The smugness of this article is why I vote Republican.

That, and Jesus didn't kill all the dinosaurs and found America so we would ask questions first and shoot second.

PS: This might just be my public school education talking....but last time I checked, there's no "we" in America, but there is a "me". Just saying...

"there's no "we" in America, but there is a "me". ~ and there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

Evidently Democrats wouldn't know sarcasm if it was staring them in the face.

Thanks for giving me another reason to vote republican.

PS: democrats have been running this state for decades, yet we are last or near last in everything. when can I expect the streets paved with gold utopia to start?

I'm not sure why our great governors Lincoln Almond or Donald Carcieri didn't think of paving the streets in gold!! They did such a great job in running every other aspect of our state.

Hi RationalResponder, when you begin a commentary with "the smugness of this article", you open yourself up to criticism. Is there a reason to be so adversarial and combative? Why not challenge a point directly instead of being insulting. Why not be civil? Would that be possible? Please challenge a point with logic instead of vitriol?

Even the name "RationalResponder" seems to give you some air of superiority. Like democrats are unable to think rationally about issues before making decisions on them.

Ok, I will. I just think you're list makes it seem like if you vote republican you must be either evil or stupid. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't think everyone should get healthcare...I just disagree that Obamacare is the way to go. I don't hate women, or arabs, or the poor. What I do think is that women now across the board outpace men in college enrollemnt and graduation...so why do I read every other day that men somehow need to empower them? I think affirmative action, which once was a necessity, is now more about making sure everyone feels good about having a rainbow classroom than actually doing any good...and that continuing to place an emphasis on race is how you keep prejudices, not erase them.

I do believe this is a society of we....but how about we stop the unchecked entitlements? They treat merely the symptoms of proverty, not the causes. How about subsidizing paychecks to help people get jobs and training, rather than just handing out more and more money?

I mean are you trying to say that people who vote republican think the rich shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes??

I don't think republicans deny that medicare and SS help people. what we say is that they are broken and need to be fixed.

you believe in regulations to keep corp greed in check? well what about all the politicians (dems and reps) who continue to use insider knowledge to grow their own wealth? Ask pelosi about all the money she made on her Visa stock while she was working on credit card legislation.

also thank you for pointing out 2 republican RI politicians as if they somehow negates the fact that this state bleeds blue.

I'm surprised there wasn't a big "White Male Power" at the end of that rant.

"Even the name "RationalResponder" seems to give you some air of superiority. Like democrats are unable to think rationally about issues before making decisions on them."

i just think liberals are idealists and conservatives are realists. sure we'd all love for everyone to get all the healthcare in the world, and for there to be no war or poverty. just because i disagree about the feasibility or constitutionality of your plans does not mean i am against the principle behind them.

i am sick of being made to feel as though i am somehow evil or backwards for disagreeing with the run away spending, bloated and unchecked entitlements, and the like.

but for the record i do agree on the social issues of gay marriage, pro choice and marijuana. just because i rock, doesn't mean i'm made of stone.

problems in the plans and lying/corrupt politicians exists on both sides of the aisle.

Maybe you should tell ol' Mitt how you feel. I'm sure he has no problem changing his stance on any of the above mentioned issues. Obama 2012!

RationalResponder,
I forget the rest, but your mother's a w..re

John - Shame on you. Just because your choice of words is a bit more tactful (read: passive aggressive) doesn't make you any less guilty of committing the same fallacies as you are accusing RationalResponder of. Allow me to explain:

1) I believe in social safety nets for the poor and needy.
Obviously implying that anyone who votes on the other side of the isle DOESN'T believe in social safety nets for the poor and needy. But this isn't what you meant, is it? If you are referring to federally funded programs like welfare, etc, a more accurate description of this might read "I believe in federally funded programs that come out of my paycheck to provide support for both the poor and needy as well as those who may be taking advantage of the system to the detriment of everyone. I believe in the continuation of this system without radical changes even though it is clearly unsustainable and the country is taking on massive dept to support it." Instead, you are trivializing complex issues in a way that is aimed at soliciting emotional responses out of readers so that they don't actually do any critical thinking on the issue. And I don’t blame you, because once that happens people start leaving the democratic camp.

2) I believe that health care is a right not a privilege.
Did you mean to say that 'I believe federally funded healthcare, again that comes out of my paycheck, is a right all Americans deserve, regardless of their ability to afford it for themselves or work to afford it for themselves, and irrespective of what the Constitution says." Your word 'Privilege' here is combative. Again, trying to illicit an emotional response. There is nothing that working hard to get an education so you can find a job that offers healthcare that says 'privilege'.

3) In the last 50 years despite having fewer years in office, more private sector jobs have been created by Democratic presidents (44 million vs 22 million)
This one is really even above and beyond. I don't know where this statistic came from, but you can't reasonably believe statisticians or economists or whomever came up with this could reasonable do so with any amount of accuracy. Does this really mean that in aggregate, the private sector saw a growth of 44 million jobs during the tenure of democratic presidents? You can't possible prove cause and effect here. There are a ton of variables at play here besides which side of the isle the president is on. Again, you are trivializing a complex issue so that it supports your opinion, regardless of its true accuracy or true relevance to what you are trying to convey. I could go on through the rest of your points, especially numbers 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 23, 24, & 25, but I think you can understand my point. You know that old saying, when you point a finger there are 3 more pointing right back at you. Please hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to.

I'm really not sure why it's possible for you guys to have a debate without spewing insults. But as far as the statistic that I put up, just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's false. There's plenty of data that proves these figures to be accurate. This statistic comes straight from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (Bloomberg and CNN) http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politics/fact-check-clinton-jobs/index.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-06/bill-clinton-asserts-democrats-create-more-jobs-reality-check.html