100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican


Addicting Info does it again. Last time they came up with If you hate taxes, here are 102 things NOT to do. Even though they graciously gave us permission to cross-post, I'd rather tease you and then send you to their place to give them some well-deserved traffic.

This time around, they came up with 100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican. Here are a few, but click on the link for all 100:

If you want to enrage a conservative, I suggest saying the following:

1. A Socialist wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Jesus healed the sick and helped the poor, for free. [...]
6. The Founding Fathers were liberals.
7. Fascism is a right-wing trait. [...]
10. Reagan raised taxes eleven times as President.
11. Reagan legalized abortion as Governor of California.
12. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.
13. Ronald Reagan supported gun control. [...]
24. Hate is not a Christian virtue. [...]
26. Republicans spend MORE money than Democrats. [...]
29. The Constitution is the law, NOT the Bible.
30. Sharia law doesn’t exist in America.
31. The President is NOT a Muslim.
32. Corporations are NOT people. People are people.
33. Fox News isn’t real news, it’s just a racist, sexist, hateful, right-wing propaganda machine.
34. The Federal Reserve was a Republican idea.
35. Women are equal citizens who deserve equal rights. [...]
37. Abortion is a relevant medical procedure, just ask Rick Santorum.
38. Please use spell check.
39. It’s “pundit”, not “pundint”.
40. Social Security is solvent through 2038. [...]
42. Roe v. Wade was a bipartisan ruling made by a conservative leaning Supreme Court. [...]
45. Barack Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden. It took him two and half years to do what Bush couldn’t do in eight. [...]
47. 9/11 happened on George W. Bush’s watch, therefore he did NOT keep America safe. [...]
49. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution, it’s called the First Amendment.
50. Muslims are protected by the Constitution, just as much as Christians. [...]
53. America is a nation of immigrants, therefore we are all anchor babies.
54. The white race isn’t disappearing, it’s evolving. [...]
56. Evolution is real.
57. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, not 6,000.
58. The Founding Fathers did not free the slaves.
59. The Revolution was NOT fought over slavery.
60. Paul Revere warned the Americans, NOT the British.
61. Federal law trumps state law.
62. The Civil War was about slavery, NOT state’s rights.
63. Corporations care more about profits than they do about people.
64. Getting out of a recession requires government spending.
65. Glenn Beck is a nut-job. [...]
67. Republicans don’t want to pay for your birth control, but they want you to pay for their Viagra.
68. Republicans actually NEED Viagra.
69. Fox News is owned by an Australian and has a Saudi prince as an investor.
70. Republicans complain about immigrants taking American jobs, then freely give American jobs to foreigners overseas. [...]
72. Labor unions built this country. [...]
77. Republicans only care about children BEFORE they are born. [...]
82. Churches should stay out of politics, or be taxed. [...]
88. The current corporate tax rate is the lowest in 60 years, so stop whining about it being too high. [...]
98. Republicans say teachers are union thugs, then proceed to rape and mug the entire middle class on behalf of corporations.
99. Republicans think rape isn’t a crime, but miscarriages are.

Bottom line? If you want to anger a conservative, tell them the truth.

  • as i understand my history prof.  the civil war WAS fought over states rights >>>>

  • as i understand history   the civil war WAS fought over states rights >>>>

  • I just want to let people know I am liberal but also a Republican.  Am I the only person who gives a damn about the fact that being a Republican or Democrat does not mean you a liberal or conservative? I am pro choice, pro gun control, and like universal healthcare. I think the federal government should let the American people have their choice on the matters, this makes me a Republican.

  • anonon420

    maybe you should learn the true definition of liberal. (in the european since). moron.

  • Exegetor

    Yeah, I have some of the same concerns.  [full disclosure: I am conservative]
    I'm not sure what this list is really trying to do...bait Republicans or amuse liberals.   What is really accomplishes (as opposed to its intent) is similarly murky.  Does its half-witted vitriol play into conservatives' notions of liberals as unthinking children?

    I say this not as a political opponent, but as a man weary of politics-by-mud-throwing.  My worst fear is that anyone (left OR right) might take this slander seriously.

  • Exegetor

     Ummm...don't hold your breath for that.  This stuff if mostly (not all) the unthinking rage of a liberal.  Little of it could weather the storm of critical thinking or informed debate.  It's so off-the-rails that it should embarrass an educated liberal as much as it amuses an educated Republican.

  • Exegetor

     You just all credibility, lady.   Deleted or Banned?  What the hell for?  Good grief where do you liberals get such thin skin?

    Oh never mind...I forgot how quickly you guys try to forcibly silence people who express non-conforming opinions.

  • Pcdp

    i dont like democrats

  • Pcdp

    i dont like democrats

  • myron2012

    Outstanding list. Hard to pick a favorite. Must send to my right-wing brother-in-law

  •  Why do you insult someone's intelligence by claiming they hold a certain political philosophy? Don't you find this childish, arrogant, and counter-productive? I'm tired of this red v. blue crap. Let's move on and talk about the monetary system, our fucked foreign policy, whether we should ration health care based on the market or government mandates, should we spend more money on space exploration. You waste everyone's time and help distract from the real issues that effect us. Stop it. I'm serious, because the times are serious. We need to debate based upon ideals and action, not what color you vote for. We're adults, aren't we?

  •  I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Congress is bipartisan across geographic lines? I live in Alabama and I think slavery is abhorrent, abortion should be legal, weed should be legal, however I don't really fit with either party. I believe in social and economic freedom. You should have a right to your life and the money you earned. I don't think someone else should be forced to pay for my medical bills. Now, if someone wants to offer charity, that's cool. They did it of their own free will. But I don't agree with taxing someone else to pay for something I need. I have wasted a lot of time and money on having fun throughout life. All that money could have been saved or invested in better insurance. If that's what I want out of life, medical security, then I should have to work for it simply because I'm the one receiving the benefit. I think it would be similar to slavery to demand that someone work for something that I then take from them. That's why I don't understand why people think that just because you're fiscally conservative, or believe that we shouldn't take things from others even in the name of 'the people', you are labeled heartless. I still think private charity should exist, but I'm not gonna force someone to do something just because I feel like it needs to be done. That's what you're doing when you elect someone that is going to raise taxes to fix any problem. I feel like we shouldn't trust politicians to fix things, because they suck at it usually, they steal money or waste it, and then the power could change hands to someone that will destroy everything that was built up because they are on the 'other team.' Instead we should try to solve problems on a community level as private citizens and tell the government to get the fudge out of the way.

  • I would, but it's been so hard finding an intelligent and learned conservative!!!

  • just asking

    do you know whats really sad?.....this list is 100% correct ,,,and yet we still have people out there willing to stand behind the GOP, even though they are not rich and have nothing to gain from it.....why?...could somebody tell me that?...

  • Doctor

    Gee, I'm a Republican and a pretty nice guy.  Why would you want to irritate me.  I thought Liberals wanted peace and were supposed to be tolerant of diverse ideas?

  •  LOL, and yet you read us. Thank you for your patronage.

  • Lydia777


  • Go

    just one slight mistake, 
    Paul Revere didn't warn anybody, the story appeared later. He was actually tried for cowardice but acquitted 

  • Truth

    applies*. And you must be a conservative, because most of that list is perfectly true. 

  • Den Hickey

     Hmmm, perhaps being intelligent enough to skip two grades, enter an all-black college, and then get into two religious schools.  King was exceptional in the extreme.

  • cosmicowgirl

    then how did MLK get his education?

  • crap list

    half of this list is ignorant bullshit that either applys to both sides, a complete lie, or applys to neither.

  •  Great idea for a post.

  •  Great Article. Thank you.

  • Fyrehed

    Just wondering... but how could a statement that started with "just pulling a number out of my butt" be 'wrong'? Were you there when he pulled said number out of said crack?
    But seriously, when looking over the historical evidence, he's correct: the debate was overwhelmingly about slavery.

  • Ward Cleaver

    You forgot another one that they hate to hear.  

