4 Inconvenient Facts The Right Ignores

[thereisnospoon]

And to think she calls herself a lawyer.

just because you're delusional doesn't mean others aren't.

but keep repeating what the other rightwingnut scum said.

unlike you, i earn my way in the world.

You are hysterical.
Did you forget about your thread already?
Your very demeanor and vitriol toward all non liberals disqualifies you as a person who is worthy of engaging in discussion.

 

[koshergrl]

When you post an opinion piece, it is worthless unless it cites the evidence. If no evidence is cited, then the onus is on the person who presents it to prove the points.

Give you opinion and your supporting evidence. Then we try to discredit your evidence.

But an opinion by itself is nothing...and proves nothing except that the OP doesn't know how to frame an argument.

 

[jillian]

And to think she calls herself a lawyer.

just because you're delusional doesn't mean others aren't.

but keep repeating what the other rightwingnut scum said.

unlike you, i earn my way in the world.

You are hysterical.
Did you forget about your thread already?
Your very demeanor and vitriol toward all non liberals disqualifies you as a person who is worthy of engaging in discussion.

perhaps you and your little friends should have tried having discussion.

but don't be nasty to me and then whine that i'm not nice back.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

just because you're delusional doesn't mean others aren't.

but keep repeating what the other rightwingnut scum said.

unlike you, i earn my way in the world.

You are hysterical.
Did you forget about your thread already?
Your very demeanor and vitriol toward all non liberals disqualifies you as a person who is worthy of engaging in discussion.

Your refusal to cite sources for claims made by an opinion piece are duly noted and your ignorant thread is dismissed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

still waiting for one of the righties to point out what's untrue in the article.

lots of deflection though.

We don't prove negatives here.
You made the claims. It is up to you to support them with facts.
I'm shocked you are ( or claim to be) an attorney.
As you should know, the burden of proof always rests upon those making a claim or bringing an action ( civil) or is the accuser( criminal).
Out here in the world, it is no different. You don't get a vacation from the burden of proof.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Jillian lives in Jew York City which is populated by liberal/progressives just as idiotic as her.

They don't have a grasp on reality and hate everyone west of the Hudson River. (ie. the rest of America) ...

She probably has a giant picture of Mayor Diblasio on one wall and a giant picture of Obama on another wall. Each day she awakens at 11 am she kisses each image.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So how long do you think a right siders thread in Politics using an opinion piece to make claims about the left would last before a moderator moved it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here’s an example of conservatives seeking to deny women their right to privacy, in violation of the Constitution:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected earlier this week an initiative that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person, unanimously agreeing that the personhood initiative was “clearly unconstitutional.”

The decision is not binding on any other state, but it could be a bellwether for future court challenges. Compared to other state courts, the Oklahoma Supreme Court is a moderate court, far from the more liberal courts of Hawaii and the northeastern states but also more moderate than the conservative courts in the South.

The unanimous verdict, however, is important. Even the most conservative members of the court agreed that the personhood initiative violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent and was therefore unconstitutional.

The decision likely means that other state courts will also decide that other personhood legislation and initiatives are unconstitutional.

Christianity Today Politics: Oklahoma Supreme Court: Personhood Amendment is Not OK

What's this got to do with privacy issues. BTW it has been decided 6 ways to Sunday that there is no such thing as a "right to privacy".
Do I think a fertilized egg is the same as a "person"? No. In fact that is a concept steeped in absurdity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just focus on the one fact that Republicans ignore the most:

No WMD in Iraq.

Republicans need a link to support this so-called "fact", right?:

Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Democrat Quotes on WMD
Yer kidding, right?

 

[Bfgrn]

Jillian posting more crap. Where are the links for these?

1)the religious right was for segregation? WTF???? Where do you people come up with this shit?
2)Again a link? There was the 1934 law banning automatic weapons....but that's it...

3)so was Al Gore Sr a conservative, Woodrow Wilson? ? The republican party defended civil rights until this day, but lets use your liberal souther strategy in the late 60s. Before that time, name the last democrat more conservative than the republican?

