Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[P@triot]

Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

 

[P@triot]

For the past 10 years or so we had to hear from progressives how businesses were not private. How they belonged to the government and/or the public. How serving the public meant they had no right to refuse service.

Yet the past few days, progressives had drowned social media celebrating stories of businesses who "serve the public" denying Nazi and/or white supremacist groups service. One was a restaurant. The big news today was ISP and cloud services denying their services to a website called "Daily Stormer" (apparently some white supremacist site).

So what happened? When a business owner wanted to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs (fully protected by the U.S. Constitution), the left completely lost their shit. They insisted that it was "discrimination" and demanded that either the business be forced - at the barrel of a gun - to provide their products or services, or be run out of business.

And yet, when a business does the exact same thing to another group (for reasons not protected by the U.S. Constitution), all we hear from the fascists is "they have the right to refuse service".

This is what happens when views/ideologies are built from irrational emotion instead of logic and reason. There is an absurd contradiction and lack of consistency - which completely obliterates all credibility (hence the reason nobody takes the left seriously on anything).

 

[danielpalos]

This is why nobody should ever take the right wing seriously about economics, the law, or morals.

It is you that is not being taken seriously in this thread. We are laughing at you and your stupidity. Is that an act or are you really as stupid as you are coming off?

When are you going to answer P@triot's question?

Only the clueless and the Causeless, don't take me seriously.

Yeah, that is a real weak comeback there nutter. If anyone is clueless, we all know it is you.

The Republicans claim to have a Republican doctrine. They only invoke it to reduce social benefits for the poor, not the rich. How can the right wing justify a War on Drugs that is not in the Republican doctrine?

Why hasn't the Democrats stopped the war on drugs? They had a chance to stop the war just after Obama was elected and did nothing, didn't even address the issue. Sorry, the Democrats are empty headed fools that can't take responsibility for their part in the issue. Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

 

[danielpalos]

the left calls them, right wingers.

No...the liars call them "right wingers". The world calls them what they are - liberals.

seems like emotionalism, on your part.

 

[danielpalos]

For the past 10 years or so we had to hear from progressives how businesses were not private. How they belonged to the government and/or the public. How serving the public meant they had no right to refuse service.

Yet the past few days, progressives had drowned social media celebrating stories of businesses who "serve the public" denying Nazi and/or white supremacist groups service. One was a restaurant. The big news today was ISP and cloud services denying their services to a website called "Daily Stormer" (apparently some white supremacist site).

So what happened? When a business owner wanted to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs (fully protected by the U.S. Constitution), the left completely lost their shit. They insisted that it was "discrimination" and demanded that either the business be forced - at the barrel of a gun - to provide their products or services, or be run out of business.

And yet, when a business does the exact same thing to another group (for reasons not protected by the U.S. Constitution), all we hear from the fascists is "they have the right to refuse service".

This is what happens when views/ideologies are built from irrational emotion instead of logic and reason. There is an absurd contradiction and lack of consistency - which completely obliterates all credibility (hence the reason nobody takes the left seriously on anything).

Red herrings to show for an alleged work ethic?

 

[Papageorgio]

It is you that is not being taken seriously in this thread. We are laughing at you and your stupidity. Is that an act or are you really as stupid as you are coming off?

When are you going to answer P@triot's question?

Only the clueless and the Causeless, don't take me seriously.

Yeah, that is a real weak comeback there nutter. If anyone is clueless, we all know it is you.

The Republicans claim to have a Republican doctrine. They only invoke it to reduce social benefits for the poor, not the rich. How can the right wing justify a War on Drugs that is not in the Republican doctrine?

Why hasn't the Democrats stopped the war on drugs? They had a chance to stop the war just after Obama was elected and did nothing, didn't even address the issue. Sorry, the Democrats are empty headed fools that can't take responsibility for their part in the issue. Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

Yep, back to divert and deflect. You seem to do that well, however you practice that all the time.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the clueless and the Causeless, don't take me seriously.

Yeah, that is a real weak comeback there nutter. If anyone is clueless, we all know it is you.

The Republicans claim to have a Republican doctrine. They only invoke it to reduce social benefits for the poor, not the rich. How can the right wing justify a War on Drugs that is not in the Republican doctrine?

Why hasn't the Democrats stopped the war on drugs? They had a chance to stop the war just after Obama was elected and did nothing, didn't even address the issue. Sorry, the Democrats are empty headed fools that can't take responsibility for their part in the issue. Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

Yep, back to divert and deflect. You seem to do that well, however you practice that all the time.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, that is a real weak comeback there nutter. If anyone is clueless, we all know it is you.

The Republicans claim to have a Republican doctrine. They only invoke it to reduce social benefits for the poor, not the rich. How can the right wing justify a War on Drugs that is not in the Republican doctrine?

Why hasn't the Democrats stopped the war on drugs? They had a chance to stop the war just after Obama was elected and did nothing, didn't even address the issue. Sorry, the Democrats are empty headed fools that can't take responsibility for their part in the issue. Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

Yep, back to divert and deflect. You seem to do that well, however you practice that all the time.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

So you can't answer my questions, so you divert and deflect. Don't expect me to answer any of your questions when you aren't honest enough to answer any of mine.

 

[danielpalos]

The Republicans claim to have a Republican doctrine. They only invoke it to reduce social benefits for the poor, not the rich. How can the right wing justify a War on Drugs that is not in the Republican doctrine?