    101. Environmentalists Saved The Bald Eagle.

  • Hey "Me", your word "everyone" includes, well, everyone, including you. You inadvertently called yourself ignorant. Just an observation.

  • Me

    Yes, these are true but some of these are filled with misinformed bias as well, remove the pretense that you see all the time form all of this political crap and it should be more enlightening. Be able to recognize that the person who wrote and shared this, although i don't know them personally is good at making lists, they have little more intellect than you. Everyone is ignorant.

  • http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/01/31/video-marco-rubio-is-wrong-things-are-not-getting-worse-the-bikini-graph-economic-growth-chart-prove-it/
    Are you hiring? Are you saying that out of work Americans enjoy their predicament?

    Bush created this mess. As you can see from the facts via that link, Obama's getting us out of Bush's failed economy.

    Now if you try baiting here again, you'll be deleted or banned. Read our guidelines.

  • Obama

    My favorite thing to say to piss off a Democrat: "Get a job"

  • FYI  #39 correction:  "It’s “pundit”, not “pundint”"  ... should read: "It's "pundit," not "pundint." (note comma and period inside quotation marks...better yet, drop the comma

  • Leroy Kelberlau

    @Mathias I understand what you're saying, but the main reason for the Civil War was to preserve the Union!!

  • Broken link is broken.

  • Thordee

    Also marrying your cousin.

  • Wwthig

    The truth about the Civil :  The Yankees said to free them Slaves, The Rebs said OK give me back the money I paid for them! The Yankees said NO!  The Rebs said Lets FIGHT!!!!! I can't believe this is an argument!! We have all the information on line.Besides I have a digital Copy of " Gone With The Wend "    where the real truth lies "Frankly My Dear I don't Give A Dam"!!!

  • Anonymous

    Nevertheless, we have 200+ years of courts interpreting the Constitution to include separation of church and state -- and our whole system of government is based on precedent and the interpretation of law.

  • Anonymous

    Hardly the only interpretation.  Given that by the end of the Civil War 10% of Northern Troops were African American (although they only represented 1% of the North's population!) at a time when desertions were running high on *both* sides, one can certainly make the argument that black participation was a major factor in Northern victory.

  • Anonymous

    Well, given that slavery is -- among other things -- an economic institution, you're partly right.  However, if you look at the South's own explanations for secession, slavery tops the list.

  • Anonymous

    Also from Wikipedia:  "
    Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wingideology,[16][17] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. "

    So where exactly is your information coming from, or are you just pulling it out of a certain orifice?

  • Anonymous

    From Wikipedia:  "
    Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: 'We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right," a fascist century.'"  Given that the term originated with the Italians, you'd think they'd have the last word on it.

  • Good lord, how many times do I have to say this? Read the intro. I specifically point out that I only posted some of them. "Here are a few, but click on the link for all 100:"

    Then I used these: [...]



    Do you not know what those are? Those "indicate an intentional omission of a word, sentence or whole section from the original text being quoted."

  • Guest

    Did anyone realize that the list skips from 88 to 98?

  • Josh

    This would actually be cool if there were links to support each claim.

  • Opethianknight

    Fascism is a NOT right-wing trait. Fascism and socialism are on the same side of the spectrum. Anarchism is right-wing.

    Just sayin...

  • Guest

    All of these fact check comments are hillarious. Did we all forget that the list is simply "Things you CAN say to IRRITATE a Republican"? No where does it state that they are "truths" just merely things that will enrage or irritate...obviously they did the trick 

  • Pauline_saud


  • Pauline_saud


  • Coryan

    Wow, seems like this list has liberals fighting about the civil war!  I love liberals...they are so entertaining.

  • Braydon

    Ignore everyone else, the Civil War was %100 about slavery hidden under the cloack of "states rights" the southern states only left to protect slavery since President-Elect Lincoln was a none slavery opponent.

  • K Mccoy

    I think the optional stuff cut the list down drastically...

  • Anonymous

    In the Palin/Perry dictionary it's "pundant".  You know, along with "nucular".

  • Paul Culkin

    I would replace "Conservative" with "Ruthless Capitalist", people can be conservative and still have a heart. Or whatever 

  • Jerry McHugh

    Spot on! My observation has always been that the freed slave was little better off in the 100 years following the Civil War than when he was as a slave. Further, few in the rank and file enlisted to preserve slavery as less than 1 in 5 families owned slaves and few would move to protect the landed gentry that most hated.

  • Hfcbook

    The Civil War was about slavery, NOT state’s rights. I would quibble with this. as I understand it , it more moe about economics

  • My one observation--though the author points out the separation of Church and State, he seems to equate Conservatives with Christians. 

  • Maria

    As a fellow liberal, I'm not sure I appreciate the rampant use of logical fallacies in every single point.  Are we attacking actual conservative doctrine or a mere caricature?

  • Christopher Turner

    You need to think about the past that leads up to the civil war. Some of the things I think about is the way in witch the South was first settled by people with Corporate Commission from the Crown, or the royal courts of England. ie; Virginia. With this being said and also thinking about the fact that Hundreds of thousands of immigrants were flooding the North from Europe so much in fact that many were not allowed to enter the united states If they would have just gone to the South they more likely would have been granted entrance into the country due to the fact that they were in great need of labor this being the reason why the Southern Land Barons of the early south were introduced slavery as an economic possession by companies like the East India company and many others. Europe made bank off this deal, witch ultimately put America on the path to  what we know as the Civil war. The war was over property rights and currency. In the South slaves were money just like gold or silver. In the North this was seen to most as immoral to groups like the "Quaker's". As the Civil War went on and the North needed more soldiers as well as a moral boost the great Leader he was President Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation speech as a way to, draft or recruit African American soldiers  into the union army as well as giving them a religious and moral high ground.   But let it be known that neither the African American troops or the forcing of the Hand of the people trying to stay out of the War and any one having a hard time choosing what side of the fence they were on. The one thing that truly won the Civil War for the North was there "Scorched Earth policy" thought up by General Sherman. Not until the Union began to burn the South to the ground did the tide of the War begin to turn for the North as they tore through the South Utterly destroying the already fragile economic structure that was the slave based economy of the South. In my opinion the True freedom of the African American was in the  1950's and1960's. Finally, I would like to end with , "Free at last Free at last!"

  • MrBrightside94

    A couple historical things I'd like to correct, but all-and-all great list. First, is that Paul Revere was actually warning the British, because America and Americans didn't exist yet. He was warning the colonial British that the British army was coming. That also means that the old line, "The British are coming! The British are coming!" was never actually said by Revere, because it wouldn't have made sense.
    Second is the Civil War thing that everyone else has commented on. I'll just say that initially Lincoln started the war over state rights, wanting to stay away from the topic over "slavery", because he and the war would have lost a lot of support, especially from the border states. In one of his famous speech (I can't remember which one) he said that he'll preserve the Union either with slavery or without it. As the war went on it did become more and more about slavery, though.

    Any idea on how to make Republicans believe the truth?

  • Anonymous

    Good point.

  • guest01

    The confederate flag IS a symbol of racism, it WAS a symbol of the Confederate.

  • Maschwar77

    For the most part, spot on!  I do beg to differ on the point you make about Federal law trumping state law.  The constitution basically states that the Federal Government establishes the minimum amount of freedoms.  States must provide this minimum but may elect to offer more.  A good example of this is that some states do not use a grand jury system for handing down indictments.  Grand juries (generally) do not allow the defendant to be present.  Technically, California is in the right with the Medical Marijuana laws.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  

  • What is it that you don't understand about the opening in this post? READ... oh wait...Look who I'm talking to here. Wow.

  • H14779

    just wondered who was counting 1,2,6,7,10.... must have be an Oboma supporter. cause they cut the funding to schools and call it good for the country.

  • If you're talking to me, see my previous comments and the intro to the post. Good lord, how many times must I explain the obvious?

    If you're not talking to me, disregard this comment. : )

  • magnetman

    You missed 89-97.

