Liberal double standard

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Oh my gosh, yes, "patriot", payroll taxes have gone back to where they were during the. . . wait for it. . . George W Bush era. Gasp! It's the end of the world as we know it!

    Good heavens.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 4:07 p.m.

    Obama didn't vote himself in on Nov 6th - the MAJORITY of the people in this country did it with their eyes wide open. This tells you more about the sorry state of the people of this once great country than anything else. Liberals have been barking with joy since Nov 6 and rightly so since their guy won. Some of that joy was diminished a bit a week ago when reality set in and many people got their first pay check of 2013 and saw LESS take home pay and MORE taxes. The way it was supposed to work was ONLY the evil rich got a tax increase but surprise surprise. Wait a year for more "surprises" liberals - HINT: your take home pay will continue to DECLINE but remember you voted for it.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    You are correct the GOP that was in office during the time of GW Bush was not what most GOP members wanted.

    They spent a lot of money and did some pretty stupid things.. that cost them in the 2006 election...

    They realized they had strayed from their core beliefs... Well Now the democrats have taken over and in 4 years raised the debt more than Bush did in 8 years.

    their really far left members have caused some pretty stalemate sittuation in Congress. then on 2010, the Tea Party members got elected on the GOP ticket.

    Now we have two extremes portions in their respective party that is stagnating the congress into being the congress of do nothing....

    My point to all this is pretty simple. When both parties members (the people that vote these guys into office) will wake up and vote for people who will actually work for them and not the party, who will work with other side to come up with the best solution, this sitution will become better, until then? gridlock, bickering, etc will contiune.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    confused, George W Bush had a Republican controlled Congress, both houses, when he came into office, and for six of his eight years in the presidency. He was handed a budget surplus and a path to having the National Debt paid off by now. The Federal fiscal year begins in October. When the Republicans lost control of congress in '06, their budget plans would run for almost another year before anything the Democrats would do would kick in.

    For those of us that can actually learn from history, we saw exactly what the Republicans did when they had total control of the federal government. They spent like there was no tomorrow, and they ran up massive debt, and put us firmly on the fiscal trajectory we are on now. Plus, the Republicans that were behind the Bush disaster are still sitting in both the House and Senate, and they are asking for us to trust them. They are pretending they are fiscal conservatives. No thanks. I saw what they do.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    Your right, liberals do not lose the big elections. This last one was the biggest election of all time and so according to Beck we were going to have a miracle new great leader. It happened and he won.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:50 p.m.

    Actually the way you wrote that the GOP does not want reduced government by siting several GOP presidents...

    So my response was "you can say the same thing about the Democrats"...

    I then point out what mountainman was saying... Every time there has been a smaller Federal government, it was due to the fact that the GOP control House and or Senate was in charge.

    BushI, Bush II (second term) Reagan all had to deal with democrats controlling the house and/or senate....

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:36 p.m.

    What differences and reason justify denying marriage to this group higv?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    There is a bigger diffrence between Man and Women and race. Blacks, Whites, Indian Men and Women can do the same things, Same for Women. There are many things Men can do that women can't and vice versa. Gender diffrence there for a reason.

  • Joyce Wilson Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    Confused - no I cannot give you an example of a Democratic president reducing the size of government nor do Democrats constantly espouse reducing government. If you will read just about any comment from Mountanman he almost always brings up that issue so I was addressing his constant comments about conservatives/Republicans and their supposed 'belief' in small(er) government but when given the opportunity they never do anything about it.

    So actually there was no need for you to response to something I did not write.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    George, you are absolutely correct. I am a huge fan of freedom. Unfortunately, it is people like lost that do not understand true freedom. They think it is more acceptable for them to control who you can love and marry, then for you to have the freedom to choose for yourself who you will marry.

    They love freedom, only when they can control it.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:08 a.m.


    Those that where against interracial marriage pined that all people have the same right to marry people of their own race. Forty plus years later this argument still makes no more sense when applied to this situation.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Can you name a democratic president that has reduced the government? Ah you might say "President Clinton", but you would be wrong....

    You see the only way the goverment gets smaller is by the House of Representative. You see they are the ones that controls the purse strings for the government.