Book Excerpt: 'Thy Kingdom Come'

by Randall Balmer

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
---
In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith : NPR

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here is an example of conservatives seeking to violate Americans’ 4th Amendment rights:

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug testing, setting the stage for a legal battle that could affect similar efforts nationwide.

Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando held that the testing requirement, the signature legislation of Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on the issue, violated the protection against unreasonable searches.

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote. The ruling made permanent an earlier, temporary ban by the judge.

[A]s the country emerged from the recession, numerous states, powered by the strength of Republicans in many legislatures, sought to make welfare or unemployment checks contingent on drug testing. That is despite a 2003 federal court ruling in Michigan that struck down drug testing for welfare recipients because it amounted to an illegal search.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html

Amazing.

Knowing full well that 4th Amendment jurisprudence prohibits drug testing as a condition of eligibility for those applying for public assistance, in blatant contempt for the Constitution and its case law, conservative lawmakers nonetheless proceeded to willfully violate the Founding Document.

Such contempt for the rule of law exhibited by most conservatives is truly reprehensible.

The 4th does no such thing.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Drug testing for public assistance is coming.
It just is.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Jillian posting more crap. Where are the links for these?



1)the religious right was for segregation? WTF???? Where do you people come up with this shit?
2)Again a link? There was the 1934 law banning automatic weapons....but that's it...

3)so was Al Gore Sr a conservative, Woodrow Wilson? ? The republican party defended civil rights until this day, but lets use your liberal souther strategy in the late 60s. Before that time, name the last democrat more conservative than the republican?

LINK:In this sermon quoted here should answer your #1 query

"Indeed, it was race-not abortion or the attendant suite of so-called “values” issues-that propelled Falwell and his evangelical allies into political activism….

Falwell launched on the warpath against civil rights four years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate public schools with a sermon titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?”

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell’s jeremiad continued: “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.” Falwell went on to announce that integration “will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city,” he warned, “a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

Quite clearly Fallwell, one of the early leaders of the Religious Right, not only beleived but preached that segregation was "God's will".

 

[SmedlyButler]

Jillian posting more crap. Where are the links for these?

1)the religious right was for segregation? WTF???? Where do you people come up with this shit?
2)Again a link? There was the 1934 law banning automatic weapons....but that's it...

3)so was Al Gore Sr a conservative, Woodrow Wilson? ? The republican party defended civil rights until this day, but lets use your liberal souther strategy in the late 60s. Before that time, name the last democrat more conservative than the republican?

Jillians take on the NRA's evolution from a sporting organization to one more primed to defend gun manufacturers is historical fact.

"The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[17] after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[18] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms."-Wikipedia

Now-"Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business".

There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.

It's possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people."

LINK: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1#ixzz33vgOaxJu

 

[AntiParty]

So, republicans are double-talking, double-dealing dirtballs. What else is new?

What have progressive democrats done for me, that I ever wanted in the first place, since Grover Cleveland?

If you are advanced in politics enough to see the $$$ influence of decisions made by politicians you know that we aren't in WWIII right now.

The Right was pushing for war with Iran for basically no reason last election. The Right pushed for war against Libya due to Benghazi. The Right pushed for war against Syria when they used Chemical Weapons. Libertarians, Republicans and Tea party.


As it turned out, Diplomacy worked out. Imagine that. What has the Left done for you? Not another Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Stephanie]

so, all this is true because of some people who wrote it on their BLOGS and hate websites like SALON and that make it the truth, the whole, and nothing but the truth

so we have one Expert opinion from a blog called, scienceblog and from someone who calls himself, mikethamadbiologest
And they post the actions of ONE FRIKKEN MAN, Jerry Falwall and that made it ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT...
You people are frikken DISHONEST you should feel shame


and the other one is from the businessinsider
here's their contributors

Contributors[edit]