  • Anonymous

    I agree. In the overall scheme of our country's history, it's important to consider the implications and consequences of the act of seceding (especially now, when states' rights have been crippled in some cases). But those who instigated that conflict were far more focused on protecting slavery than they were on anything else, and seceding was just a tool to try to maintain the system. I was mostly trying to emphasize that: too many people brush it aside and focus on the states' rights (which is an issue that needs to be taken more seriously overall in contemporary politics). It seems far more fair to say that the civil war was about slavery than to say it was just about federal government oppressing rich white farmers. Personally, I would've wanted them to secede and I think that might've been better for everyone but they were all so worried such a young country already splitting itself up would eventually devolve into city-states, which, depending on the systems connecting them, might not have been all that bad. Overall, I don't think nations are very healthy for us humans, so I'm fairly neutral about how it all turned out, but I think it's a bit lazy and untruthful for people to claim it was entirely about states' rights. It was a war waged  by the upper classes, and both sides were wrong (the south for slavery, the north for the draft and forced compliance with federal mandate) and I just don't want people to defend it because they're embarrassed by the actions of their ancestors and they don't want to admit they happened. They happened. Slavery is still happening. And it's never going to get better if we gloss over our history with the white out of noble ideals and best intentions.

  • Guest

    Honestly I wrote that and forgot where I was going with it.

    Stay off drugs, kids.

  • Guest

    While I agree, one could argue that the right of a state to secede was imagined to protect the state from a federal government who doesn't have the state's best interest in mind. While the central issue was slavery, it could have easily been something else completely.

    A state should be able to secede in the event of a tyrannical federal government. The opinion of which side was tyrannical is not my place. It's all about which side you're looking from.

    I do agree that the southern states were violating human rights, and as such should have been punished. However, forcing them to remain part of the United States by force doesn't seem fair either. You have to remember the reason the North went to war with the South wasn't over slavery. They went to war over the fact that they seceded, using slavery as a justification.

    Just a note, I was not raised as a south, nor am I encouraging or legitimizing slavery.

  • Thanks Gloria. I've mentioned that in Comments AND in the post itself.

  • Gloria

    Uh, it clearly states that those are only a few.  Click on the link for all 100.  

  • Rgnjhnsn

    This is actually the most unintelligent thing I've ever read..and I'm not a republican. 

  • Cblvvas

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”that is the first amendment and it no where says anything about seperation of church and state all it says is the government can not create it's own religion and can not prevent me from exercising mine just like it does not give people the right to camp out on someone elses property or to throw urine, feces and blood at those that disagree

  • Rombauer

    YouSir,have evidently read several books!

    And to paraphrase Carl in Sling Blade "You musta understood a good bit of it"

  • Anonymous

    Love this.  Cheers.

  • The real reason slavery ended... they realized you don't have to own the man as long as you own the things he needs to live.

  • Shane Green

    This is great, and true! Props!

  • Oh dear, Michelle, know your Constitution. Freedom of speech is about government restrictions, not blog guidelines. Just as stores have rules, theaters have rules, so do online sites have rules. The govt has nothing to do with TPC rules, nor is the govt telling you that you can't speak out. WE are telling you to be polite.

    No commenter to commenter name calling, not baiting, no trolls. Read our rules. You don't like them, go elsewhere. We liberals are big on mutual respect. If you refuse, then you are not welcome and we have every right to delete or ban.

    We allow criticism of content of blog posts (hence, you can call Dems or GOP what you want as it relates to the content of the post), opinions that differ from ours, but not disrespect to fellow commenters. READ the GUIDELINES.

    And it's spelled "inherently".

  • michelle

    im a democrat and belief the civil war was primarily about states rights...never assume, it makes an ass of you and me.  

  • michelle

    arent liberals supposed to be for freedom of speech?  ya know, the first amendment and all that jazz?  especially when this list is inharently offensive and name calling towards republicans?

  • michelle

    they were classical liberals, which are different from modern day liberals.  classical liberals now would be considered libertarians; they support a laissez-faire economy with little to no government regulation in the economy or peoples personal lives so long as it did not harm another human being.

  • 2 things to prove YOU are not paying attention and will be edited:

    1. Read our guidelines. No name calling, baiting in Comments.
    2. In intro paragraph at the top of this post: " Even though they graciously gave us permission to cross-post,*I'D RATHER TEASE YOU and then send you to their place to give them some well-deserved traffic.*

    ... Here are a few, but click on the link for all 100.*

    And you call US idiots?

  • Johnbonmon1234

    1 thing to prove liberals are idiots..... There are at least 10 numbers missing on this list

  • FWRedBear

    Aren't you all missing the point of the list?  The list is, by title: "
    100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican"  The title of the list does not imply accuracy, even if the list item tries to.  It is very interesting and amusing (as in diverting) to me to read all of the responses as there are some very thoughtful ones.  Others seem to be just reacting as if they were the theoretical Republicans that the list is apparently designed to irritate.

    It is partisan, not necessarily fair (or balanced ), but it is amusing to me.

  • Den Hickey

    And yet.. you don't name a single one.  Also, nothing I have said has been racist.

    I am saying Condi was allowed into educational institutions she would have otherwise been excluded from because of the civil rights movement.  She may have been qualified, but before the civil rights movement that didn't matter at all.  I'm not saying any decisions were made based on her race, but that her race did not hold her back in the same way it would have before the civil rights movement.  You can talk till you are blue in the face about quotas and people being given opportunities because of their race... but you will be the only one of us doing so.

    Calling him a tool isn't racist.  It isn't a code word.. and if you think it is, then please oh please do explain how and use examples.  Also... straw man arguments about what I would supposedly do are irrelevant.  It wouldn't be racist... but it would be stupid.  Powell actually worked for Bush... and actually lied for Bush.  See, I have read a little history about Colin Powell.  In addition to his lies for Bush he was also a bit player in the My Lai massacre coverup during Vietnam.

  • Anonymous

    You are the one who needs the education concerning black elected officials.  I suggest that you fire up the google and learn a little something today rather than stand on your racist soapbox and lecture someone you do not know from Adam about civil rights. 

    So you are saying Condi Rice would be a maid in Birmingham if it hadn't been for quotas?  That is a  racist joke.  She was not only Secretary of State she also was Provost of a major university.  And you think that she got only those important positions because of civil rights and quotas?  Sure, every black person owes a debt of gratitude for the bravery of those who fought the racism of the past.   However to say that they would not have success unless someone made hiring decisions or admission decisions based on their race and not their character and record of accomplishment is racism.  The President was also successful in his rise to the presidency not because of the color of his skin but because of his abilities.  You would never say something like about someone who is a Democrat.  Black Republicans and Black Democrats are both black whether you like it or not.

    You should read a little history about Colin Powell before you make a racist remark like calling him a 'tool', which is a code word isn't it?  If I called the President a tool of , say,  Bill Ayers you would be burning up your keyboard calling me a racist. 

  • Den Hickey

    Cain tries his best to not seem to take offense at episodes of racism, such as Perry's hunting camp and reassures the base at every opportunity that he doesn't conform to racial stereotypes.

    As for Condi... no, dear... she was able to get a good education and had those opportunities in large part because of the civil rights movement.  If you really think that worked for blacks pre-civil rights era you need to study history a bit more.

    Powell was Bush's tool.  That is in no way racist.  Thats just fact.  He went before the UN and lied for Bush to get his war with Iraq started.

    I can't think of any more?  Why don't YOU name a few more for me... without looking them up on the internet.  And failure to know about candidates at the state level (where they would pretty well have to be given the current makeup of the federal level)  in states other than my own isn't racist.  I know you like to use the meme that "liberals are the real racists!", but your proof is pretty thin on the ground here.

  • Anonymous

    How does Cain down play his race?  Have you ever seen a picture of Herman Cain?  What does he do, paint his face white?  

