I wish it was socialism. A “medicare for all” system would solve a ton of the problems Obamacare brings and allow us to better spread the costs over all Americans while at the same time getting rid of a middle-man (insurance companies) that provide no health care whatsoever. What a savings that would be.

But no. Obama caved in to the Republicans in order to get their vote and then didn’t get it anyway, which will be regarded as one of his administration’s biggest mistakes.

So go ahead and criticize Obamacare. (I certainly do; I wish it could be better.) But please — don’t look stupid by calling it “socialism”, OK?

(And now, a disclaimer: If you define socialism so broadly as to include any government regulation whatsoever, then Obamacare is socialism in the same way laws requiring you to get a license for your dog is socialism. But you and I both know that’s not what critics mean when they make that stupid argument.)