The site editors vary greatly in background. CEO and Editor-In-Chief Henry Blodget is a Yale graduate who previously worked on Wall Street, then was fined $2,000,000 as part of a civil suit for fraud, and another $2,000,000 in disgorgement, and being censured and barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission,.[10] Executive editor Joe Weisenthal has worked as an analyst and writer for a series of dotcoms,[11] such as Techdirt. Deputy editor Nicholas Carlson previously worked at Internet.com and Gawker Media's Silicon Valley gossip blog, Valleywag. Senior editor Jim Edwards previously was managing editor at Adweek. British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos writes a weekly column for the site.

so, other business pay people for marketing and sales, they also hire people to be their spokesperson and to absorb critizcism, but that is a sin if the NRA does I guess
from the blog:

There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.

now I found this one troubling from the same blog

It's possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people."

and you talk about rightwing being brainwashed

and jilly, attorneys are suppose to help people not spread hateful lies, call people idiot, rightwingnuts and we could hope you'd at least have a SHRED of honor in what you post over here

 

[AntiParty]

so, all this is true because of some people who wrote it on their BLOGS and hate websites like SALON and that make it the truth, the whole, and nothing but the truth

so we have one Expert opinion from a blog called, scienceblog and from someone who calls himself, mikethamadbiologest
And they post the actions of ONE FRIKKEN MAN, Jerry Falwall and that made it ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT...
You people are frikken DISHONEST you should feel shame
and the other one is from the businessinsider
here's their contributors

Contributors[edit]

The site editors vary greatly in background. CEO and Editor-In-Chief Henry Blodget is a Yale graduate who previously worked on Wall Street, then was fined $2,000,000 as part of a civil suit for fraud, and another $2,000,000 in disgorgement, and being censured and barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission,.[10] Executive editor Joe Weisenthal has worked as an analyst and writer for a series of dotcoms,[11] such as Techdirt. Deputy editor Nicholas Carlson previously worked at Internet.com and Gawker Media's Silicon Valley gossip blog, Valleywag. Senior editor Jim Edwards previously was managing editor at Adweek. British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos writes a weekly column for the site.

so, other business pay people for marketing and sales, they also hire people to be their spokesperson and to absorb critizcism, but that is a sin if the NRA does I guess
from the blog:

There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.

now I found this one troubling from the same blog

It's possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people."

and you talk about being brainwashed

LaPierre was President when the NRA started getting flooded with money from Weapons Manufacturers. He changed his tune just like America's presidents do when they are flooded with money from weapons manufacturers.

He started off saying this,
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJ2kHpbC1g]The NRA's Wayne Lapierre on Mandatory Background Checks in 1999 - YouTube[/ame]

Then ended up acting confused about gun show loop holes and even stating they don't exist.

There is an exact number I won't look up showing how much money started flooding into the NRA to promote specific weapons and idea's. They even sparked the Gun Scare after Sandy Hook. Or did you forget "Obama is going to take all of your guns"?

This nonsense drama drove up specific bullets above $1 per shot generally used for deer hunting. People were scared to death they would lose all of their guns when it was never even mentioned except for the NRA and Marco Rubio. No Leftist with power ever stated they were going to ban all guns. EVER.

 

[Stephanie]

so, all this is true because of some people who wrote it on their BLOGS and hate websites like SALON and that make it the truth, the whole, and nothing but the truth

so we have one Expert opinion from a blog called, scienceblog and from someone who calls himself, mikethamadbiologest
And they post the actions of ONE FRIKKEN MAN, Jerry Falwall and that made it ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT...
You people are frikken DISHONEST you should feel shame
and the other one is from the businessinsider
here's their contributors

Contributors[edit]

The site editors vary greatly in background. CEO and Editor-In-Chief Henry Blodget is a Yale graduate who previously worked on Wall Street, then was fined $2,000,000 as part of a civil suit for fraud, and another $2,000,000 in disgorgement, and being censured and barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission,.[10] Executive editor Joe Weisenthal has worked as an analyst and writer for a series of dotcoms,[11] such as Techdirt. Deputy editor Nicholas Carlson previously worked at Internet.com and Gawker Media's Silicon Valley gossip blog, Valleywag. Senior editor Jim Edwards previously was managing editor at Adweek. British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos writes a weekly column for the site.

so, other business pay people for marketing and sales, they also hire people to be their spokesperson and to absorb critizcism, but that is a sin if the NRA does I guess
from the blog:


now I found this one troubling from the same blog

It's possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people."

and you talk about being brainwashed

LaPierre was President when the NRA started getting flooded with money from Weapons Manufacturers. He changed his tune just like America's presidents do when they are flooded with money from weapons manufacturers.

