Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

Wow~ Josephine, you're gift seems to tend toward finding new ways to concede.

THAT one was HYSTERICAL!

Noted and accepted.

 

[JoeNormal]

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

Wow~ Josephine, you're gift seems to tend toward finding new ways to concede.

THAT one was HYSTERICAL!

Noted and accepted.

Why don't you punch your USMB victory card and when it fills up take it to Subway to see what it's worth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

Wow~ Josephine, you're gift seems to tend toward finding new ways to concede.

THAT one was HYSTERICAL!

Noted and accepted.

Why don't you punch your USMB victory card and when it fills up take it to Subway to see what it's worth.

LOL! ADORABLE! (That's a CLASSIC!)

Noted and accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now just to recap, this is the standing issue, Ms. Normal:

Says you...

Relativism: the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and personal context, and as such, can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

So, where THE RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION IRREFUTABLY ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH: The Relativist
runs to DENY THE RECORD. Axiomatically rejecting the intrinsic authority of that record; Setting the "RELATIVE TRUTH" within what THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEEDS: REQUIRE THE TRUTH TO BE!

I ask the reader to witness that very action taking place:

Says you, pretending to be the authoritative arbiter of truth. Which you're not.

The record of this discussion saying it:

You've already conceded to the standing points. And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when such comes along... You're a peach.

And with that said, your 2nd concession to the standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Feel free to do so as many times as you're so moved.

Unfortunately, this happened only inside your own head.

Uh, NOOooo...

In truth, his happened in the course of the above discussion, which as luck would have it, is being conducted in writing... thus is not subject to these little denials which are designed to instill doubt in the listeners minds, where such are conducted verbally... which is why the Left (Relativists) fail so consistently in forums such as this and why you appear to succeed in the typical 2 minute debates on Cable TV.

The good news is that Cable TV is figuring this out and only 30 years after AM radio figured it out and became the political powerhouse as a result of their use of the record to expose Relativists as little more than people of low-moral character intent upon advancing deceit through fraudulence means in their attempt to influence the ignorant.

But here is precisely what and WHERE IT HAPPENED:

Leftist: An adherent of "Left-think"; a form of relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, thus such adherents are incapable of discerning truth, forming trust and behaving within soundly reasoned standards common to morality, which are essential to the service of justice,

It is really hard for me to believe that any adult believes this.

All I see here is narcisissm.

The irony being that you praise objectivity - while refusing to be in any objective yourself.

Oh... well that certainly has the appearance that such was offered as reasonable discourse... let's test it to see if it truly was:

Saigon, you claim that the contribution lacks objectivity. With such being so subjective as to reflect narcissism.

Please take a moment to diagram the contribution, pointing specifically to the subjective elements which you must have recognized in constructing your response and explain to the board the nature of those elements which present the narcissism which you so clearly asserted that you had observed.

Now, this will be the second time that you've offered such an emphatic assertion, were challenged to sustain your assertion, failed to do so, thus conceded that your points were vacuous drivel.

Do you remember the highest number of failures that you've subjected yourself to, prior to this thread?

I'd like to see if we could take a run at the title... I really feel like you've just the right amount of the specific sort of sociopathy to just embarrass the livin' crap out of yourself... and precisely the intellectual limitations to keep you from recognizing it.

Now... all the fingers are crossed. Let's see how ya DO!

Now in that, was a direct and unambiguous challenge TO YOU in response to your emphatic assertion.

As we will see in the next paragraph, when you responded, as predicted you would, you failed to sustain your assertion. Instead of rising to the challenge, you responded through distraction, thus yielding to the challenge, therein CONCEDING TO THE POINT(S) intrinsic to that CHALLENGE, which as noted above was your SECOND of such concessions, due to your inability to sustain you own emphatic assertions... .

To wit: Concede: admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it; to surrender or yield... .

Now... often Relativists faced with these facts will instinctively run to DENY THAT THEY YIELDED... so toward heading that off: Below is you in your own words: yielding:

Keys -

Shall we just agree that you are both more intelligent, better informed and wiser than any liberal who ever lived anywhere? ...

Did ya see that? Did ya pick up on how you failed to meet the challenge as was predicted you would?

In so doing you YIELDED from that challenge, thus conceding through that failure, that you had no means to sustain your then discredited assertion.

So your claim that such occurred only in my mind has now been throughly REFUTED... which means that whther you 'feel' that you still have some discernible credibility or not... in truth, you have no credibility, because you've been demonstrated to be a person who lacks the means to reason soundly; which means that you have been proven to be an UNREASONABLE PERSON.

.
.
.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Also, here is Skylar's follow up to the above demonstration of relativism:

You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

You're not even trying. Read again, this time for comprehension: I'm saying you don't define objectivity. You don't define truth. You don't define trust. You don't define morality.