    There is only one time that I can think of in modern history where the goverment actually reduced itself and that was when Clinton and the House speaker (Newt Gringich) actually worked together to come up with a plan and actually sold it to the house.

    The issues today is not if you are liberal or conservative. That is actually a good thing because it helps produce a better system. The issue that is stagnating this country and ripping it by it threads, is the "Extreme" members of both parties. They have just enough votes to clog any type of common sense (word compormise works as well)solution to actually happened.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    re:Christian 24-7
    Cite the cases. Name or places of the pastor who was required to perform a marriage against his religious beliefs, and the pharmacy required to dispense the abortion pill(RU486).

    The Deseret News did print a story of Cathy DeCarlo in New York who filed suit because she was allegedly required to participate in an abortion which went against her religious beliefs. Obviously this was an anamoly which is why it made the news.

    So, should we base our assumptions on the exceptions or the rule (ie law)?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 5:48 p.m.


    All three of those examples came from lawsuits in various states, and lower courts have ruled to force these people to give services against their religion. All have been appealed as well.

    There is a liberal constituency trying to deny Americans the right to choose to live their religion, and obviously, in the case of those suing the doctor and the pharmacists, these are people who profess to be pro-choice.

    While supporting homosexual marriage does not usually get called "pro-choice", it is about giving a group of people a specific choice. But when supporters of homosexual marriage seek to take away the choice of others that seems very hypocritical.

    We can only hope those demanding choices that some of us find abhorrent and morally wrong, will learn that others also have the right to choices in their personal lives too, and will quit hauling them to court, bankrupting them, and trying to take those rights and their businesses/parishes away. We also need solid court precedence so lower courts will rule correctly, instead of ruining lives and bankrupting people in a sea of appeals.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    @Mountanman; God does nothing.

    @DC; Your double standard is showing.

    @TG "Bud" Mahas; If your marriage is threatened by gays getting married, you should take a good, long look at just what it is you're doing wrong. It isn't "the gay's fault", it is yours.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    Lost in DC "“guns” on hip protesting Obamacare? Really?" Yes hyperbole at all. News cast after news cast showing tea party organized rallys against the ACA with multiple people walking around with guns on their hips.

    Mountain have all of history backwards. The founding fathers were liberal revolutionaries who tried a small federal government and then rejected it for a strong central government. Joyce is absolutely right about the modern conservative movement. They have no interest in the size of government. What they are interested in is the structure of government. They want as big a government as it takes to funnell most of the wealth of the nation to the top. They have no interest in the size of government relative to the welfare of the citizenry just size and structure it takes to influence the flow of wealth.

  • scoder Layton, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    I love hearing people on the Right side of the political spectrum say that they want smaller government, yet when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001 to 2007 we had the largest growth of government in history. Also the largest growth of the deficit.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 5, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    Re:Christian 24-7
    You are very uninformed.

    You stated: “Being a physician and choosing NOT to murder the unborn”

    Fact: 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 43 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.

    You stated:
    “Pastors choosing to perform marriages only in accordance with their religious beliefs”

    Fact: Pastors are NOT REQUIRED to perform marriages not in accordance with their beliefs.

    You stated: “Being a pharmacist and choosing NOT to carry abortion pills”

    Fact: Mifepristone (RU486/abortion drug) was approved under the second part of sub-section H. The result is that women CANNOT pick the drug up at a pharmacy but must receive it directly from a doctor.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    Pastors choosing to perform marriages only in accordance with their religious beliefs
    Expressing values in public (lest someone be offended)
    Choosing to live my religion in everything I do and everywhere I go

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    We have a Constitution that LIMITS the Federal Government to ONLY do those things that are enumerated in the Constitution. Anyone, liberal or conservative, who demands that we receive anything from the Frederal Government that we have not authorized the Federal Government to provide - and authorized the Federal Government to tax ALL of us to provide that service - is to be left to the States or to the people.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Another favorite double standard, the DNC is pro-choice. But they only apply it to murdering the unborn.

    But not to:

    Being a physician and choosing NOT to murder the unborn
    Being a pharmacist and choosing NOT to carry abortion pills


  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    If I have two cows, I should give one to you because you have none. If I have two goats, I should give one to you because you have none. If I have two horses - stop, you know I have two horses.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    Another favorite double standard, the DNC is pro-choice. But they only apply it to killing the unborn.

