A Few Tough Questions

Member Group : Jerry Shenk

Why are so many normally polite and courteous people willing to insult others simply for not sharing their political views?

What words are reserved to describe Adolf Hitler, Josef Goebbels and the rest of that murderous lot by those who call "Nazis" other people with whom they merely disagree?

In the absence of genuine racial offense, what does it suggest about the merits of their case when people casually dismiss adversaries as "racist" just to shut down an argument?

Is it a fixed rule that one must be white to be racist? If non-whites exhibit racist behavior, but are excused from assuming the same moral responsibility demanded of whites, isn’t that, in itself, a form of racial prejudice?
Wouldn’t it be better for the nation if everyone, especially those on the American left, really were "liberal," and actually listened to and considered other points of view?

Is it true that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives? Did Dan Quayle spell "potatoe" accurately? Did Barack Obama actually campaign in all "57 states"?

Are modern Americans who respect and adhere to America’s enlightened founding principles really "unenlightened"?

Who or what has greater means to undermine personal freedoms, especially the freedom of expression, than a powerful organization like the Internal Revenue Service or other government agencies?

Is government really out of control, or does government have too much control over the lives of Americans?

If one accepts the premise that an essential element of President Barack Obama’s agenda is to elevate Americans’ trust in government, how do the scandals that have enveloped his administration engender trust or advance his policies?

Instead of reflexively ridiculing concerned Americans for asking questions about Benghazi, the IRS and the government seizure of media records, why aren’t Obama’s supporters interested in learning the truth – no matter where the truth leads?

For those who believe in limited government, do his many scandals provide opportunities to attack Barack Obama, or would it be better and more productive to use Obama’s scandals as object lessons to convince fellow citizens that the abuse of power is the logical outcome of bloated government no matter who holds the reins of power?

Is it merely coincidence that, for most liberals, "doing good things" always seems to require more government?

If liberals are convinced they can somehow create utopia by expanding the size and role of the state, what are liberalism’s limiting principles?
Are modern Americans who respect and adhere to America’s enlightened founding principles really "unenlightened"?

If they are, as they say, just pragmatic and reality-based, why are liberals so insistent on preserving the status quo on failing programs dating from the 1930s or 1960s?

Isn’t it a disservice to make needy Americans comfortable while offering no alternatives to poverty programs – and no means of escape? Why shouldn’t work requirements and drug testing be part of any public assistance program?
Shouldn’t we judge the success of America’s War on Poverty by how few need charity rather than by how much charity we give to people?

If we can or will not judge results that way, what are we doing wrong?
Are "good" or "noble" intentions all that matter? Shouldn’t politicians be judged on the quality of their outcomes?

What legislature formally passed the Law of Unintended Consequences, what chief executive signed it — and why aren’t politicians held accountable for theirs?
Is Islam a peaceful religion?

In the past three decades, how many unprovoked terrorist attacks on the innocent have been perpetrated by practicing Christians?

Why isn’t it acceptable to have legitimate reservations about the effects of gay marriage on our culture and society?

Can a nation unable to control its borders remain sovereign? Why isn’t border control the essential first step in setting immigration policy?

Is it man’s conceit that he caused global warming? Is it his arrogance that allows him to think he can "fix" it?

If one accepts the notion of global warming, why isn’t the better response to adapt to it rather than spending trillions to "fight" it?

Which provides more meaning for most Americans: family, friends, churches, communities and local civic institutions — or a huge central government?
If the answer is the former, why is America’s political class only aggressively encouraging and growing the latter?

If "…the truth will set you free…," why aren’t more American political figures seeking it?