So, for those lending credence to the Relativists argument need desperately now to AVOID asking the question, "Who IS the arbiter of Objectivity, truth, trust and morality ?

The Relativists answer is: The Relativist... meaning THEY ARE... meaning that objectivity, truth, trust and morality exist in only as such is relative to them... and their culture, society, historical and personal context, and as such can NEVER be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

And ... here is Skylar's follow up to the above demonstration of relativism:

You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

You're not even trying. Read again, this time for comprehension: I'm saying you don't define objectivity. You don't define truth. You don't define trust. You don't define morality.

So, for those lending credence to the Relativists argument need desperately now to AVOID asking the question, "Who IS the arbiter of Objectivity, truth, trust and morality ?

The Relativists answer is: The Relativist... meaning THEY ARE... meaning that objectivity, truth, trust and morality exist in only as such is relative to them... and their culture, society, historical and personal context, and as such can NEVER be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

 

[Siete]

smarter?

IMO Intellectual dishonesty is far greater on the Right than the Left.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

smarter?

IMO Intellectual dishonesty is far greater on the Right than the Left.

Really?

Have you read this thread?

If so, can you point to any tangible evidence within that base of date, which would, on some level, sustain your 'feelings'?

 

[Siete]

smarter?

IMO Intellectual dishonesty is far greater on the Right than the Left.

Really?

Have you read this thread?

If so, can you point to any tangible evidence within that base of date, which would, on some level, sustain your 'feelings'?

yes, really.

I participate on many threads where facts are totally ignored, and opinions based on conjecture and/or spin are the order of the day from the right ... this thread? .. read the board.

update ...

I've changed my opinion. Republicans are too stupid to be dishonest.

 

[Toro]

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since a poster hilariously started a thread whining about Ravi negging him three times a day!

lol

Good times. Good times.

Elighten me dude. You're apparently the one who lives here.

You had to be here.

But I can assure you, it became legendary status for us old timers as probably the Greatest Thread in the History of the Internet.

 

[Bfgrn]

In 2008 BOTH parties and BOTH candidates for the White House identified our health care system was broken.

In 2008, both candidates were Progressives... so it follows that both candidates were employing the fundamental elements of socialism, which as you've been informed are Deceit and Fraud as a means to influence the Ignorant.

The only thing 'broken' about the US Healthcare System, are those things which has resulted from Federal and State policy, which was implemented by the Ideological Left. Remove those policies and the US Healthcare system will heal IMMEDIATELY.

Just as where one tries to double down on the policies that BROKE the SYSTEM, one can rest assured that such will ONLY MAKE THE SYSTEM WORSE; thus the perfection which is realized as socialist policy damages a system, made worse by socialist 'fixes'... and as those who broke it harp incessantly on the unenviable results of their work to blame those who opposed them AND their policy, demanding that MORE OF THAT WHICH BROKE IT, SHOULD BE APPLIED TO 'FIX IT!', we see the system driven further into chaos.

But hey... such is the nature of evil, right? So it makes sense that you'd be here to lie and deceive as a means defraud and corrupt the ignorant.

You are delusional. In your tiny little brain insurance cartels are not out for profits, they are just a bunch of altruistic organizations that want to help people.

Now folks, this is the same person who has SO OFTEN come to inform us of the vast distinctions between liberals and communists... and in a delightfully sweet irony, it has opted to do so here, through the lament of profit.

LOL! You can NOT make that crap up.

There is ONE paramount reason health care in America is TWICE as expensive as the rest of the world.

It's not...

You're conflating the distinctions wherein US Healthcare is paid by private parties, who report the actual costs and the socialized systems wherein the cost is hidden by the bureaucracy; what's more US Healthcare provides direct access to healthcare instead or health bureaucracy. So patients in the US go directly to directly from their doctor to MRI, CT Scans and other expensive, but effective diagnostic procedures, while Socialized Systems starkly limit access to such procedures, and as a result there are significantly fewer facilities for such, thus enormous delays, wherein patients wait, often at the cost of their lives, for the tests and procedures.

Private insurance is not a problem, the problem is where insurance is being used outside of its viable purpose.

In all circumstances, where there is high demand and third parties paying the bill, isolating the consumer from the costs of the highly demanded product or service, the market will push the cost of that service up, until the cost rises beyond the means of the market to sustain it.

Remove the third party, expose the end user to the costs, remove government obstacles which inhibit market response and the problem will correct itself, almost immediately.

These are not even debatable points... .

You CLEARLY don't know what you are talking about..

There are many thing the market handles best, but there are also many things the market never will handle even moderately well. Not everything in this world can be measured by profit margins. And it is always some group of humans that are not 'market' desirable who are left out.