He started off saying this,
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJ2kHpbC1g]The NRA's Wayne Lapierre on Mandatory Background Checks in 1999 - YouTube[/ame]

Then ended up acting confused about gun show loop holes and even stating they don't exist.

There is an exact number I won't look up showing how much money started flooding into the NRA to promote specific weapons and idea's. They even sparked the Gun Scare after Sandy Hook. Or did you forget "Obama is going to take all of your guns"?

This nonsense drama drove up specific bullets above $1 per shot generally used for deer hunting. People were scared to death they would lose all of their guns when it was never even mentioned except for the NRA and Marco Rubio. No Leftist with power ever stated they were going to ban all guns. EVER.

You can say No leftist with power ever stated they were going to ban guns, but millions of people believes that is just what they want do..so you believe it if you want..

 

[Stephanie]

So, republicans are double-talking, double-dealing dirtballs. What else is new?

What have progressive democrats done for me, that I ever wanted in the first place, since Grover Cleveland?

i'm not a progressive. i am a liberal.

but that has nothing to do with you ignoring the facts in the o/p.

i have no issue with republicans. i can't abide people who abhor fact-based reality.

you're welcome.

Jilly you can't abide anyone who doesn't think like you so stop with the act
and that lying fantasy POS you posted from Salon are fact's that are MADE UP by some left wing moonbat like you who, hates religion, hate conservatives, hates the NRA, and love them some common core and how dare anyone question it

I've never seen you post something so ugly and untruthful...you used to semi-nice now pretty much intolerable and that's sad

and stop kidding yourself,you are a full blown Progressive/commie

 

[RollingThunder]

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore

1. The religious right started because of segregation, not abortion.

As Randall Balmer, a Darthmouth professor writing in Politico, explained in a recent article, the organized religious right started as a movement to protect white-only schools from federally mandated desegregation. As Balmer explains, there were many other attempts to rally evangelical Christians to become a conservative movement to support Republicans—“pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion”—but none took. Under the guidance of Jerry Falwell, however, it was discovered that evangelical leaders would rally to keep black students out of private schools set up specifically so white kids didn’t have to go to desegregated public schools. Even though it was actually the Nixon administration that kickstarted the process of the IRS stripping tax-exempt status from “whites only” school, Falwell and his buddies blamed Jimmy Carter and used the issue to start rallying support for Ronald Reagan’s challenge. It was only after the evangelical right was organized that they started expanding into other issues, like abortion.

2. NRA used to support gun control.

The NRA is a gun industry lobby that likes to present itself as a “rights” group. With that level of deceit, no wonder many people, especially on the right, assume that the group has always existed to lobby against any restriction on access to firearms, or that gun control is a relatively new phenomenon only invented by pansy liberals in the past few decades. In reality, the government has been controlling access to guns for a long, long time. While there have been limits on gun ownership throughout the country’s history—often for sexist and racist reasons, such as bans on black people owning guns—the first modern federal gun control law passed in 1934, to stop the proliferation of automatic sub-machine guns that were popular with organized criminals. Prior to that, many states passed laws regulating guns, laws conservatives would reject today, such as waiting periods and requiring gun sellers to share information with police. The NRA actually helped write these laws.

And why not? The NRA was started as a marksman and sporting club, so there was no real reason to oppose gun control laws, until recent decades when it morphed into a lobby to protect the profits of gun manufacturers. Even as late as 1963, the NRA supported gun control laws. It was only as the culture wars began to build and the conservative movement developed that the NRA turned into the organization it is now, feeding paranoia and faux-patriotism to gullible conservatives in order to convince them to buy more guns.