    Condi, by being Secretary of State, has done more for her race than someone carrying a sign at one of Jesse Jackson's or Al Sharpton 'civil rights' protests.  She was successful because she worked hard, got a good education, and took advantage of opportunities presented to her.  That is the formula for success for every person no matter what their race.  

    Powell was no one's tool.  That is a racist remark.  

    Since you can't think of any other elected Republicans who happen to be black shows how racist you are.   Black Republicans are elected to office because of their qualifications and not the color of their skin.  That is how it should be for all elected officials.

  • Den Hickey

     To name a few?  You mean to name all of the major ones.  And lets not forget... Cain actively downplays his race to placate the GOP base, Condi was never elected to anything and has downplayed the civil rights movement and its importance to her success... even while she actually knew the little girls killed in the famous church bombing, Powell was used as a tool because he was known after the My Lai coverup to be a "good soldier".. one who would say and do whatever you told him to even if it was wrong.  You can name four.  A few tokens doesn't prove much of anything... and since my point was about Republican voters, you have the problem still that not a single one of them has ever been elected to anything.  All except Cain were appointed and Cain, while he often polls well has yet to see any actual voting.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with you that it is okay, even desirable for people who comes from other countries, keep their heritage.  It is what makes them what they are.  We all can respect that.  What we can't respect and even tolerate is that one group or another demands that their culture be given a status, rights and privileges by the government that exceed those of other citizens.   We are all equal.  Our cultures are all equal.  We all deserve respect.  But we do not deserve places ahead of others in any line just because we belong to one group or another. 

    There are certain institutions and shared beliefs that exist in our society that new members have to respect and become part of while not losing their own cultural identity.  If we cannot ask new members to do this then we, as a society, will eventually disintegrate into competing subgroups whose values and customs are more important than the overall group's.  Eventually the subgroups will seek to politically dominate or limit the other subgroups and chaos will result.  In Congress our representatives not only represent their districts or states they are supposed to represent all American Citizens.  But now we have different caucuses whose subgroup's goals override those only not only their district's but the country's.  This is not good.  It is extremely polarizing.

  • Anonymous

    Actually deficits do not matter IF their size is small relative to the size of the GDP as it was during the Bush years.  It is when deficits soar to a point where they are a significant portion of the GDP they become a problem. 

    Look at it this way if you make $100,000 a year and spend 200 more than you make that year it is not a problem because you can take a little out of savings or easily borrow the $200.  If you spend $2o,ooo more a year then that deficit, made up for by borrowing or eating into capital, could be a problem.  By our country having huge unsustainable deficits and irresponsibly not cutting back on spending and reforming our tax code to get those deficits we have a problem that can't be solved by snide remarks like pointing out that Bush said that deficits don't matter or, as our president likes to do, blaming Bush or one party in congress. 

  • Anonymous

    Democrats WANT the Civil War to be only about slavery.  It closely ties in their worldview that makes them see everything in a racial context. 

    I personally think, although I am not an expert on the Civil War, that the causes of the war were a combination of many factors, some which were due to the existence of slavery in the south.  Would there have been succession if there hadn't been slavery?  Probably not.  Would there have been a war if there hadn't been succession?  No.  The south and the north were politically, philosophically, and economically far part on a whole range of issues and conflict at some point was inevitable in my opinion.  Armed and political conflict between the north and south began long before the Civil War began.

  • Anonymous

    Republicans now weren't the same as Republicans then and Democrats now aren't the same as Democrats then.  Isn't that called 'having it both ways'?  Or is it 'having it my way'?

    What part of 'crats' isn't registering?  They weren't Dixiepublicans.  The Civil Rights bill of 1964 wasn't passed because Democrats supported it.   They, in fact, as a party vigorously opposed it.  Most of the leading Democrats in the congress at that time were out-and-out white sheet wearing racists and proud of it.  Political expediency caused them to change.

    The problem Democrats have with the Republican view of equality is that Republicans believe that there should be equal opportunities for everyone while the Democrats believe that there should be equal outcomes imposed by the government.  Now if you were a self-interested minority which party would you tend to favor?  Me too.

  • Anonymous

    The MJ article was not about the crime of rape at all.   You must not have read it.  It was about whether taxpayers should pay for abortions, that included those, in this case, for victims of rape.  The issue was what constitutes a rape and whether abortions for women who were raped should be paid for with our tax money and not whether rape, as commonly thought of, is a crime.  Rape, as commonly thought of, is a crime.

    Democrats, from the article, obviously want the word 'rape' to mean whatever they say it is in order to expand the number of people eligible to have taxpayers pay for their abortions.  Forcible, statutory, incest, date-rape, sex with the mentally impaired, sex with those impaired by alcohol or drugs,  etc.    By expanding definition of rape to include everything or anything tax payers could essentially end up paying for any abortion when the woman simply says "I was raped.'  whether she was or not.   It is my opinion that tax payers should not pay for any abortions.   Arrangements for payments for abortions should be between a woman, the child's father, and the abortionist.

    And, of course, rape, as usually thought of and as all Republicans would definitely agree, is a crime that should have onerous penalties attached to it.  To suggest otherwise is flat-out lying.  

  • Anonymous

    Like Herman Cain, Condi Rice, General Powell, or Clarence Thomas to name a few.   Race card alert.

  • Anonymous

    A new term for you:  approved plagiarism.   Too bad the Vice President hadn't thought of that long ago when he was borrowing other people's words.

    The big question is: why would some sick individual be so proud of a totally uncivil, childish, and stereotypical list that is full of errors and indefensible  misrepresentations like that that they would allow some other poor soul to put it out there and make a fool out themselves too?  I guess that he wanted to have people laugh at someone else other than himself.

  • Anonymous

    Hey, that is a unique idea.  A president is responsible for bad things that happen on his watch!!  Wow. 

    I actually always thought that was the case until 44 took office and immediately and endlessly blamed his predecessor for just about everything he did not not want to effectively deal with or was too incompetent to deal with.  The Blame Bush routine, after 3 years of 44 being in office, has become a national joke. 

    Everyone knows that Clinton's actions and inaction had a part in 9-11 and you have heard many people allude to that, but I bet you never heard Bush say that.  Blame Clinton was not the policy of the Bush administration.  Bush took responsibility for the events and policy that made 9-11 possible.  And he dealt with it as a leader of a gravely wounded nation.  I can't recall Clinton whining about the cards he was dealt either when he took the job. 

  • Nwk

    Not so enraging, just a bit amusing. The only annoying thing is some of this isn't even right. 
    I think you should find a new "Truth"

  • Johansantana17

    since when did conservatives think that rape isn't a crime?

  • Rubberninja1

    You are all a bunch of morons. Read the constitution and bill of rights.  Then read some old history books, not the new ones that have been edited and changed to fit your point of view.  And, oh well, it isn't worth to post here because everyone has their view of the "truth".

  • Hpuffen

    Read the succession documents for the southern states.. SLAVERY is the reason they succeed. period. this whole states right thing is states rights to have the institution of slavery..

  • Dc1020008

    Until you can execute a corporation, don't tell me otherwise!

  • asdf

    ummmm, since when do republicans think that rape isn't a crime???

  • Damn shame about those Anti-Nepotism laws republicans passed in 1967 after John F successfully nominated Bobby for AG then huh, thus preventing Clinton from doing such a thing as nominating his wife for a cabinet position then huh.

    It wasn't a nice try, it was a fact. Make sure it was under CLINTON and not Obama next time. It was said that he THOUGHT about it, not that he actually did it.

  • todzzgod

    Not according to the book written by the head of the weapons inspector team. nice try though

  • todzzgod

    Not according to the book written by the head of the weapons inspector team. nice try though

  • lolwut

     His/her post was edited by a moderator. See the bottom of the post.
    The MODERATOR put in "no name-calling" bit.  Soooo, yeah.

  • Janet

    Moot point.

  • Janet

    Perhaps you, Sir, should read a book... about following your own advice. You start with  " NO NAME CALLING PLEASE."  You add your comments, and then conclude with " But this won't phase you. You're smarter than everyone. You don't need things like facts and history to know what really happened. You just know, because you're totally awesome."  
    Sir, just because you didn't use curse words doesn't mean that you you haven't been calling names. Which then makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.

