Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

LOL!


'An ultra-conservative Killed Bobby Kennedy'?

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it odd that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES killed Jack and Bobby Kennedy, yet it is the communists who have benefitted from those killings?

I mean, are you suggesting that the US is closer to "Ultra-Conservative" today, then it was when Bobby K was killed?

Usually the people behind the killing reap the benefit of the killing, assuming that such is a tactic designed to advance a long term strategy... and the killing of the two most powerful men in the United States; it seems fairly clear that THAT is the sort of thing that gets done as a function of some long term thinkin'... by people of no small degree of influence.

So... given that such is otherwise irrefutable, explain to me how you 'feel' that the ULTRA-Conservatives were the one's that sought to cripple the black culture through welfare subsidies, to cripple the US Textile, Electronic Auto and Steel industries through crippling collectively bargained contracts, to cripple US Education, to substitute sound actuarial lending principle for some undefined perverse notion of "FAIRNESS"... . To tear down the US Financial Center, through the lowering of the means for US Intelligence operations to ferret out insurgents who made their way into the US.

What "ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE" 'ideal' is served through the notion that Homosexuals should serve in the US Military as long as they 'DON'T TELL' and should be allowed to do so BECAUSE THE MILITARY IS FORBIDDEN TO ASK, a policy which has lead directly to the NORMALIZATION OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY...

What "Ultra-Conservative 'ideal' is served by the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality?

And the list goes on and on... but THAT should be enough to cripple THE LINE OF INSIPID DRIVEL that "ULTRA-Conservatives" killed the Kennedy's... .

 

[Saigon]

Isn't it odd that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES killed Jack and Bobby Kennedy,

Why do you (wrongly) assume that the same people killed both?

Ever heard of Sirhan Sirhan?

 

[Saigon]

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... .

Dude...this is just gibberish.

Is there someone there who can perhaps help you to find the topic and respond to it, or do you only write soliloquys?

 

[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?

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... .

Dude...this is just gibberish.

Is there someone there who can perhaps help you to find the topic and respond to it, or do you only write soliloquys?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Isn't it odd that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES killed Jack and Bobby Kennedy,

Why do you (wrongly) assume that the same people killed both?

Why do you speak in endless fallacies? If you take some time to study reason, you could possibly avoid this sort of humiliation.

Ever heard of Sirhan Sirhan?

Yes...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Saigon]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

 

[Judicial review]

Liberals always fail in government and Republicans always succeed. Liberals are fucking retarded.

 

[Saigon]

Isn't it odd that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES killed Jack and Bobby Kennedy,

Why do you (wrongly) assume that the same people killed both?

Ever heard of Sirhan Sirhan?

Yes... and your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I did not concede, bauble - I pointed out where you were wrong.

Is this nonsense really the best you can do? Really?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Judicial review]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Isn't it odd that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES killed Jack and Bobby Kennedy,

Why do you (wrongly) assume that the same people killed both?

Ever heard of Sirhan Sirhan?

Yes... and your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I did not concede, bauble - I pointed out where you were wrong.

Is this nonsense really the best you can do? Really?

Yes... you did concede. You feel that such requires some verbal affirmation on your part. It does not. Your action of yielding from the points through your feckless deflections, demonstrates that your position is one of opposition and your failure to sustain an effective opposition, concedes for you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

She conceded through deflecting from the standing point. That you don't see it, is irrelevant.

 

[Judicial review]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

She conceded through deflecting from the standing point. That you don't see it, is irrelevant.

What the hell was your point?

 

[Judicial review]

You guys need to be more clear. Also, use paragraph indentations. Shorten the paragraphs also.

I don't have time to read a theology essay.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

She conceded through deflecting from the standing point. That you don't see it, is irrelevant.

What the hell was your point?

Noting her failure to sustain an effective, open and honest opposition to the standing points.

 

[Judicial review]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

She conceded through deflecting from the standing point. That you don't see it, is irrelevant.

What the hell was your point?

Noting her failure to sustain an effective, open and honest opposition to the standing points.

What was her point and yours?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

LOL!


'An ultra-conservative Killed Bobby Kennedy'?

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it odd that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES killed Jack and Bobby Kennedy, yet it is the communists who have benefitted from those killings?

I mean, are you suggesting that the US is closer to "Ultra-Conservative" today, then it was when Bobby K was killed?

Usually the people behind the killing reap the benefit of the killing, assuming that such is a tactic designed to advance a long term strategy... and the killing of the two most powerful men in the United States; it seems fairly clear that THAT is the sort of thing that gets done as a function of some long term thinkin'... by people of no small degree of influence.

So... given that such is otherwise irrefutable, explain to me how you 'feel' that the ULTRA-Conservatives were the one's that sought to cripple the black culture through welfare subsidies, to cripple the US Textile, Electronic Auto and Steel industries through crippling collectively bargained contracts, to cripple US Education, to substitute sound actuarial lending principle for some undefined perverse notion of "FAIRNESS"... . To tear down the US Financial Center, through the lowering of the means for US Intelligence operations to ferret out insurgents who made their way into the US.

What "ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE" 'ideal' is served through the notion that Homosexuals should serve in the US Military as long as they 'DON'T TELL' and should be allowed to do so BECAUSE THE MILITARY IS FORBIDDEN TO ASK, a policy which has lead directly to the NORMALIZATION OF SEXUAL ABNORMALITY...

What "Ultra-Conservative 'ideal' is served by the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality?

And the list goes on and on... but THAT should be enough to cripple THE LINE OF INSIPID DRIVEL that "ULTRA-Conservatives" killed the Kennedy's... .

Communists didn't benefit from the Kennedy killings. On the day President Kennedy died in Dallas the official U.S.policy on Vietnam was to withdraw 1,000 advisors by the end of 1963 and all military by the end of 1965.

Who benefited from the Kennedy killings?


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower - Farewell Address, January 17, 1961

There is no question BOTH parties have moved to the right since the end of the liberal era in 1968. Vietnam and the Kennedy killing splintered the Democratic Party and led to a conservative era that began with Nixon and metastasized under Reagan.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

 

[auditor0007]

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

If you truly have substance in a debate, you don't resort directly to "You are stupid!"......you simply use your substance.

When someone holds the debate "You are stupid" EVERYONE knows they lost the debate.

Except the conservatives themselves.

 

[auditor0007]

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

As you said, there are a lot of bodies on both sides with little to no intelligence. Based on what you see in this forum, it is quite obvious which ones are which. When all a person does is cry about how stupid the other side is, then you know what you are dealing with. In most cases, it is pointless to argue with someone like this. Maybe that is why you don't see as many liberals saying these things as conservatives.

 

[Saigon]

Keus -

95 percent of what tou have posted on this thread is gibberish.

It is apparant that you did not understand the premise of the thread, and have thus decided to stay from the topic in facour of meaningless monologies and nonsense.

You have avoided the topic at all cost, and refuse to post anything of substance. Any claims tou have made have been inecplicable and irrelevent.

I suspect you are best ignored.