Why are conservatives always on the wrong side of history?

[Faun]

ONE END OF PAGE 4 AND NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE HAS EVEN TRIED ONE TIME, EXCEPT ad hominems, TO REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE POSITED? Really? lol

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

 

[Kosh]

ONE END OF PAGE 4 AND NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE HAS EVEN TRIED ONE TIME, EXCEPT ad hominems, TO REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE POSITED? Really? lol

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

Another far left drone promoting the far left propaganda postings not connected to reality and then expecting others to prove them wrong!

 

[Darkwind]

ONE END OF PAGE 4 AND NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE HAS EVEN TRIED ONE TIME, EXCEPT ad hominems, TO REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE POSITED? Really? lol

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

 

[Faun]

ONE END OF PAGE 4 AND NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE HAS EVEN TRIED ONE TIME, EXCEPT ad hominems, TO REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE POSITED? Really? lol

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

 

[Darkwind]

ONE END OF PAGE 4 AND NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE HAS EVEN TRIED ONE TIME, EXCEPT ad hominems, TO REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE POSITED? Really? lol

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

 

[Camp]

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

Actually to refute something you need to give some reason besides an opinion. The OP is based on what are considered facts. The quotes and actions depicted occurred as presented in the OP. To refute or dispute them it is on you to provide data that supports your allegation. Your answer for not refuting or disputing is an obvious deflection and escape from having to do so and not being able to. Kind of like trying to just bull crap your way out of answering the question with an intelligent and meaningful response.

 

[Kosh]

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

Actually to refute something you need to give some reason besides an opinion. The OP is based on what are considered facts. The quotes and actions depicted occurred as presented in the OP. To refute or dispute them it is on you to provide data that supports your allegation. Your answer for not refuting or disputing is an obvious deflection and escape from having to do so and not being able to. Kind of like trying to just bull crap your way out of answering the question with an intelligent and meaningful response.

The OP is based on far left partisan propaganda and thus is not a "fact"

Thus disputing propaganda not based in reality is not necessary!

It is like all those that post this far left propaganda knowing it is propaganda and expecting others to prove them wrong!

Thus showing the mentality of a two year old when doing so..

 

[Darkwind]

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

Actually to refute something you need to give some reason besides an opinion. The OP is based on what are considered facts. The quotes and actions depicted occurred as presented in the OP. To refute or dispute them it is on you to provide data that supports your allegation. Your answer for not refuting or disputing is an obvious deflection and escape from having to do so and not being able to. Kind of like trying to just bull crap your way out of answering the question with an intelligent and meaningful response.

So, you wish to actually show your ignorance in this manner? Why not, like the rest, just say its right wing bullshit?

In order to refute facts, the facts have to be listed by the methodology in which they were derived. I can state an fact I want and show you the actual fact. But if I show you a fact that liberals are fat, and then provide charts and opinions on fat liberals, will you then simply refute it not knowing how I arrived at the conclusion? After all, it cannot be disputed that liberals are fat and I can even show pictures!

The information presented has to be done so by an unbiased and objective source. The data used and the methods of accepting or rejecting these 'facts' have to be known prior to any attempt at refutation can be had.

The OP is based on what HE considers facts. The concept seems to have eluded you. The idea that YOU accept them also as fact does NOT make them facts. It simply makes you accepting of the ideology.

 

[Dragonlady]

Here is a hint for the far left drones, JFK was a conservative..

He was also a patriot, a war hero, and he had brains and guts in spades. Small wonder lefties disown him today.

The left has never disowned Kennedy. It's the attempt by conservatives to claim him as a Republican that we find laughable.

 

[Kosh]

Here is a hint for the far left drones, JFK was a conservative..

He was also a patriot, a war hero, and he had brains and guts in spades. Small wonder lefties disown him today.

The left has never disowned Kennedy. It's the attempt by conservatives to claim him as a Republican that we find laughable.

The far left tries to cling to the Kennedy name and the name only, not JFK the conservative president.

