CDZ Are RW's safe in arguing OUR ideas are proven and the LW's are all un/dis-proven?

[alang1216]

Nothing could be more irrelevant.

Don't underestimate me, I'm sure I can find something more irrelevant.

 

[Picaro]

they

I disagree; baby killing is quite popular with many right wing cultists as well, for instance. 'Many 'Libertarians' are just as big on 'NAMBLA Logic' as left wing mass murderers are. they're big on 'Social Darwinism', never mind they don't seern to understand Darwin's theories well at all; that isn't a handicap in their minds. they can rely on Cato and some other Koch fronts to tell them what they need to recite. 'Right wing' and 'conservative' aren't synonyms.

Who said anything about baby killing?

I did; you seem to have a bizarre belief that right wingers all care about 'truth'. They don't, many share a lot of rubbish beliefs with left wingers.

Quote where I said "all."

You cant do it.

I dn't have to, your claim is out there. What you can't do is claim is right wingers don't support 'choice', or agree with left wingers on all sorts of 'causes' that are detrimental to the country.

Your exceptions (the rare, annecdotal and only occasional) actually prove the rule.

they aren't 'exceptions'; 'social Darwinism' is part and parcel of right wing ideology, and part of 'libertarian' ideology as well. Conservatives are less prone to babbling their solidarity with left wing social policies, their influences are still more based on a morality absent from ideologues and sociopaths.

 

[Chuz Life]

they

Who said anything about baby killing?

I did; you seem to have a bizarre belief that right wingers all care about 'truth'. They don't, many share a lot of rubbish beliefs with left wingers.

Quote where I said "all."

You cant do it.

I dn't have to, your claim is out there. What you can't do is claim is right wingers don't support 'choice', or agree with left wingers on all sorts of 'causes' that are detrimental to the country.

Your exceptions (the rare, annecdotal and only occasional) actually prove the rule.

they aren't 'exceptions'; 'social Darwinism' is part and parcel of right wing ideology, and part of 'libertarian' ideology as well. Conservatives are less prone to babbling their solidarity with left wing social policies, their influences are still more based on a morality absent from ideologues and sociopaths.

Projections (especially in the absence of supportive data) noted.

 

[Picaro]

they

I did; you seem to have a bizarre belief that right wingers all care about 'truth'. They don't, many share a lot of rubbish beliefs with left wingers.

Quote where I said "all."

You cant do it.

I dn't have to, your claim is out there. What you can't do is claim is right wingers don't support 'choice', or agree with left wingers on all sorts of 'causes' that are detrimental to the country.

Your exceptions (the rare, annecdotal and only occasional) actually prove the rule.

they aren't 'exceptions'; 'social Darwinism' is part and parcel of right wing ideology, and part of 'libertarian' ideology as well. Conservatives are less prone to babbling their solidarity with left wing social policies, their influences are still more based on a morality absent from ideologues and sociopaths.

Projections (especially in the absence of supportive data) noted.

You're just desperate to deflect, is all; duly noted. you can't back up what you said, so deny saying it which doesn't work unless you get a mod to delete your post. you know what I say is true about the right wing, and it's just as destructive and mindless as its left wing fellow sociopaths..

 

[Chuz Life]

they

Quote where I said "all."

You cant do it.

I dn't have to, your claim is out there. What you can't do is claim is right wingers don't support 'choice', or agree with left wingers on all sorts of 'causes' that are detrimental to the country.

Your exceptions (the rare, annecdotal and only occasional) actually prove the rule.

they aren't 'exceptions'; 'social Darwinism' is part and parcel of right wing ideology, and part of 'libertarian' ideology as well. Conservatives are less prone to babbling their solidarity with left wing social policies, their influences are still more based on a morality absent from ideologues and sociopaths.

Projections (especially in the absence of supportive data) noted.

You're just desperate to deflect, is all; duly noted. you can't back up what you said, so deny saying it which doesn't work unless you get a mod to delete your post. you know what I say is true about the right wing, and it's just as destructive and mindless as its left wing fellow sociopaths..

Thats funny, because you are the one trying to deflect and derail the thread. Not me.

So, you are projecting once again.

It is inarguable that Conservatives are typically more logical and orienteded to the "truth" and facts than "feel good" emotive leftardz are. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that is the case.

 

[Chuz Life]

I guess it wasn't proven to the electorate since we now have a Democratic House.

The party of the president loses the house in midterm election 92% of the time

True, but the margin they 'won' by is tiny relative to past mid-terms; many of the Democrats that gained seats were opposed to the Kavenaugh witch hunt, for instance, not a good thing for the freak show running the DNC now.

As rotten a candidate Hillary was and as good a candidate Trump was, she still got more votes than he did.

Even without the dead voters, illegals and other frauds?

Now you're just fantasizing. Trump put together a committee to look into these after the election. They quietly disbanded when they found no significant issues. The only fraud I'm aware of was done by the GOP.

Noncitizen illegal vote number higher than estimated - Washington Times

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Are RW's safe in arguing OUR ideas are proven and the LW's are all un/dis-proven?

What?

That you can NEVER spend too much on the military, that the poor should basically look after themselves, that trickle-down-economics works, that protectionism is good, that only paying lip service to a balanced budget is fine, that life begins at conception?

No...those ideas are NOT proven...unless you mean proven to be utter nonsense.

Both major parties offer some good ideas and a TON of stupid ones (the left's latest, socialism mania is a good example of the latter. Guaranteed income for all? Pleeeease.).

Everyone should look after themselves, you're otherwise promoting theft from those who have more than you. This is inherently unethical. If an unaccountable monopoly on arbitration is legitimate in stealing the fruits of your labor, you are necessarily their slave. Even if it wasn't completely unethical, the Government is not capable of sustaining itself, let alone any social programs, because of the law of diminishing returns(Less and less tax revenue is taken in upon reaching a 10% tax rate, is the high estimate) has shown that they'll simply collapse themselves eventually, as the cost of all of these agencies increases as more are added. The Even if points A and B were invalid, the Government is also incapable of properly allocating resources, due to the economic calculation problem.

"Trickle-down" is a buzzword. It's just economics. What the "right-wingers" do, though, is no different from what "the left" does, in the sense that they implement restrictions on the market which promote the creation of monopolies due to bigger businesses more easily acclimating to the increased cost of production. The concept of regulations is inherently flawed, not only because it promotes monopolies regardless of how it's implemented, but also because the Government doing this is assuming that they know how to run a business, while every business owner does not. This requires faith greater than that required by any "religion".

Life DOES begin at conception. At that moment, a life separate from that of the mother, with a unique DNA sequence, is created. Killing that is inherently unethical. The "right-wingers" are, however, still wrong because they believe that there are exceptions, when there is no exception to the taking of innocent life being unethical.