Any of you do any fact checking? You might have found this in the USA Today article that Ms. Pavlich cites: “While on paper the federal corporate tax rate is 35%, companies usually pay far less than that because of loopholes and subsidies.” - just what the Center for American Progress says. They just don’t think $31 billion is enough. No one disputes that oil companies are the most profitable in history. They can afford high powered attorneys to minimize their taxes. So why are you peckerwoods stepping on your own cranks to support their paying less? Do you propose to make up the difference? Why not look out for your own interests & those of people like you? Let the fat cats look out for themselves. They're sure not looking out for you!

Ever seen an anencephalic baby? Ever watched what happens to a family that tries to "raise" an anencephalic child? Well, I have. A nurse in the hospital where I trained carried hers to term, then tried to give the severely handicapped creature a "fulfilling" life. She drove herself into neurosis, alienated her husband, and neglected her two year old son, who developed serious emotional problems - all so that she could pretend that her daughter was anything more than a brainless lump of protoplasm. In the end, her baby died at the age of four months, with less intellect than a flatworm, and her family was destroyed, emotionally and financially. It was stupid, tragic, unnecessary.

You left out murders using handguns, which are the most common weapons used in homicides. Funny that you'd do that. Wouldn't be because your argument doesn't hold water, would it? Knives, hammers, cars, airplanes, concrete blocks and countless other objects can be (and are) used in murders, but these objects have other uses that justify their existence. Besides, when it's feasible, they're modified or restricted in order to reduce their use in crimes. Only guns, which are designed specifically to kill, seem to be exempt. That's nuts.

Oh, yeah? So, where's the evidence for your assertion, bright boy? Not in the news, that's for sure. Nor do police reports or FBI crime statistics support your claim. How come we hardly ever hear of such events until this kind of debate occurs and then you gun nuts pull some ridiculous number out of your backsides without the slightest proof? You believe it, because you want to believe it.

Not long ago a local Colorado newspaper reported the following events: a homeowner who had just purchased a handgun for "home defense" was demonstrating its use to a neighbor. With dusk approaching, they repaired to the man's back yard and were startled, when a masked figure sprang at them from the shadows. The man leveled his weapon and fired several rounds, whereupon the intruder fell. When the man and his neighbor removed the mask, they discovered that the dead intruder was the man's seventeen year old son. No charges had been filed. Reports like this one appear ALL THE TIME in cities and towns around America. So what do they "prove"?

Nonsense! For every one of Mr. Hawkins anecdotes, I can open a daily newspaper from almost anywhere in the country and produce numerous examples of people killed or wounded by guns in private hands. There are more than 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year, around 11,000 of them homicides. So how much weight do Hawkins' measly ten reports carry? They're a drop in the bucket!

Item 10 - one of the stupidest & most easily debunked. Liberals don't espouse equality of outcome, but they do reject the kind of "I'm all right, Jack. Screw everybody else!" attitude that characterizes laissez faire conservatism. A minimal standard of living is not just moral. It makes good sense from a practical point of view. People who are beset by uncertainty & want cannot contribute effto their own betterment. A clear illustration of this can be found in public schools, where food deprived children from the poorest households cannot learn effectively & fail to benefit from their educational opportunities. Providing such children - or all children - with a nutritious meal at public expense is money well spent.

Hawkins got carried away on this one. He'd have been better off sticking with, say, only 14 items than delving into this foetid mishmash of juvenile superstition & primitive religious imagery. Conservative boasting about "faith" and their persistent "holier than thou" posturing in religious matters is one of their more unsavory characteristics. It comes at some cost too, since it leaves them open to the justifiable charge that they aspire to become an "American Taliban". The Founders were right to declare that religion mixes poorly with public policy. Conservatives should take their advice.

Item 13 demonstrates conservative ignorance of the fallacy: “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” Liberals are frequently in charge of communities with large African American populations and manifold problems, because they've demonstrated their concern for these communities. Black voters rarely choose conservatives, because conservatives (who are mostly white) dislike black people, rarely do anything to help them, and consistently promote policies that favor the rich and hammer the poor.

These essays actually reflect the conservative proclivity for projection: attributing their own undesirable characteristics to others. The best example of this is probably Item 9. No one engages in more vicious and gratuitous slander than conservatives. Sandra Fluke never even mentioned Rush Limbaugh until he took it upon himself to deride and insult her on his radio show (while demonstrating at the same time how little he knew about human reproduction!) Conservatives routinely respond to even moderate criticism with torrents of hysterical invective and accusations of hate speech, presumably as a way of deflecting further criticism.