They are in favor of regulating private behavior, things that take place only in private and have no real effect on them or anyone else (try asking a Con how gay marriage will actually affect them and listen to them babble talking points but never give an answer). Yet, in situations that will, have, and do affect everyone (such as regulating bank behavior) they are instantly appalled.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me what real effect gay marriage will have on me. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I DON'T CARE if gay people marry. I don't have strong feelings for it or against it because I'm not gay. My feelings come into play because by telling them they can't marry you are telling them that 1) their relationship isn't a real one and 2) they are less than anyone else. By the way, on the opposite side I am perfectly fine with a church deciding it does not want to allow gay marriage in its facility or facilities just as they would be free to say they don't allow heterosexual marriage there either.

Now on the issues of the banks, we are still feeling the effects of the so called Financial Modernization Act of 1999 which did away with the restrictions on the integration of banks, brokerage, and insurance companies. It is apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that this act resulted in bad decisions that made some people a lot of money and almost caused a global depression.

In addition, the Conservatives on the Supreme Court are quite happy with the Citizens United case because it did away with the regulations and allowed the Super PACs who can now use their fortunes to buy elections. Again, a case where a lack of regulation has had an absolutely awful effect.

The real problem with the Republican mantra is that they cater, and prefer, the stupider voters. Voters who are less informed and more willing to be fed lies and  then gratefully accept them, never bothering to check facts. The same voters who are most affected by their policies, gladly accept the traumatic results, bend over yet again and say, "Thank you sir, may I have another".

UPDATE: After I finished this post I was jumping around Huffington Post and found this video mashup of Jamie Dimon, the head of JP Morgan who just got a $2 Billion (yes, that's billion with a B) hickey of a loss due to a risky trading strategy. JP Morgan is also facing a duo of shareholder lawsuits this morning. Anyway, here's the mashup of Lyin' Jamie Dimon decrying governmental regulation of his industry:

I watched Bill Maher the other night and,once again, Bill had one of the most offensive Republicans he could find on there, Grover Norquist. The only ones that are worse are Michelle Malkin (no, she's not hot she looks like a rabid fish) and Ann Coulter (who at least has hot hair).

Leaving aside the fact that Grover is at least partially to blame for the mess the USA is in, is incredibly pompous and could use a good bitch slapping, he mentioned Reagan so many times that I'm pretty sure that he not only has a man crush on a dead guy but may have blown him at some point.

Ronald Reagan was the first President I voted for, back before I realized that what you heard and read wasn't necessarily true and I took the time to really educate myself on issues. Plus, I saw him up close at rally in Houston along with Roy Rogers, a childhood icon.

Reagan did some good things but mostly he was a figurehead at a time when America needed a figurehead. Along with the slight amount of good he did he also did a lot of bad things including ignoring the AIDS issue until it was too late.

That's it. 

He wasn't a god, he wasn't the greatest President ever, and he didn't put this country on the right track.

And he was not what the present day Republicans say he was.

Reagan was in office for 8 years. During seven of those the tax rates were higher than the 35% they are today. In fact, in six of those years they were at 50% or more. EVERY year that he was in office the bottom rate was more than the current 10%. In 1983 the average income tax rate on a family of four was 11.06% whereas under Clinton it was 9.18%, and, wait for it, under Obama in 2010 it was 4.68%.

A few more interesting facts:

When Reagan implemented tax cuts in 1981, unemployment jumped to 10.8%. http://reagan.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003988

A year later tax hikes were implemented in an attempt to get the deficit under control. Reagan raised taxes ten more times but was never able to catch up with the deficit he created by increasing spending and the tax cuts. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/asked-about-the-economy-mccain-cites-reagans-example/

The federal debt during the Reagan administration increased to just under $3 trillion.

The story that Republicans are spreading about economic growth "exploding" after the 1981 tax cuts? A lie. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/sep/05/john-loughlin/loughlin-says-reagans-1981-tax-cuts-led-exponentia/

Reagan signed a bill giving amnesty to about 3 million illegal immigrants, rather than building electrified fences as many Republicans now advocate.

That whole Taliban and Osama Bin Laden thing? A result of Reagan's support of the anti-Soviet Islamist mujahdin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan has been directly linked to the rise of Osama Bin Laden. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history-pr.cfm  and http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html .

So, after all, Reagan was just a President who did some good and some bad (he also vetoed an anti-apartheid bill). He was not all that and a bag of chips.

By the way, notice that I gave you sources for most of my statements. Sources that can be checked and, if you do so, those sources have sources that can be checked as well. See how it works?

As I read the various news sources, websites, and blogs across the "interwebs" I see a lot of the paid Repug trolls spewing the same nonsense but any time you ask them for he source, they don't post in that thread any more. 

Ignorance is going to kill our country, as is the spreading of dishonesty. Most of us Americans are too stupid to look up a fact, instead being more than willing to partake of the pre-chewed pablum that FAUX News spits out before promptly citing it to someone else to support the ignorant ass Republican plan.

FAUX News is not a source, is not reliable, and is not fair an balanced. Neither are the Republicans who spread this crap.

For God's sake, think for yourself.

I don't give a damn if you are conservative, just please have a real reason for it and be able to engage in a discourse without resorting to bullshit.

And someone please slap the shit out of Grover Norquist.

I avoided doing this for as long as possible since a Palin was obviously going to end up getting this award at some point but I really thought it would be Sarah first.

Instead, Bristol Palin gets the claim the title this week. 

"There but for the grace of God…" and all that aside, the Palins aren't the best family to be speaking at all about raising chilluns. Sarah's "abstinence only" approach to sex education was at least partially to blame for a tennage unwed mom (although apparently wine coolers had something to do with it as well).