The best example is health care and the elderly. Insurance companies don't want to insure the elderly. They are high risk, low reward customers. Before Medicare, the elderly were the most likely citizens to end up in poverty. Since Medicare was enacted the elderly are among the least likely to end up in financial ruin. And American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Insurance corporations are not in the health care business. they are in the profit business.

There are people employed by insurance companies whose sole job is to go over your health records with a fine tooth comb and find a loophole, a previous treatment for a mole, wart or something they can create a link to your current illness, and they get rewarded for finding and denying treatment.

THAT my naive friend is how a 'free market' works. Insurance companies are not in the healthcare business. They are in the PROFIT business. Denial of expensive treatments feed the bottom line.

Do you understand the keys to a market transaction? Do you understand the term 'leverage'? If one party in a market transaction has little or no leverage, it is NOT a free market. It is a captured market.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are 'things' (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wonder if any self defined conservative can define "leftist"? I doubt it, it's used as a pejorative and most are too dumb to realize how stupid they appear by using words they don't understand.

I totally agree.

It seems to me that a good half of our right-wing posters do not understand terms like 'liberal', 'socialist', 'communist' or 'left wing', and simply use them inter-changeably.

Check out the posting of Kosh for one extreme example.

And yet the far left shows that they can not admit when they are wrong!

The far left uses many of these terms as they are in their programming but have no idea what they are including terms like "rights"..

However since the far left Hijacked the "liberal" label and the Democrat party, many of those terms can be used interchangeably, yet you will watch these irony impaired far left drones interchange words when relating to one the believe is not of the far left religion..

My, such a spin. The Democratic Party was never "hijacked" by the far left, in fact the last time the far left enjoyed any popularity amongst mainstream Democrats, liberal Democrats, Blue-Dog Democrats and Progressive Democrats was in 1968, And only because an ultra conservative murdered Robert Kennedy.

????....the sixties is when they hijacked it......and they've never let it go......the hippies from Woodstock are now the mainstream......

You are entitled to your opinion, but to be taken seriously you need to provide probative evidence.

 

[Bfgrn]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Actually you have it reversed. Conservatives are driven by the strongest emotion...FEAR

Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains
16 peer-reviewed studies show liberals and conservatives physiologically different

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why is there no Conservative Party on a nation level?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

smarter?

IMO Intellectual dishonesty is far greater on the Right than the Left.

Really?

Have you read this thread?

If so, can you point to any tangible evidence within that base of date, which would, on some level, sustain your 'feelings'?

yes, really.

I participate on many threads where facts are totally ignored, and opinions based on conjecture and/or spin are the order of the day from the right ... this thread? .. read the board.

update ...

I've changed my opinion. Republicans are too stupid to be dishonest.

So, you can't show any evidence of any kind, but you need to pretend that your conjecture is evidence, even as you lament the use of conjecture, asserting that such is evidence of 'stupidity'?

​

LOL! THAT is some serious twistin' right there!

But hey... as sad is it is, a Relativist is a relativist, so it's not fair to expect anything more from 'em.

And with that said, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. "Why is there no Conservative Party on a nation level?"

A. Conservatives adopted extreme positions on wedge issues:

• Gun control
• Immigration
• Gay & Lesbian equal rights
• Equal pay for equal work
• Minimum wage
• Voting Rights
• Abortion
• Failure to stand up to growing racism
• Calling all Republicans who challenge them on the above issues RINO's.

Additionally, fiscal conservatives have evolved into being fiscally irresponsible, and the Republican Leadership has put their jobs first and caved by supporting the extremism which has taken over the GOP.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Actually you have it reversed. Conservatives are driven by the strongest emotion...FEAR

Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains
16 peer-reviewed studies show liberals and conservatives physiologically different

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

There is absolutely NO species of reasoning which could possibly require less effort than Left-think.

And this is because Left-think is PURELY subjective. Truth to a Liberal is whatever the truth needs to be at that given moment. This requires the suspension of the EFFORT intrinsic to considering the additional information that is relevant to ALL OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND ONE'S SELF!

In truth, the Leftist is closer to the animal human, it's mind less developed, because it's higher function: reasoning, is used less.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Q. "Why is there no Conservative Party on a nation level?"

The GOP is the Conservative Party. Ask the Progressive Republicans that have recently been kicked to the curb and the one's presently crying about the Conservatives and how 'extreme' the Americans are, as they being backed out the door.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As posted above, before keys posted another of his idiot-grams, I will post it again and add a comment on Human Rights:

Q. "Why is there no Conservative Party on a nation level?"

A. Conservatives adopted extreme positions on wedge issues:

• Gun control
• Immigration
• Gay & Lesbian equal rights
• Equal pay for equal work
• Minimum wage
• Voting Rights
• Abortion
• Failure to stand up to growing racism
• Calling all Republicans who challenge them on the above issues RINO's.