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

A lot of pundits and other charlatans like to deflect discussion of modern racism by claiming that Democrats were the ones who tried to stop the Civil Rights Act and Republicans were the ones who tried to pass it. Considering that it was a liberal Democrat—Lyndon B. Johnson—who signed the CRA, it’s clear that it was much more complicated than that. Yes, it’s true that some Democrats opposed the CRA and plenty of Republicans supported it. But the party lines were not drawn the same back then. Back then, both parties had a mix of liberals and conservatives, and since then, the parties have realigned, with all the conservatives—who voted against the CRA—stampeding to the Republican party and all the liberals—who voted for the CRA—running to the Democrats.

As Harry Enten, writing for the Guardian, notes, party was a poor predictor of a politician’s vote for the CRA in 1964. A far better predictor was state of origin. In the House, 90 percent of politicians from former Union states voted for it and only 8 percent of politicians from the South did. In the Senate, 92 percent of lawmakers from the Union states voted for the CRA, but only 5 percent—1 out of 22—of Southern senators did so. In other words, the votes against it came primarily from what we now consider the immovable “red” states—a permanent bloc of Republicans. And it was anger over the CRA that switched those previously Democratic states to Republican voters. The only states that voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, besides Arizona,were Southern states.

Indeed, the best way to understand what happened in 1964 is that the CRA kicked off a process where the Republicans started to gather up all the conservative voters and Democrats expelled the racist vote but picked up all the liberals. Focusing on race instead of ideological leaning is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, when any honest assessment of the situation shows that the real divide was between conservatives and liberals, which remains the divide that governs our country today, even as the parties have rebranded themselves.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

The most recent and possibly silliest about-face of the modern conservative movement has to be the turnaround on Common Core, a program initiated by the National Governors Association to standardize and elevate educational standards across the country. Originally, conservatives were indifferent to outright supportive of the program—many Republican governors considered themselves fans—and pretty much all the criticism came from people on the left, who were concerned that it would be used as cover for attacks on teacher’s unions and would favor “teach the test”-style memorization over actual education.

Then President Obama endorsed it in 2012. Immediately, the right decided that Common Core was a sinister conspiracy to shove liberal ideology down children’s throats (never mind that many educational experts on the left are against it). Liberals make measured criticisms of Common Core, saying it might squelch imagination and writing skills. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken to accusing the Obama administration of using Common Core to steal children away and teach them to have sex and get divorced so they’ll vote for Democrats. A calm, rational discussion of the program is basically impossible, because the entire debate has been taken over by right-wing nuts who have forgotten that, a mere two years ago, they were cool with a program they now compare to Nazi indoctrination.

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore - Salon.com

All true.

And, as we all know, truth is like kryptonite to rightwingnuts, it disturbs their cherished delusions and myths and denial of reality, ergo all of the pointless nonsense and drivel they've posted on this thread.

 

[Samson]

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore

1. The religious right started because of segregation, not abortion.

As Randall Balmer, a Darthmouth professor writing in Politico, explained in a recent article, the organized religious right started as a movement to protect white-only schools from federally mandated desegregation. As Balmer explains, there were many other attempts to rally evangelical Christians to become a conservative movement to support Republicans—“pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion”—but none took. Under the guidance of Jerry Falwell, however, it was discovered that evangelical leaders would rally to keep black students out of private schools set up specifically so white kids didn’t have to go to desegregated public schools. Even though it was actually the Nixon administration that kickstarted the process of the IRS stripping tax-exempt status from “whites only” school, Falwell and his buddies blamed Jimmy Carter and used the issue to start rallying support for Ronald Reagan’s challenge. It was only after the evangelical right was organized that they started expanding into other issues, like abortion.