 

[Dragonlady]

JFK was the most liberal President in my lifetime. He was very much into assisting the poor, increasing social programs, improving housing and education for the poor.

JFK gave the U.S. The food stamp program in 1961, and laid the foundation for Medicaid, but died before it was passed. JFK was HATED by conservatives, so much so that conspiracy theorists continue to believe that conservatives had him killed and pinned the blame on commie Oswald.

Every time the facts show conservatives are wrong, they try to rewrite history.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here is a hint for the far left drones, JFK was a conservative..

He was also a patriot, a war hero, and he had brains and guts in spades. Small wonder lefties disown him today.

The left has never disowned Kennedy. It's the attempt by conservatives to claim him as a Republican that we find laughable.

The far left tries to cling to the Kennedy name and the name only, not JFK the conservative president.

JFK was center-left, when the center still mattered and we still had one. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

[Katzndogz]

Surely the division has gotten so deep and wide the nation should just peacefully divide.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Surely the division has gotten so deep and wide the nation should just peacefully divide.

It is already self-selecting. Two Nations, Under Frauds.

 

[Camp]

Surely the division has gotten so deep and wide the nation should just peacefully divide.

Like always, something will happen that re-unites the country and reminds everyone why we are a United States of America and not a Divided States of America. People like to think they are living in the most important of times and what they and their generation do will be the most influential in history, but tomorrow will be today's history. The politics of today will be replaced by the politics of tomorrow. The individual states and regions of this country are to invested in each other to just throw it away.

 

[Dad2three]

The OP is clearly too stupid to differentiate conservatism from Christianity.

What a fucking dumbass.

Reading comprehension issues from the low infoprmed. Shocking

"10 things conservative Christians got horribly wrong "

"Conservatives on the Wrong Side of History on Mandela, Most Other Things"


"Abraham Lincoln Might Have Been a Republican, But He Damn Sure Wasn’t a Conservative"

ETC

 

[Dad2three]

The "Bush Mortgage Bubble." I think there's an insane asylum somewhere near Monterey and there's a dangerous inmate missing. Dad2three, get down out of that tree and call Nurse Jenkins. Tell her you want to come home to your padded cell now. She'll make you a nice cup of Ovaltine and read you another great whopper of a fairy tale. There's a good boy.

Okay, this one was funny.

Now, show Me YOUR arguments. So far, all I have seen is you posting OTHER PEOPLES arguments. Or are you going to claim that all this partisan research you posted is your own?

And I NEED TO WHY? LOL

THANKS FOR STICKING WITH AD HOMS BUBBA

 

[Dad2three]

ONE END OF PAGE 4 AND NOT A SINGLE CONSERVATIVE HAS EVEN TRIED ONE TIME, EXCEPT ad hominems, TO REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE POSITED? Really? lol

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

So no you can't refute that conservatives have been wrong on POLICY almost ALL the time since they stood with King George in 1776

OR you could just TRY to give me ONE domestic policy conservatives have gotten correct? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Not a single rebuttal. Good job, dad2three.

A rebuttal to what? Partisan talking points using messaged data by someone much smarter than the OP? What is there to refute?

Calling his points partisan doesn't actually refute them.

First, they are NOT his points. Which then leads you to conclude that there is nothing he has said that needs refuting. He is parroting his betters.

Second.....Post the raw data (not the sanitized data) and then maybe an actual debate can occur. Simply posting data with no context of methodology is meaningless.

So what if they are not his points? They're still valid.

The validity is in dispute based upon what I said.

You need to comprehend a discussion better.

Go get the raw data from each of his little graphs, and then provide the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Remove any methodology by anyone who collects a government check for their research on the topic under discussion. Their objectivity is nonexistent.

SIMPLY GIVE ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON? Just one PLEASE?

 

[Dad2three]

Surely the division has gotten so deep and wide the nation should just peacefully divide.

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala
A theory of a divided nation

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.


Blue States are from Scandinavia Red States are from Guatemala The New Republic