    And as honorary spelling police for today it should be "But this won't faze you. You're smarter than everyone."

  • to todzzgod- here's a hint her name is Hillary CLINTON, she was not a member of Bill CLINTON's cabinet, she was his WIFE. Unfortunately at the moment you have your historical time lines fudged.  At the time the UN reported to CLINTON about Saddam Hussein(since he was in Iraq not bin Laden) it would have been AFTER the first gulf war, when Saddam was being checked for WMD's all the time since he wasn't supposed to have them.

    Clinton passed on any and all OBL information he had to the BUSH administration, Hillary was not in office when bush first ran, she got in later. Yes her and many other Democrats voted for the war because at the time, PATRIOTISM was being question and they were being fed FALSE INTELLIGENCE, they actually thought IRAQ had WMD's.

    This isn't ancient history BUSH was president when 9/11 happened, not Clinton. BUSH 43, it happened on his watch and he was not prepared, period. There is not wiggle room on that one

  • KG

    Thanks to good old Oliver North, we wouldn't have been aware of Osama and his possible intentions to the US.  However, what did the US Gov't as a whole do when he warned them?  Nothing.  It didn't start with Bush, and it surely doesn't end with Bush when it comes to who to blame.

  • Toth

    This list is AWESOME!!!! I have never seen a better example of the willful stupidity of liberals! You should make more. Keep em coming and I'll have something to laugh at on occasion.

  • lmfao i love the first five ...good one.

  • YAWB

    Naw man.  The Civil War was caused by things that date back more than 30 years prior, and if you want to be broader it was caused by disagreements dating abck to the founding of America itself.  And the South didn't attempt to secede, it did secede. 

  • NO it was not!


    The civil war was caused because the south threatened to secede from the Union!

  • Devon

    Most of these are true, however there are a lot of incorrect statements here.

  • This List is Dumb

    Correct, but America isn't a democracy. It's actually a Representative Republic. Or well, we're supposed to be. Now we're a progressive socialist nation. OBAMACARE FTW...

  • Jake

    This is why Liberals are dumb. Most, almost all, of this is untrue. If you want to look like a dumb Liberal, this is a great list.

  • Dixiecrats were not the same as Democrats. The Republican party then is nothing like the Republican party now. Just throwing it out there.

  • Ikfarnworth

    Just throwing it out there, a Republican freed the slaves AND the KKK was made up of Democrats

  • Ikfarnworth

    Just throwing it out there, a Republican freed the slaves AND the KKK was made up of Democrats

  • Avis

    I'd just like to point out that I'm a conservative and I agree with about a 30% of the comments on here, so really it's only 70 things that make Conservatives mad. Secondly, the rest of the comments on here are generic, bigoted ideas about what Conservatives think, or a twist of the facts.  Actually talk to an intelligent and learned Conservative and you will be able to hear rational arguments against each one of those comments. But wait, you'd rather keep your biased ideology and believe that there is no way in hell a Conservative could actually be right, of sane mind, non-racist, or just plain normal...that would be going against your way of thinking.

  • YAWB

    As a poli sci major at pretty top school, I'd say I've read a few books on this matter, and yeah, you're right on this stuff, but states don't have a legal right to secede, so yeah, it was a Civil War, not an invasion of  a "sovereign nation." 

  • YAWB

    Well, you have to remember, secession occurred because of Lincoln's election, or at least that was the last straw.  Why was it the last straw?  Southern states were afraid he would make slavery illegal.  The debate over slavery had been raging for years, with laws such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, popular sovereignty, the Missouri Compromise and numerous other laws predating well before the Civil War trying to cool the rhetoric and disagreements.  The Civil War, although having somewhat to do with state's rights, was about slavery.  The "state's right's" idea is only in reference to slavery itself, because the debate was whether the Federal Government could tell a state it couldn't have slaves.  Now, Lincoln only freed the slaves as a way to weaken the South.  He had said numerous times, that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it.   So him not freeing the slaves earlier has nothing to do with the myth that slavery was not a primary cause of the Civil War.  Plus, he only freed slaves in areas that had seceded, not in Border States like Kentucky and Delaware, due to fear that they too would secede and double the South's economic power and significantly bolster their man count. 

  • YouSir,shouldreadabook

    You're a moron. A civil war, by definition, is when opposing sides fight for control of one government. The American Civil War was started when Federal troops invaded a sovereign nation consisting of former states that had legally withdrawn from their contract with the Federal government. I'm not saying I wish the south would have won, I'm simply pointing put that you, like most people, don't understand half of the political science concepts that you pretend to know so well.
    And if you think that hundreds of thousands of young men, mostly non-slave owners, would march into battle for the rights of the upper class to own slaves, then you are just as dumb as the O'Reilly fans who think terrorists "hate us for our freedoms". It also wouldn't hurt you to do a history review regarding where the most violent race riots in America took place. I'll fill you in- they were the draft riots in New York City during the civil war, when those oh-so-righteous and tolerant northerners were chasing down blacks and lynching them in broad daylight because the whites were furious about getting drafted to fight a war that had anything to do with abolishing slavery. Also, whose coanding general owned slaves? I'll give you another hint, it wasn't Robert E. Lee. Whose cavalry units slaughtered entire towns of women and children in Missourri for supporting the other side? The weren't flying the confederate flag... Whose president had armed troops take over the NYTimes and NYPost with armed troops and threw 1500 journalists in jail because he didn't like their anti-war stance..? But this won't phase you. You're smarter than everyone. You don't need things like facts and history to know what really happened. You just know, because you're totally awesome.

    As for this list, it's childish and immature. As an Independent, I've come to expect this sort of thing from the same folks that have run "teabagger" into the ground.

  • NonPolitical

    I love how these arguments are almost prime indicators of our ability to be irritated by the terms on this list.

  • Blusheep

    I want to add to the continuing discussion on the Civil War because it is quite obvious to me that those who claim the War is about slavery are unread and are only familiar with the surface ideas surronding the conflict. This surface only judgement is VERY common amongst Democrats, I must say, and most of their arguements break down if you dive beneath this surface.  Thats my one dig on the libs out there.  I promise.
    1 At least 2 states threathened secession before the final conflict.
            New Your - for reasons I can't remember
            South Carolina- Interesting..  hmmm.  what for?...  Tariffs.  nothing to do with slavery.
    The split between north and south was more complex than free and slave. It had alot to do with industrial verse agricultural societies in conflict. It was increasingly seen by the South that the North was gaining power over the South and thereby taking advantage of it. The issue of slavery was just a part of the equation.
    2. The bulk of the states didn't secede until the North broke an anti-agression agreement while negotiations were still ongoing, leading to SC firing on Ft. Sumpter, leading Lincoln to call for troops. The North calling for troops to quell the rebellion in SC is what pushed these other states into the war on the side of the South.  The most prominant state being VA and only then did they secede. 

    You may claim that SC seceded and fought for the right to own slaves as that was the catalyst (this time) for why they seceded but you CANT say that these other states like VA did it for the same reason. They were against the federal gov't forcing SC to remain in the Union and therefore chose to defend SC's right to leave.  That can only be rationally accepted as a state's rights cause.

    To claim the Civil War was all about slavery or even 90% about it is naive. Slavery was for sure the catalyst behind the reason for the initiation of the conflict and can't be ignored but its value for discussion is better found in how it contributed to the sectionalism that brought about the feeling that america was made up of two distinct people groups. 

    Instead of tring to deny the issue of states rights within the Civil War conflict we would gain by discussing its application to us today, its constitutional mandate and its scope, and how it has been abused or ignored in the present so that we have a just society based on the rule of law not the rule of tyrannical "fairness".

  • Entonations

    Many things on this list gives Liberals a bad name

  • MJ

    I agree. Slavery was ONE of the rights in question. It is unfair to state that any war is the result of any single debate. There is always more.