This week, after President Obama's historic pronouncement regarding his views on gay marriage Bristol Palin stopped shoving McDonald's burgers into her mouth long enough to decry his values.

The New York Post, through the FAUX News…, I'm sorry I mean FOX News website I looked at stated that Bristol Palin was "horrified that President Barack Obama based his decision to support same-sex marriage in part on getting to know some of his daughters' friends who have gay parents". (Note about souce: I was going to give the link to the little dumpling's purported blog but my computer kept erasing the link, I can only assume out of protest at supporting her even that much).

The Ass of the Week then went on to say "We know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home". 

Pot meet kettle.

Perhaps the useless Ms. Palin would like to address if it is so important and key to a child's well being, why she isn't married? In addition, perhaps she or some other FAUX News watcher could point to real studies that show it is detrimental to a child to grow up with gay parents?

I thought not.

Unfortunately, too many ignorant ass, right wing ignoramuses will applaud Ms. Palin never thinking about the hypocrisy they are embracing.

But then again, those idiots liked Bush, supported her mom, and are about to vote for Romney.

By the way, the other big contender for Ass of the Week were the Christians who want to cite sections of the Bible and ignore others. Either the things in the Bible evolve over time or they do not. You can't pick and choose which sections you think apply and which ones you don't unless you agree with the principle that the Bible set forth rules that have changed with society.

Jesus didn't address homosexuality in the New Testament and he could have if he had wanted to. Instead,  to get to a condemnation of gays you have to twist words and read between the lines.

If you want to believe that then you have to stop eating crops grown from the crop rotation principle, wearing clothes made of more than one material, and other ideas that no longer apply.

With that I'll leave you with this scene from The West Wing:

http://youtu.be/S1-ip47WYWc

After this happened again I got off of the couch and wandered to the window, just as they gathered again. The cause for the frenzied runs was quickly made obvious as I saw one of the kids point a bow into the air and loose an arrow straight up (this was well before the movie Grown Ups made light of this adventure).

I threw the door open as soon as I saw the arrow hit the ground but all I could think to say was "Are you stupid?"

I was reminded of that scene this week when I heard that former rocker, now loudmothed ass, Ted Nugent make his remarks about Obama. Nugent isn't known for being that bright anyway but once again the lack of intelligence seems directly proportional with the strength of someone's beliefs.

To me, whether Nugent is a hunter, wants to have guns, or is a staunch conservative isn't a big deal. I was a hunter, like guns, and until I got educated and studied politics I was actually pretty conservative. What is astounding is that the "Motor City Madman", like so many others, obviously don't look at the President with anything that resembles sanity. President Obama has not made any attempts to curb gun ownership. I would be willing to bet that if you examine the records long enough that the President is actually friendlier to gun owners that Mittens Robo-money.

In addition, to someone who prides himself on being from Detroit I would think that Mittens' willingness to let GMC go belly up and destroy what little was left of Detroit and Michigan's economy should stick in Nugent's craw at least a little but.

Nah. Obama is black and a Democrat. That's all that matters.

I won't be burning any of Nugent's records, mainly because he isn't worth that much effort on my part, but I am certainly disappointed in the man and I thought I had reached the point that I couldn't think any worse of him.

The Repugs are just idiots.

A long, long time ago on a blog far far away I opined that the coming problems weren't race wars, they were going to be class wars.

And nobody reacted other than to say I didn't understand the problem.

But I did and do, and I want to narrow it down further.

The left saw tremendous gains in power last year when they were able to bring the right leaning, Susan G. Komen Foundation to heel in a matter of days and then again when they were able to cost the right's Supreme Blowhard, Rush Limbaugh, a few sponsor dollars.

But what else have we done?

We bitch, gripe, and moan, we post comments on blogs but we don't do much else.

Studies have shown that the more educated you are then the more likely you are to vote Democrat.  Likewise, this week a study showed that people who tend to put little effort into thinking gravitate toward conservative thinking. Hell, I could have told you that just by listening to what they are saying.

But so what?

So perhaps that's why the Repugs favor ignorance and religion over education and science.

But, taking from a modern phenomenon, let's look at the 99% vs. the 1%.

Within that 99%, and probably on the lower end of the spectrum, are a very, very large number of people on the lower socio-economic ladder who vote Republican.

Why?

Because it's easier. The "liberal media" tends to present opposing viewpoints and, often, the commentators can't even agree on the issues and have a discourse back and forth, yet when you look at conservative news sources they are usually marching in lock step (I started to say goose stepping). No need to think, as Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners, he'll tell them what they need to believe.

However, going pack to part 1 of my rant, there seems to be a tendency toward that way of thinking that is beginning to manifest among purported liberals as well. Many of them are all too willing to be offended at a word, comment, or thought.

It is the discourse on opposing views which allow us to grow more intelligent, develop real opinions, and broaden our horizons.

Back in the olden days of being a lawyer we used to get together and I'd ask the other guys to tear my case apart, point out problems, and argue with me about issues. That way, when I got to trial I had heard all of the best arguments and were prepared for them.

It's the same way in the political discourse now but with the highest stakes possible, the future of our country and, in some respects, the future of our world.

No, you idiot. Dinosaur bones were not placed in the fossil record by God to test our faith (and where does the Bible say that anyway?), climate change is not only real but 1) it is influenced by man and 2) it is not unsettled. Evolution is real too, by the way. I don't care if you don't believe it, but when you argue about it have some kind of evidence that's real and not just BS.