    But not on:

    Being a physician and choosing NOT to kill the unborn
    Being a pharmacist and choosing NOT to carry abortion pills
    Free speech which is pro-religion or pro-conservative
    Owning the gun of my choice
    Choosing the size of my soda
    Choosing my type of light bulb
    Choosing whether or not to buy health insurance

    And a bunch of others the screeners won't let me say.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    to Mountanman 9:41 a.m. Jan. 5, 2013

    Then explain; a bloated DoD, TSA, DHS, & the Patriot act?

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Lost in DC,

    Thank you for the delicious dose of irony in your last post:

    "One could also easily argue that liberals do have one very solid standard – “everything associated with conservatives is bad” seems to be their most solid standard."

    Preceded by:

    "one could easily argue liberals have no standards, whatever suits them at the time is OK"

    You accused "liberals" of doing the same thing you yourself did two sentences earlier. Just thought I would point that out.

    As far as Mr. Mahas's editorial, you can find an example of conservatives doing everything he accuses liberals of doing. It's a deliberately partisan article that ignores practices within his own political party. That's worth pointing out too.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Can I just suggest that there's not a more pointless exercise on the planet than to define one's political opponents. "Liberals believe" or "conservatives believe"; it's all just nonsense. "Well, as everyone knows, conservatives believe in torturing kittens. As it happens, I just disagree with that. I think we should gently pet kittens." Really, what's the point.
    Liberals and conservatives are mostly reasonable, intelligent, patriotic people who happen to disagree about policy. And those disagreements don't necessarily mean we care about the same issues. Conservatives do actually believe in smaller government. That doesn't mean liberals believe in larger government. It could mean, for example, that the size of government is an issue liberals don't care about at all.

  • Joyce Wilson Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Mountanman - I love breaking it to you but no republican/conservative president, no republican/conservative majority in Congress has ever reduced the size of government or reduced its intrusive power. Not Nixon. Not Reagan. Not a Bush. Not the 'Contract On America' crowd. Not the Tea Party faction. None of them. In fact,they have almost always expanded its powers, costs, and its deficits, or simply let the status-quo remain (paraphrased from another site).

    So you can spout your tired old rhetoric about small(er) government but when the opportunity is present it just never happens. I am a Democrat and an LDS one at that but I am also fiscally conservative and a moderate on most of my views - yep, a rare breed indeed. I have not and do not buy into any national party platform as I have my own personal platform which I believe most Americans have their own also. I will not go lock-step with any party but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case with many of my fellow Utahns that think a particular letter defines the individual or themself.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    You are accurate in your description of liberals.

    But one could also say you are very inaccurate – in order to have a double of anything, you need to have the initial one of that thing, and one could easily argue liberals have no standards, whatever suits them at the time is OK.

    One could also easily argue that liberals do have one very solid standard – “everything associated with conservatives is bad” seems to be their most solid standard.

    Gays have no fewer rights than anyone else. The basis for your argument erroneous.

    “guns” on hip protesting Obamacare? Really? More hyperbole that old man likes to decry, but this time it reflects DNC hate speech.

    If you truly are the former, you could not have done the latter.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    But, Ultra Bob, do you think things might just be a whole lot better if we DID have to account for them?

    And now, before anyone tries to nail me for that comment, let me confess that I struggle very hard to avoid them. Trouble is, I don't always succeed.

    But anyone who claims to have no double standards is simply not being truthful.

    Y'know, it really is tough being a human sometimes.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    @mountainman. Conservatives do not believe in limited government. If they did they would of not kicked Ron Paul to the curb. Conservatives believe corporations should have the power of the people. Conservatives believe they should legislate morals instead of letting people choose for themselves. Conservatives believe we should occupy the world in the name of self defense.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Other popular double standards people use include those for rich versus poor, men versus women, black versus white, business versus workers, big versus little, adults, versus children,
    God-religious versus Non-God-religious and a million others.

    The clear winner at the top of the list seems to always be rich versus poor.