    By the way, a fun and inventive way to get that birth control pill paid for is very calmly explain to  the nice person at the insurance agency that the congressman you are 'in congress' with is running in the 2016 election and can't have any scandals, but that you need to keep up with him since the Republicans insisted that he is entitled to his little blue pill. 

  • Pbbt


  • Yes, many many years ago, before the world was connected, before there were legal borders. Granted we really shouldn't have driven the Natives off their land, but we did, and there's no going back.  Now we are Americans, whether you were born here or not. We would like for people to come here from other countries, as long as they do it the right way.

  • Yes, many many years ago, before the world was connected, before there were legal borders. Granted we really shouldn't have driven the Natives off their land, but we did, and there's no going back.  Now we are Americans, whether you were born here or not. We would like for people to come here from other countries, as long as they do it the right way.

  • So sad that some take humor so seriously. Hopeless....

  • Jack

    This list has so many factual errors and examples of stereotyping that it actually discredits the very worldviews it purports to support. Keep up the good work.

  • Jack

    This list has so many factual errors and examples of stereotyping that it actually discredits the very worldviews it purports to support. Keep up the good work.

  • Roger Burns

    The beauty of being an American is that you can almost "pick" your heritage.  But, that does not define a person completely.  If you were born elsewhere, and move to America, and become a citizen, you are an American.  If you are born here, you are an American.  Our culture is made up of many other cultures, and the promise of the Lady Liberty still stands.  I live in a strongly multicultural area, and all my friends, foreign born or not, love this country, pay taxes, and we all live together in relative ease.  It's OK to have different cultures.   It's OK to have different customs.  It's NOT OK to hate people because they are simply born elsewhere.

  • Corporate personhood is a legal fiction designed to make the legal code simpler. They are defined as people in certain, limited ways, but not in the ways that the Supremes just indicated. This is shorthand for that distinction. You can't put a corporation in jail, for instance. If they were people, you could actually take them to criminal court AS a person. You can't do that now. They aren't people. But, yes, they way they are designed impel corporations to value profit above anything and everything. The agents that collectively make up the fiction we call "corporations" care more about profits. 

  • That's like saying it's about words. You know "words on a paper that allow States to say they can own slaves." States actually still have rights. We don't have legal slavery. The Civil War settled that.

  • Franco, that's exactly what a Civil War is. If one group of people in a nation want to do something that another group doesn't want to go along with, and both sides take arms to fight, it's called a Civil War. You act as if the South didn't have bullets and only sent candygrams.

  • Carrie

    and I am definitely not a Republican by the way. Just pointing out that there indeed IS a comment about the Civil war.

  • Carrie

    62. The Civil War was about slavery, NOT state’s rights.

  • todzzgod

    Socialism? You live in America and you are against socialism? Democracy is a socialistic principle sunshine. The fact that you dont get that makes your point mute!!

  • todzzgod

    No!! Thats not what liberals stand for! We stand for HUMANITY. Which the founding fathers were against. They wanted a plutocracy where only rich white people had a say. If you think anything different read the DAMN CONSTITUTION! Woman couldn't vote!!!! If you didnt own land YOU COULDNT VOTE!!! IF YOU WERE BLACK YOU WERENT EVEN A HUMAN!!!!!!!!!

  • todzzgod

    And i guess you forgot that Hillary Clinton and the rest of the democrats (Senators) new about it from the start. When the UN weapons inspectors came back from Iraq they reported to which president? Bill Clinton. Who was sitting right next to him during that briefing? Hillary Clinton, his closest adviser and member of his cabinet (and also someone who sat on one of the many "boards" at Wall-Mart). But she still had the audacity to claim that G Bush lied about the war even after she voted for it.

  • todzzgod

    Than why didnt Lincoln free the slaves until after the war had gone on 2 years and only then because it was the only way he could get any other country to help us with the naval blockade of the South?

  • todzzgod

    6. The founding fathers were liberal? Yea if slavery and woman not voting and anybody not owning land not voting is liberal. 42. Roe v. Wade was a bipartisan ruling made by a conservative leaning Supreme Court. [...]The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability.[2] The Roe
    decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside
    the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability
    "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur
    earlier, even at 24 weeks. Which means any abortion after 24 weeks isnt legal and goes against the current anything but full abortion at any time is interfering with a woman's rights agenda of the left today. 53. Yes we are a nation of immigrants but we are also a nation (now) of starving poor children and we can no longer justify letting any more immigrants come here (or stay here) because we have no jobs and can no longer afford to have them. 64. "Getting out of a recession requires government spending" (or depression if you judge it by the same rules we judged the Great Depression on). Yes if we had been following Keynesian economics all this time. We havent been. We gave that up in the 80s with Ronald Regan and have been playing by the rules of "Reaganomics" or trickle down theory ever since (through Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama). Now we are so far in debt that we will have to suffer a great deal and stop spending money like water (billions of dollars for banks instead of letting them fail and having the government take over the loans and letting the homeowners pay what they could to keep their homes which we could have easily done and an Obama administration's expanding of the military) before we get out of it. Wake up kids. Quit drinking the Kool-aid. The DNC is just as corrupt as the RNC.

  • Azzkicker

    No, YOU are wrong, Paul. Idiot.

  • Aesthete

    The "founding fathers" (odd expression!) were Calvinists.
    Are you saying Calvin was liberal?

  • Physical person

    There are countries (eg. Czechland) whose legal system distinguishes between "legal persons" (ie. corporations) and "physical persons" (ie. human people).

  • Franco Cromwell

    Another slight mistake: the United States (nb.) have never had a civil war.  There was an attempt by some states to secede from the union which was bloodily put down and given a tendentious name by - as always - the victors.

  • Well the civil war was about states rights. About the states right to own slaves. That's what it boils down to. Without slavery there would be no civil war.

  • Wardstewart

    Can it be that this is your first post?

  • Nah, what the RWNJ post on their sites... that's the dumbest shit on the Nets. This simply mocks theirs.

  • Clkjer9ua

    Dumbest SHIT I've ever read on the Net.

  • Aasch

    "59. The Revolution was NOT fought over slavery."
    If you ask me, nowhere here do I see the words Civil War...  So unless your ignorant and unwilling to concede that you can't read (telltale sign of a republican), the American Revolution indeed was not about slavery.  The Civil War, sure, fight all day about it.  We know who won and why.

  • Phil E. Drifter

     No one cares what you think.

    Why don't you go post it to a board somewhere on the internet that no one will read.

  • Anonymous

    The Civil War began because of states rights, it later evolved into including freeing the slaves. It was also postponed 10 years when Missouri became a slave state and Maine became a free state, keeping the senate equal. Please, if you are going to make a great post like this, don't ruin it by not getting your facts straight. 

  • TNRS7

    Here's another one:
    American soldiers are American citizens. If you use fraudulent information to mislead them into a war that had  nothing to do with protecting our country or our Constitution, then you are not keeping America safe. 

  • Seeker

    This is such Epic B.S. The debate on the Civil War is
    completely closed and has been for a very long time. It was about Slavery.
    Slavery is the ONLY issue addressed in the Article of Secession drafted by
    every State in the Confederacy. There were no proxy issues, there were no
    Rights issues; the war was about Slavery. Anything beyond that statement is
    just a simpleton lying to you.

  • Overcast

    A few of them were pointless, crude (and irrelavent) insults (i.e. Republicans needing Viagra), and a few other items need correction (i.e. the Civil War was about States Rights) but still, some of these items were still pretty good.

  • Jebediah

    I'm not a political guy at all.  But I think 47 is complete bullshit.

  • James Huffer

    Reagan/Bush 41 began the idea "deficits don't matter"!

  • James Huffer

    Reagan/Bush 41 began the idea "deficits don't matter"!

  • Mad

    32. Corporations are NOT people. People are people.

    true... then why are they taxed, as if they were people?

