I find it really sad that on a topic of taxes alternatives on a conservative site, the word "FairTax" was never once mentioned in over three pages. There was one generic mention of a 'consumption tax'. The amount of nasal-gazing by conservatives on tax issues is shocking. We are playing on the same side as the democrats when we try to 'fix' the current system, which is a tax on income. Any tax based on income is stupid. There is no more 'fair' tax system than one that taxes consumption. The rich people will end up paying VASTLY more than poor people in taxes. No loopholes, no deductions, no tax shelters.

There is a lot of info out there on the FairTax, and I encourage everyone to look it up. Start on their official webpage, then branch out and read up on the debates over the system. It's an amazing, simple and fair solution.

That is also part of the reason conservative women get such comparatively harsh treatment in the media. Women play a strong second-fiddle to blacks in the whole historical guilt thing.

I dismissed specific opposition to Obama years ago. I knew white guilt would prevent most media from holding a black man accountable for anything he did in office. I've been talking up Democrat malfeasance the past 3 years. It's still fun to mock Obama from time to time, but I just want us to get back the legislature. I was really shocked he got a second term. I was sure people would secretly hold him accountable in the voting booth and then brag publicly "I am so upset that Obama lost! I voted for him..." I blame *that* fiasco on selfishness and LIV more than anything else. People voted for the guy they thought most likely to give them some cash from his 'stash', or they only get their news from comedy central.

This is awesome news IF the low-information voters decide their wallet is more important than the bucket of dreams the liberal's are selling.

Heck, I'll say it: just giving money is lazy. The example of a well is spot-on. These people are *already* working to make as much money as they can. Giving 'half' of it away means nothing if the other half is still some absurd amount of money (by my standard at least) and they don't sacrifice anything because of their 'generosity'. Of course this assumes a 6+ figure income.

But the flip side of that is whether those billions will matter to anyone else. Yes, of course. Some hungry people will be fed. Some homeless people clothed. But you know who else will benefit from those billions, and in my opinion to a much greater degree that the 'poor'? The lawyers. The 6-figure income executives. The accountants. The bureaucrats. And they will multiply like rabbits left together in close proximity, sucking up more and more of that money meant for the poor.

Know what might be better? Gates quitting his job and opening a series of homeless shelters and personally operating them. Adult education centers? Free family counselling? Lots of things can be done that are better than dumping cash into a sarlacc pit.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that if Beebe and LePage lose to their political opposite, we would see regional politics that were the opposite of the civil war era? I mean, the South was slave territory and this was supported by mostly Democrats, and the North was against slavery and most anti-slavery types were Republican. Right?

Guys, *WE* all know it's a comedy show, and that Stewart is a die-hard liberal. We know that he's only mad because a couple of the tools the liberal's use against Conservatives and Libertarians have been exposed, rendering them dangerous to use further.

The low information voters don't know any of that. They laugh because he said MOTHERF*^#@R!! a few times while flinging his arms around crazily, and then they use the hand that is permanently outstretched, palm up, ready for their government benefits, to vote for the liberals who give them stuff for 'free!'.

Stewart and his ilk feed these people laughs and liberal propaganda. They eat it up.

I've long believed that one of the most important things the GOP can do is to completely boycott the liberal media outlets. Obviously Fox is still okay, but don't limit yourself there. Go to the local papers, the regional TV shows, and niche magazines. The mainstream media *needs* to talk about politics, and they will have to go to these smaller distributors to get their stories.

This is good all the way around. The word will STILL get out about what the GOP politicians believe. The smaller, more fair media outlets will get first-hand knowledge and training on how to cover national stories. The people working at these smaller outfits will end up moving up to the larger ones, thanks to the screen-time  bylines, and national exposure, and hopefully take with them their fair-minded approach to Real Journalism.

I don't mean to suggest that marrying older means America is done for. Simply that our default position shouldn't be to give up on something just because it's "hard". Young or old, family is important. All that being said, it's easier to have a family the earlier you start.....

And of course the value of learning how to commit to something greater than yourself (your marriage/family) early certainly has myriad beneficial effects as you mature and settle into your life. It's the opposite of what many many many youngsters are doing today with their extended adolescences (rewarded and encouraged by democrats and their insistence that everyone needs a college degree to be worthy) self-indulgent lifestyles, and sexual promiscuity (also encouraged by democrats via their support of abortion and birth control).