Why hasn't the Democrats stopped the war on drugs? They had a chance to stop the war just after Obama was elected and did nothing, didn't even address the issue. Sorry, the Democrats are empty headed fools that can't take responsibility for their part in the issue. Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

Yep, back to divert and deflect. You seem to do that well, however you practice that all the time.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

So you can't answer my questions, so you divert and deflect. Don't expect me to answer any of your questions when you aren't honest enough to answer any of mine.

Talk about deflection; your question is irrelevant or I would have answered already. I am not a right winger.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine?

Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why hasn't the Democrats stopped the war on drugs? They had a chance to stop the war just after Obama was elected and did nothing, didn't even address the issue. Sorry, the Democrats are empty headed fools that can't take responsibility for their part in the issue. Divert and deflect, is that the Democratic Party's doctrine?

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

Yep, back to divert and deflect. You seem to do that well, however you practice that all the time.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

So you can't answer my questions, so you divert and deflect. Don't expect me to answer any of your questions when you aren't honest enough to answer any of mine.

Talk about deflection; your question is irrelevant or I would have answered already. I am not a right winger.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine?

Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

More deflecting and not answering my question. I don't support the drug war, but the Democrats have done nothing to stop it. Not a damn thing, so until you walk the walk, you need to shut up your BS.

I'm for legalizing all drugs and run them through pharmacies, and taxing the, stated that a long time ago dumb ass. Care to answer my question? Of course not because you are a damn idiot and are not capable of giving a straight answer.

 

[P@triot]

your question is irrelevant or I would have answered already

Then it should be easy to answer. Your childish response here is a clear indication that you realize you painted yourself into a corner.

 

[P@triot]

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

But as we've already established, my fragile progressive snowflake, the "General Welfare" clause applies to the 18 enumerated powers only. Otherwise, President Trump and the Republican-controlled House and Senate could declare tomorrow that it would be in the "general welfare" of America to execute all progressives (which is true) and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it legally. Another reality you deflect, dodge, and run from when brought up.

 

[P@triot]

not any form of drug war clause.

What are you talking about? We absolutely have a drug war clause in the U.S. Constitution. It is written in several times.

The Preamble

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence”

Defending the people from the horrors of narcotics is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Article I, Section 1

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Congress has the power to legislate. That includes legislating narcotics.

Article I, Section 8

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence”

Once again my fragile progressive snowflake, we see that defending the people from the horrors of narcotics is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Seriously Daniel - this is why nobody takes you seriously about any topic/issue. We have to explain the U.S. Constitution to you daily.

 

[Papageorgio]

your question is irrelevant or I would have answered already

Then it should be easy to answer. Your childish response here is a clear indication that you realize you painted yourself into a corner.

Dishonest little guy, isn't he.

 

[danielpalos]

The democrats adhere to the federal doctrine much more than the republicans. The republicans, can't even adhere to their own doctrine, yet want to taken seriously, politically.

Yep, back to divert and deflect. You seem to do that well, however you practice that all the time.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

So you can't answer my questions, so you divert and deflect. Don't expect me to answer any of your questions when you aren't honest enough to answer any of mine.

Talk about deflection; your question is irrelevant or I would have answered already. I am not a right winger.

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine?

Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

More deflecting and not answering my question. I don't support the drug war, but the Democrats have done nothing to stop it. Not a damn thing, so until you walk the walk, you need to shut up your BS.

I'm for legalizing all drugs and run them through pharmacies, and taxing the, stated that a long time ago dumb ass. Care to answer my question? Of course not because you are a damn idiot and are not capable of giving a straight answer.

Y'all are all, political talk and no political action. Slackers.

 

[danielpalos]

your question is irrelevant or I would have answered already

Then it should be easy to answer. Your childish response here is a clear indication that you realize you painted yourself into a corner.

Can you re-state the question in a more cogent manner?

 

[danielpalos]

Where is the drug war in your Republican doctrine? Can't find it; don't waste our time asking for cuts to social spending; because, we do have a general welfare clause not any form of drug war clause.

But as we've already established, my fragile progressive snowflake, the "General Welfare" clause applies to the 18 enumerated powers only. Otherwise, President Trump and the Republican-controlled House and Senate could declare tomorrow that it would be in the "general welfare" of America to execute all progressives (which is true) and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it legally. Another reality you deflect, dodge, and run from when brought up.

so what; end the drug war, Because it is not there in the 18 listed powers.

 

[danielpalos]

not any form of drug war clause.

What are you talking about? We absolutely have a drug war clause in the U.S. Constitution. It is written in several times.

The Preamble

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence”

Defending the people from the horrors of narcotics is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Article I, Section 1

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Congress has the power to legislate. That includes legislating narcotics.

Article I, Section 8

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence”

Once again my fragile progressive snowflake, we see that defending the people from the horrors of narcotics is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Seriously Daniel - this is why nobody takes you seriously about any topic/issue. We have to explain the U.S. Constitution to you daily.

The drug war is not the common defense. And, if you believe what you do about the general welfare clause; how can a general clause be limited and a common clause be unlimited; but, for right wing fantasy.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Was in a "discussion" with a hard core Leftist who is also very Anti-American. The idiot could not "discuss" but instead resorted to screaming and emotional overload when his points were easily dismissed, yet he kept coming up with deceptive and incorrect information to "prove" his points. It was typical of the Left.

They are very irrational, emotionally driven people who are much more like children than adults.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Conservatives give to their churches
Gotta pay for new choir robes

Liberals give to their pushers.....
Gotta pay for that next "feel good" high

btw....you proved everyone correct about you and liberals right from the start....with your member name.....