2. NRA used to support gun control.

The NRA is a gun industry lobby that likes to present itself as a “rights” group. With that level of deceit, no wonder many people, especially on the right, assume that the group has always existed to lobby against any restriction on access to firearms, or that gun control is a relatively new phenomenon only invented by pansy liberals in the past few decades. In reality, the government has been controlling access to guns for a long, long time. While there have been limits on gun ownership throughout the country’s history—often for sexist and racist reasons, such as bans on black people owning guns—the first modern federal gun control law passed in 1934, to stop the proliferation of automatic sub-machine guns that were popular with organized criminals. Prior to that, many states passed laws regulating guns, laws conservatives would reject today, such as waiting periods and requiring gun sellers to share information with police. The NRA actually helped write these laws.

And why not? The NRA was started as a marksman and sporting club, so there was no real reason to oppose gun control laws, until recent decades when it morphed into a lobby to protect the profits of gun manufacturers. Even as late as 1963, the NRA supported gun control laws. It was only as the culture wars began to build and the conservative movement developed that the NRA turned into the organization it is now, feeding paranoia and faux-patriotism to gullible conservatives in order to convince them to buy more guns.

3. Conservatives have always been the voting bloc to stop civil rights.

A lot of pundits and other charlatans like to deflect discussion of modern racism by claiming that Democrats were the ones who tried to stop the Civil Rights Act and Republicans were the ones who tried to pass it. Considering that it was a liberal Democrat—Lyndon B. Johnson—who signed the CRA, it’s clear that it was much more complicated than that. Yes, it’s true that some Democrats opposed the CRA and plenty of Republicans supported it. But the party lines were not drawn the same back then. Back then, both parties had a mix of liberals and conservatives, and since then, the parties have realigned, with all the conservatives—who voted against the CRA—stampeding to the Republican party and all the liberals—who voted for the CRA—running to the Democrats.

As Harry Enten, writing for the Guardian, notes, party was a poor predictor of a politician’s vote for the CRA in 1964. A far better predictor was state of origin. In the House, 90 percent of politicians from former Union states voted for it and only 8 percent of politicians from the South did. In the Senate, 92 percent of lawmakers from the Union states voted for the CRA, but only 5 percent—1 out of 22—of Southern senators did so. In other words, the votes against it came primarily from what we now consider the immovable “red” states—a permanent bloc of Republicans. And it was anger over the CRA that switched those previously Democratic states to Republican voters. The only states that voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, besides Arizona,were Southern states.

Indeed, the best way to understand what happened in 1964 is that the CRA kicked off a process where the Republicans started to gather up all the conservative voters and Democrats expelled the racist vote but picked up all the liberals. Focusing on race instead of ideological leaning is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, when any honest assessment of the situation shows that the real divide was between conservatives and liberals, which remains the divide that governs our country today, even as the parties have rebranded themselves.

4. They were for Common Core before they were against it.

The most recent and possibly silliest about-face of the modern conservative movement has to be the turnaround on Common Core, a program initiated by the National Governors Association to standardize and elevate educational standards across the country. Originally, conservatives were indifferent to outright supportive of the program—many Republican governors considered themselves fans—and pretty much all the criticism came from people on the left, who were concerned that it would be used as cover for attacks on teacher’s unions and would favor “teach the test”-style memorization over actual education.

Then President Obama endorsed it in 2012. Immediately, the right decided that Common Core was a sinister conspiracy to shove liberal ideology down children’s throats (never mind that many educational experts on the left are against it). Liberals make measured criticisms of Common Core, saying it might squelch imagination and writing skills. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken to accusing the Obama administration of using Common Core to steal children away and teach them to have sex and get divorced so they’ll vote for Democrats. A calm, rational discussion of the program is basically impossible, because the entire debate has been taken over by right-wing nuts who have forgotten that, a mere two years ago, they were cool with a program they now compare to Nazi indoctrination.

4 inconvenient facts conservatives conveniently ignore - Salon.com

All true.

And, as we all know, truth is like kryptonite to rightwingnuts, it disturbs their cherished delusions and myths and denial of reality, ergo all of the pointless nonsense and drivel they've posted on this thread.

Echo chamber.