    Thank heaven we don’t have to account for all our double standards.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Spin? Or tell the truth? Can anyone explain exactly why pointing out that the patriots of the revolution were liberals and Tories were conservatives is "spinning?"

    Does truth make conservatives dizzy? Apparently so.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    One old man-

    Not sure how you come to the conclusion that the tories were conservatives. They wanted the big bloated government and a king to provide and protect them. Sounds to me like the liberal of today.

    The revolutionary patriots wanted government out of the way, there to protect their rights, not grant them.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    These labels being tossed out just don't fit. I'm a conservative who voted democrat.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    When conservatives win an election, they like to say they're the most American, the Patriotic, the most American. They say they will fight and defend the Constitution.
    They say States laws supercede Federal law.

    But when they lose, they call it a fraud and a sham. It's always declared unconstitutional, illegal or Chicago-style politics. They petition the Government to secede from the United States of America. They suddenly say States like Washington and Colorado CAN'T make their own laws. They want Peace and Start Wars. They want lower taxes and less spending - yet they spend more, and make ZERO effort to fund it -- creating Nation debt. They say they want Government out of their lives, but they tell people who they can marry, how women can take care of themselves, and make laws based on racism.

    Ya- there's a Double standard alrighty....but Liberals are hardly the example of it.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    One old man: Conservatives have always believed in limited government, always have, always will and you trying to spin history doesn't change anything!

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    "When liberals win an election, they like to say it's the voice of the people."

    Yeah, so do conservatives. The 2004 presidential and 2010 congressional elections come to mind. What's your point, Mr. Mahas?

    "But when they lose, it's often declared unconstitutional, illegal or racist"

    As opposed to conservatives, who first blamed the media, then blamed "free stuff" promised to the poor & minorities, then blamed the American citizenry, then blamed Romney himself for the 2012 presidential election loss?

    "When conservatives try to protect traditional marriage"

    Banning rights from gays does not protect traditional marriage. Only heterosexual couples who work to keep traditional marriages from failing at a rate of 50% can do that. Your marriage is not threatened by gays.

    "I cry for future generations"

    When I think of the advances we have made in tolerance and secularism, I certainly don't. If you want to cry for future generations, do so because of the resource challenges that are likely to accompany a world with 20 billion people living on it.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    And the tea party, with their guns on hip protesting the Affordable Health Care Act were what?

    You know mountainman this whole god gives rights not government would be funny if it weren't so sad. Where was Rosa Parks god given right to sit at the front of the bus? Where was my grandmothers god given right to vote when she turned 21? And by the way try getting a business license from god.

    Liberals don't worship government. Government just is what it is..a secular organization to manage the secular affairs of our society..that's it..nothing more. Your rants about liberals intentions and purposes are ridiculous.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    I see you found little in the original letter to actually comment about and just used this as an opportunity to make baseless attacks.

    Government is God? Well, on criteria that weak I could make the claim that conservatives believe Money and Guns are their Gods.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Funny thing is that the naughty patriots were indeed LIBERALS. In those days, the conservatives were called Tories.

    Sometimes history is downright inconvenient, isn't it?

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    T.G. Mahas,

    Yes, we liberals will continue to fight for social justice because that is what we do.

    Your comment about "protecting traditional marriage" is simply disingenuous. Denying marriage rights to some does nothing to "protect" those rights for others. Traditional marriage will be just as it is, if not stronger, by including everyone who wants and deserves it.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    God gives people rights, not the government! At least that is what our founding fathers believed and wrote a constitution that limits the power of the government. Liberals think the government is God and thou shalt have no other Gods before the government! King George really knew what was best for those naughty patriots didn't he liberals?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    I know you won't get it but it's a 180 degree difference to give rights to people rather than take them away.

    So you will find a lot of opposition to keep gays from having rights and liberals will have a lot of trouble trying to restrict conservatives guns. See, it's not all that different is it?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    Okay, let's try again to please the DN censors.

    This letter can equally apply to the reactions of conservatives when something controversial doesn't go the way they want it to go. Rush and Glenn and others who use hate radio to stir the masses begin bleating loudly and various conservative publications editorialize endlessly.

    Perhaps the real problem is that Americans on all sides act like spoiled children rather than thinking adults.

    Could that be the reason why Congress cannot accomplish anything?