    63. Corporations care more about profits than they do about people.

    Just a bit confused now.  Not people... but they do care about things?  Are you making some sort of anthropomorphic claim about a non-sentient entity?
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that corporations exist to pursue profit, and that is their only reason for existing.   Yes, that's why we invented them.

  • Um, Alabastard? Did you read the intro paragraph? Do you see the ellipses? Good. Now you have your answer.

    Paranoid much?

  • Alabastard

    What is that, sixty things?
    Look at the numbers. Why are so many missing?

    What are you hiding?

  • Cmluke13

    Do you think that the founding fathers had an idea that the US would become the largest economy in the world, or was it their successors who had to deal with our country's eventual success?

  • Lone

    It's hilarious how many people are defending Republicans against this list. The title (FFS) is "Things to say to IRRITATE" not "This is a list of facts Republicans don't like." Geez-us.

  • Valentino Graci

    On and, Original Poster,

    "The Founding Fathers were liberals."

    Good job, bro. Quote things out of historical context, try to look smart.

    To put things in perspective and stop all this "liberal," "conservative," and "socialist" name calling, let's simplify government by looking at it on a scale of government control from 0 - 100%

    at 0% you have anarchy. anarchy is not a system of control, but really a transition from democracy to oligarchy. at 100% you have facism, communism, and socialism. There is no "right-wing facist" and "left-wing socialist," as the systems perform the same thing just using different methods.

    At about 50% or so you have what we are [b]supposed[/b] to be - a Republic.

  • Valentino Graci

    A, this list is pretty stupid. B, I can refute just about everything on this list.

    A "Republican" is not necessarily Christian or a Neo-conservative. Do you forget what traditional Republican ideals are? Today's Republicans do not embody those ideals. I, as a Libertarian, do.

  • Shanebrandon123

    I'm leftist and I find a lot of these as ignorant and false as any right wing insult.

  • Budafinguz

    Liberals believe in a larger, more powerful government. The Founding Fathers believed in an extremely limited government... Pretty much with its main purpose to maintain public services. They thought the states should hold all of the power, not the Federal Government.

    So remind me how the Founding Fathers were liberals?????????? The modern liberal movement goes against everything the Founding Fathers believed in and fought for, and to say otherwise is to be blatantly ignorant of history and the legacy of our Founding Fathers.

  • Michael3ov

    I'm sorry but your statement is not based in reality whatsoever. The civil war was about states right only in the sense of states having the right to own slaves. As far as 9/11 and Bush, I guess you forgot about the report received by Bush long before the attacks entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S." They also had intelligence about possible attacks being executed by flying planes into buildings. Especially since they were doing an exercise using that very scenario. Instead of taking action about an imminent threat Bush spent almost his entire first year in office hanging out on his ranch in Crawford. To say that Bush could not of done anything to prevent 9/11 is completely ignorant.

  • Grgefrg

    you must be republican lololol

  • Cody

    know your history and facts idiot

  • Anonymous

    Though that's true, I think many would agree that the Confederate flag as a symbol was blatantly racist. The states' rights issues in play were whether or not southern states could force northern ones to return runaway slaves and later whether or not states could secede. The motivation behind these rights were undeniably to protect slavery, ergo it was very much about slavery since the only rights they were concerned about were the ones regarding the institution of slavery. The Confederacy and its flag are symbols of proud racism and they should not be defended. Having said that, I'm of the opinion the South should have been allowed to secede. I seriously doubt slavery would've lasted much longer with all the slaves knowing they could be free if they revolted or hopped the border, not to mention what would probably be more or less an elimination of the ideological split that plagues Congress today.

  • I don't disbelieve that, but you're still skirting the plagiarism issue. I seriously doubt you were given permission to re-post without giving credit to at least the orional author. Ive run a couple of journalism sites before I got a better paying job and didn't have time to be EIC anymore... If you borrow whole or part, cite the author and the source. You said what site it can be found but not by whom. You are aware that that's still technically plagiarism, which is theft.

    Obviously you didn't look it up independently, in context to your own creative commons lisence, or the lisence of the original site.

  • So what's your take on the democrat theory that higher taxes create jobs? I mean, they CAN, but you have to actually pay them. To that point, do you recall the head of treasury appointed by obama getting busted not paying taxes? Hmmm....

  • Given you have to repeatedly explain to read your intro, I'd say you're either an ineffective writer or you expect that if you took time to write it people will read each and every thing you write. As a former citizen journalist, that's not going to happen.

    First mistake was copying a week old list. People love lists, original lists and information online has a 48 hour lifespan;anyone who's going to read it will have by then.

    Second mistake was posting a partial list. Leaving gaps and then linking back to the original site simply says "just go to the orional site because im too effing lazy and you're not worth the work." Post it all or don't post it AT all... Half-ass might be your style by respect the reader and keep it to yourself.

    Final mistake was engaging in the kind of misguided pot-calling that incites the kind of immaturity and partisan bullshit stopping any national progress. Sure, it's mildly humorus to people who know the truth because they know the truth. It's hilarious to idiots that get their info spoon-fed to them from MSNBC, FOX, Keith Olmert, Bill O'Reilley, and Reuters.

    But by all means be a sheeple. That to me, is funny. And before you fire off with something about how I must be a republican, I'm not nor am I tea party. I'm for whatever a good idea is, and for 20 years there have been none.

  • Given you have to repeatedly explain to read your intro, I'd say you're either an ineffective writer or you expect that if you took time to write it people will read each and every thing you write. As a former citizen journalist, that's not going to happen.

    First mistake was copying a week old list. People love lists, original lists and information online has a 48 hour lifespan;anyone who's going to read it will have by then.

    Second mistake was posting a partial list. Leaving gaps and then linking back to the original site simply says "just go to the orional site because im too effing lazy and you're not worth the work." Post it all or don't post it AT all... Half-ass might be your style by respect the reader and keep it to yourself.

    Final mistake was engaging in the kind of misguided pot-calling that incites the kind of immaturity and partisan bullshit stopping any national progress. Sure, it's mildly humorus to people who know the truth because they know the truth. It's hilarious to idiots that get their info spoon-fed to them from MSNBC, FOX, Keith Olmert, Bill O'Reilley, and Reuters.

    But by all means be a sheeple. That to me, is funny. And before you fire off with something about how I must be a republican, I'm not nor am I tea party. I'm for whatever a good idea is, and for 20 years there have been none.

  • I emailed the site, they gave me permission. Nice try.

  • Yes. I can read, which is how I noticed that you omitted the original author and yet have in your own creative common attribution no derivative works. You don't attribute the work to the original author and your site implies that if someone reprints it they need to attribute your byline (which it's not really you who wrote it.) This, without proper attribution beyond the site you got it from is still plagiarism, and at a partial list it's still both derivative and plagiarized. So, yeah... I read and read enough to know that a link back isn't enough when copying so ones work whether you allege they gave you permission. Perhaps you should check up on forms of plagiarism... And how to avoid it.

  • Um, can you read? I say at the top that I got permission from the other site, and I chose to post a partial list with a link back anyway.

  • Which is just a watered down form of the liberal fall-back "shut up" argument.

  • And Clinton admitted more than once to do nothing when Osama had been brought up. He reasoning was that at the time, Osama did nothing to warrant action. Prior to 9/11, and in context to your pretty memo, the same was true when bush ignored it. When bush called for preemptive strikes on Iraq it was wrong, but maybe if he got a memo you would feel different? Interesting....

  • What's more confusing to me, is that liberals state the bush is both an idiot and the guy that single handedly undermined the entire congress and nation. Oddly, many member of congress are still in power, so why in the he'll would you allow your representatives to be fooled so hard...unless they weren't. Seems to me someone can't be both at the same time unless it makes all of us idiots. Or, even more, how it was the mainstream media on all fronts nearly called for war and supported it before the facts were in and then once they were in began to hold the administration accountable. The problem is that the media, first and foremost, have an industrial obligation to research facts prior to report...did they do that? Nope. They're most interested in selling ad space and selling people to a product.