Rachel, when I read your post, it distilled in my mind thusly: Family values, structure, and cohesion are waning. We should recognize this as a growing inevitable trend and seriously consider giving up on those previously mentioned things in favor of something different that so far is proving to be very problematic.

I know you didn't say that, but that's how I heard it. I say this as a middle-aged bachelor who still hopes to have children. See, the very things you correctly state as being important to young, newly-married couples in their quest toward the formation of a functional marriage are themselves a result of.... a solid, functional marriage! It's a cycle. This is critically important, and part of why so many of us oppose any watering-down of the institution of marriage. Our society is built on the foundation of Family. That is the bedrock of our nation (and many others). Socialist societies do not value family the way we do, and is why Democrats are so committed to their plan to destroy the family structure.

We can't give in. We must fight to maintain the sanctity of the family.

I'm way late to this party, and after reading all 7 pages, all I have to say is this:

If the 'religious', barefoot-and-pregnant, women-should-be-submissive, 'repressive' position is so bad, and the sexual-freedom, abortions-on-demand, gurrl-power position is so good... How did we get to where we, as a society are? How did American excel, grow, dominate, invent, discover, and achieve more than any other nation on earth with such a 'misogynist', 'ugly', 'unfair', and 'repressive' (male) population?

Even with all the mistakes we have made in our history (mistakes made possible to eventually fix thanks to the Constitution), mistakes entirely in line with our fallible nature, even still, we have risen head and shoulders above all other nations on Earth in the pursuit of liberty and quality of life.

How can the 'repressive' family structure supported by many Conservatives, the one that was the fertile ground for the kind of success America has experienced, be so bad?

Finally? As Dr Phil likes to say: This whole sexual-freedom thing: How's that workin out for you?

I'm with you Peter. I recently got into my own place and am now discovering the 'joy' of junk mail. It's minor I suppose, but the principle is the same. Who is it that is sending me this multi-page full color loose-leaf....magazine, for lack of a better word, full of "BUY THIS RIGHT NOW" advertisements two times a week? I don't want it, but I don't seem to have any recourse to stop it's regular arrival.

Let the taxpayers get what's coming to them. America voted in a marxist, it's time to let the chickens come home to roost. Maybe after a few years of less and less money they will finally get up off their lazy butt's and vote for the good guys.

Of course not, and I don't recall that anyone from the 'religious' side saying that the other side were a few cards short of a whole deck for their beliefs. If any of them did, they would be wrong. I don't have to like, say, an atheist position on SSM, but I should judge it on what I believe their position would mean in the real world. Religion's effect on the real world, for better or worse, has sustained our species for several thousand years. The Wang Chung theology ("Everybody have Fun Tonight") has, in just a handful of decades, brought us within sight of more death and misery than humanity has ever seen.

Trying to slow the arrival of that by looking to Heaven isn't a symptom of a loony; it's freaking PRAGMATISM! heh. Love Him or deny Him, He's done pretty well by us so far. A whole lot better than we do all on our own.

Comment about what? Sorry, but *my* ego isn't so large as to think I can manage the affairs of humanity better than the Divine. You should at least TRY to be less full of yourself.

*edit* Trying to be a little less snippy.

Your unwillingness to consider a religious-based view on life (a majority of humanity, btw) as a legitimate position speaks loudly of your own failings and small mindedness.

Ok, maybe I'm terribad at being less snippy...

THis is exactly why so many religious people have strong feelings about SSM. When humanity takes on the job of setting all the rules and refereeing the game, disaster ensues. When we look for guidance to the Divine, the game goes as smoothly as possible. I say 'as possible' because no matter what, human nature will not allow us to play nicely with one another. But at least with an authoritative Referee calling the shots, the damage we do to one another is minimized.

Great post. Hope it makes the front page, but.... well, we'll see. I'm sure that many religions have a prophecy of Armageddon  but I am fond of the one that puts persecution of Christians as the bellwether to the End Times. There are just too many shallow individuals out there who put their own personal pleasure and ease before the good of humanity. They hear about a God of ultimate judgement, and they start foaming at the mouth.

But then, Christians mostly look forward to the End, because that means Heaven shouldn't be much later. I guess the Marxists, SSM activists, and a great deal of the 'progressive' movement have their place in God's plan too. "Irony: It's what's for dinner." Or maybe "Irony: The other white meat!"