Additionally, fiscal conservatives have evolved into being fiscally irresponsible, and the Republican Leadership has put their jobs first and caved by supporting the extremism which has taken over the GOP.

Both major parties have taken the high road in terms of human rights. Today the Crazy New Right has shown nothing but contempt in their callous disregard for human rights.

Ask yourself if their ideology incorporates human rights into each of the bullet points above? Maybe they feel human rights need to be respected by China, Iran, Russia, etc. but not in the United States of America. Moral Relativism seems alive and well in the Right Wing in America.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

• Gun control

Gun control is a Leftist scam designed to provide them the means to acquire power.

• Immigration

You're speaking of the legalization of ILLEGAL entry into the US; fraudulently using a term that speaks to LEGAL ENTRY into the US, as a deceitful means to influence the ignorant.

• Gay & Lesbian equal rights

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. You need to project that there are rights which they have which they are unable to exercise, and that they're unable to do so because of some prejudice against them.

There are no rights which the sexually abnormal have that they cannot exercise. As with all of the above issues, the 'Gay Rights' issue is a scam of deceits, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

• Equal pay for equal work

No Conservative anywhere is advocating for anyone to be paid less than the individual is worth. As with all of the above issues, the 'Equal pay for work' issue is a scam of deceits, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

• Minimum wage

Minimum Wage is zero... for the minimal work, which is zero. You're advocating that someone should be paid more than zero for zero work. You're advocating that people of zero to no skills be paid more for their time than their time is worth. This produces the official policy of payment for zero production. Placing value upon nothing. establishes that that which was paid for nothing, equals nothing. Therefore payment for zero production inflates (Devalues) the currency common to the official state which set the values of the currency through its policy to trade value for no value.

As with all of the above issues, the 'Minimum wage' issue is a scam of deceits, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

• Voting Rights

No Conservative anywhere is attempting to usurp the means of anyone to vote their conscience. Conservatives are however defending the process from the Ideological Left's incessant attempt to corrupt the process, as a means to acquire power, rationalized that such is justified by virtue of their subjective needs.

As with all of the above issues, the 'Voting Rights' issue is a scam of deceits, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

• Abortion

Abortion is the taking of the human life, which was conceived as a direct result of the Mother's willful actions. It is justified by invalid, irrational reasoning which seeks to avoid responsibility for one's actions, on several levels or false choices, resulting in the claim of a false right. In TRUTH, there is no potential for a right, which in the exercise thereof, the exercise itself deprives another of the means to exercise their own rights.

As with all of the above issues, the 'Abortion' issue is a scam of deceits, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

• Failure to stand up to growing racism

The Ideological Left is wholly responsible for the 'growing racism'. it is being generated intentionally, the basis for such is absolutely false and it is false on every conceivable level and you, of the Ideological Left KNOW that it false and they are intentionally promoting AS TRUTH, that which they know to be false.

As with all of the above issues, the 'growing racism' issue is a scam of deceits, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

• Calling all Republicans who challenge them on the above issues RINO's.

There is no end to the open and honest debates within the GOP on all of the host of issues, some noted above, that are before all of us living in this nation.

Where Republicans come to advocate for irrational ideas, deceitfully promoting ideas which they should know better than to even consider, and they do so through fraudulence, as a means to influence the ignorant, we know them by their rotten fruit and, by that rotten fruit, we know that they ARE, IN TRUTH: 'Republicans' in name only.

Additionally, fiscal conservatives have evolved into being fiscally irresponsible, and the Republican Leadership has put their jobs first and caved by supporting the extremism which has taken over the GOP.

So you should define the term: Irresponsible. Take the term 'fiscal conservative', define it.

From there take the policies advocated by fiscal conservatives, state the reasons why 'fiscal conservatives' say they advocate for such, then demonstrate how the reason is false and show the inevitable or otherwise predictable results of that policy and how such cannot result in what the 'fiscal conservatives' claim that they are seeking. THEN, through that exercise you would ESTABLISH THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES AS IRRESPONSIBLE.

Of course, you cannot do that. And you cannot do it, because given the nature of the fiscal conservative and the science of economics resting in the natural laws of mathematics, and given that objective truth is intrinsic to natural law, there is no means to show that the goals which the "fiscal conservatives' claim to promote, will not be reached through their policy advocacies.

So instead, as a relativist, you're only option is to lie through your rotten rhetorical teeth.

But hey... such is the nature of evil, now isn't. So that serves reason ... doesn't it?

 

[Billo_Really]

Liberals never lose their keys!

Although, one time I was looking for mine for about 15 minutes before I realized they were in my hand the whole time.