  • Nope. That's what they do now. It's called social engineering and classism. Get with the times buddy.

  • This is indeed irritating. Nothing says "tell the truth" than a list of straw man arguments, name calling, and unsubstantiated claims. Credit though, isn't you - this is reprint from another site from a different author... Tsk tsp.

  • Um, did you read my intro? I skipped some so people would link to the original post, giving them the traffic.

  • Patmagrian

    why does it just start skipping numbers at the end from 72 to 77 then 88 the 98 ? that does nt make this 100 things

  • PhillyTru

    A tired list of talking points meant for weak-minded folks who don't bother to research the context of history and some are even factually incorrect.  I seriously doubt anyone would get angry if one were to post one of  these but you certainly would make a fool of yourself by doing so, but do indulge if you must.

  • Theschwim1

    the majority of this is straight up wrong

  • Stella

    To say that the Civil War was not about slavery, but state's rights, is disingenuous when the sole right being defended was the right hold slaves, to exist as slaveholding states and the non-slaveholding states refusal to uphold the fugitive slave act. If you don't believe it, then perhaps you should read the Declarations of Causes for Seceding issued by the slaveholding states. The federal government may have initially persecuted the war primarily to hold the union together, and to deal with the issue of slavery later, but make no mistake, it was to be dealt with in due time. Why else would the election of Lincoln be the catalyst? The defense of slavery is so abhorrent to the modern mind that the issue is cloaked in the term 'state's rights' - but the southern states made no such pretense when they seceded. The issue of slavery was mentioned over and over again, and the distinction that they made between themselves and the other states was that of slaveholding and non-slaveholding.  Mississippi even declared that, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the
    institution of slavery" - it was THE one issue.

  • jmspeak

    1%? Really? And the other 99% are all hyphenated American immigrants. I'd be interested to read for myself your source for those numbers.
    My grandparents were immigrants. My Mother MAY be considered Welsh-American. I am not. I'm American. And unless you or you parents are immigrants, so are you. The idea that because someones  great grandfather immigrated here from Italy makes them "Italian" is delusional. There IS an American culture just as there is a Greek culture, Korean culture, Kenyan culture. American will assimilate those born and raised here. Don't agree? Go to the country of your 'ancestry' and see how much in common you have. See if the people there accept you as one of their own or identify you as an American.

  • Beeboopskiddleydoo

    ...the Civil War was totally about state's rights. Just because you live next to a moron doesn't mean you get away with being an idiot

  • LM

    Bush absolutely is at fault as there was a memo sent to him that he simply chose to ignore.

  • LM

    Bush absolutely is at fault as there was a memo sent to him that he simply chose to ignore.

  • Dcraine56

    The Civil War was fought over slavery. "States' rights" was a euphemism used by Southerners and Northern sympathizers. The war was fought because the South attempted to secede as a result of Abraham Lincoln's election. Many Southerners found this unacceptable because Lincoln's Republican party was founded by abolitionists and was dedicated to the abolition of slavery. The articles of secession drawn up by Southern legislators specifically described the preservation of race-based chattel slavery as their reason for seceding.

  • Dcraine56

    Immigrants are people who come to one country from another. Your status as a person whose ancestor arrived here before the nation was founded puts you in a group that represents less than 1% of all Americans. The rest of us (99%) have ancestors that came from another country. We are a nation of immigrants.

  • thatstheT

    yeah, the slavery debacle behind the civil war was merely a socio-economic disagreement about uneven representation of states that backed their economies with slave labor (southern states) and those that did not (northern states). people who were against slavery due to moral issues were considered a small, radical minority. 

  • Paul Mitchem


  • SO true.

  • jmspeak

    1. This is a moronic, sophomoric  list.
    2. The American Civil War—plain and simple. The South fought to preserve
    the institution of race-based slavery. The North Fought to preserve the
    Union. The rest of that BS is a 140 year old revisionist campaign to
    ennoble a thoroughly inhuman practice that had by then been outlawed
    virtually world wide. Read speeches and editorials from the time. The
    Federal Government making it illegal to own people based on their skin
    color and ancestry is NOT a 'states rights' issue.

    Do you think the pro-slavery advocates would have taken a different position had it been legal to own white people too.

  • jmspeak

    My ancestor immigrated from England to Philadelphia in 1696. I think after 315 years I can legitimately say I'm 'from' here. I've been to Europe several times. Culturally I've nothing in common with those people. I am not an English-American, German-American, Italian-American nor African-American. I am American—that is my ancestry.

  • Bush didn't know? So that whole "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." memo was what? Fiction?

  • Maggiemae2113

    Great list! HOWEVER, The Civil War really was about state's rights!

  • guest

    Like...the civil war.  That was about state rights... and slavery was a state right.  And, 9/11... no one knew it was going to happen, so Bush wasn't at fault for not keeping us safe.  And of course the founding fathers were liberal... they were escaping something they hated that they were optimistic and wanted everything to be great.

  • TK


    There are so many things on here that piss me, as a liberal, off.

  • Werty Qwerty

    The Civil War was about slavery? That's why some Union States still had slaves. Yeah, I would be pretty annoyed with someone arrogantly telling me a list of pretentious and oversimplified statements he/she called "facts".

  • Mac

    Well yeah, I guess republicans would get annoyed by someone spouting off a bunch of speculative, irrelevant, out-of-context, over-simplified statements and claiming them as "the truth." ('Republicans actually NEED viagra' WTH?) So yeah, this would irritate a republican, or a rational democrat.

    Also, you seem to have confused republicans with young-earth creationists.

  • Trpt2honk

    And dare I ask....what do you hope to accomplish by irritating Conservatives?

  • ms.mayaburns

    States' rights to do what? The tariff crises were proxy issues for slavery.

  • Haddon

    wrong. slavery was one of many issues, all of which played into the civil war. for the first 2 years or so the civil war was ALL about states rights (whether or not the southern states had the right to secede chief among those). it wasn't until lincoln's emancipation proclamation that it really became a war for/against slavery. it was done as a political move to give the north a "moral high-ground", because the north was floundering against the south. making it about human rights turned the heads of people on the fence about the war, who didn't much care whether or not the US was a union, or split between north and south. culturally it had been for a long time, and the civil war didn't change that. Lincoln was smart, and turned his side into the "good guys" with a single appearance that didn't actually DO anything (it only freed slaves and outlawed slavery in confederate states. as the confederacy was its own nation at the time, it had no actual legal standing).

  • not an idiot

     Oh really? where did those people come from?? oh yeah, THEY MOVED HERE FROM EUROPE

  • Michele Bachmann was an IRS agent.

  • Ethnic American

    America is not a nation of immigrants. There are ethnic Americans their families lived in the Thirteen Colonies. Every nation is made up of various cultures that through political boundaries become new cultures.

  • Sillius Buns

    Right, but the debate was overwhelmingly about slavery. Just pulling a number out of my butt I'd say the Civil war was 90% about slavery.

  • Johkahmohko

    most of those contain a lot of speculation, and several aren't even factual.

  • Mathias Hansen

    Wonderful list, however, there is one slight mistake: the Civil War was about state's rights, it's just that they also considered slavery one of those rights.  Other rights included the ability to set their own tariffs and possibly moonshining.

  • Den Hickey

    And imagine how much most Republican voters care about the difference.. at least when the person in question isn't white.... or rich.

  • An actual Australian

    Rupert Murdoch is not an Australian any more.  He lost his Australian Citizenship in 1985 when he took up US Citizenship (at the time Australia took its citizenship away from people who took up other citizenships).  He is an ex_Australian.  He is an American.


  • Anonymous

    You mean tell them tired, long debunked liberal myths. Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth? Only for useful idiots.

  • "100 Things You Can Say To Irritate A Republican . . . "

    And if those don't work, you can always fall back on the 101st:

    a simple, "%#& YOU!"

  • And when you do............be prepared for the fall out. Or they may have their miniature "talking points bible by FOX" in their back pocket  😉