Explaining Conservatives

[PoliticalChic]

my. bad...he didnt prepare a concession speech because he just knew he was going to win....they had to look up Bush I 's.

I was just about to send rep after reading the first two words...it would have been the honorable post.

Too bad you had to continue.....

Honor...coming from you? Now that's a laugh.

I appreciate you verifying everything I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Spare me the one-sided prattle.

There are plenty of non-thinking posters from the left on this board also.

They only spout what they've heard.

There is as much fear and crap from the left as there is from the right.

Addressing every issue in a logical way (as you suggest) generally means looking at the very basics. Conservatives and liberals appear to emphasize different objectives when considering the processes we have for government.

This business of yelling "you are a moron" (which I freely admit I do to those I think need it) is not going to accomplish much rational discussion.

But to think that one side does it more than the other is simply not supportable.

False equivalency does not really work in this case, the tea party and their willingness to run with the latest wild tale has cost conservatives a lot in terms of trying to convince people that they hold some kind of answer to our problems or that they even have the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Sure your guys won the house but in the end it may cost you everything.

False equivalency as in the Tea Party = Conservatives.

.

Who are the Tea Partiers (with some name recognition) who can't be considered conservatives?

 

[candycorn]

I was just about to send rep after reading the first two words...it would have been the honorable post.

Too bad you had to continue.....

Honor...coming from you? Now that's a laugh.

I appreciate you verifying everything I said.

I appreciate you giving the world a superiority complex.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Honor...coming from you? Now that's a laugh.

I appreciate you verifying everything I said.

I appreciate you giving the world a superiority complex.

You know why people take an instant dislike to you? ‘Cause it saves time.

 

[Listening]

False equivalency does not really work in this case, the tea party and their willingness to run with the latest wild tale has cost conservatives a lot in terms of trying to convince people that they hold some kind of answer to our problems or that they even have the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Sure your guys won the house but in the end it may cost you everything.

False equivalency as in the Tea Party = Conservatives.

.

Who are the Tea Partiers (with some name recognition) who can't be considered conservatives?

All A are B does not mean all B are A.

Pretty basic.

 

[candycorn]

I appreciate you verifying everything I said.

I appreciate you giving the world a superiority complex.

You know why people take an instant dislike to you? ‘Cause it saves time.

The intellectually lazy have always had a problem with people who are not 100% on their side or 100% opposed to what they stand for. When people like you are presented with a curveball, you don't know how to handle it and regress back into your basic instincts of being a hateful little person.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I appreciate you giving the world a superiority complex.

You know why people take an instant dislike to you? ‘Cause it saves time.

The intellectually lazy have always had a problem with people who are not 100% on their side or 100% opposed to what they stand for. When people like you are presented with a curveball, you don't know how to handle it and regress back into your basic instincts of being a hateful little person.

A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters will eventually produce Hamlet, but in the meantime they write your posts.

Homo habilis discovering her opposable thumbs says what?

 

[candycorn]

You know why people take an instant dislike to you? ‘Cause it saves time.

The intellectually lazy have always had a problem with people who are not 100% on their side or 100% opposed to what they stand for. When people like you are presented with a curveball, you don't know how to handle it and regress back into your basic instincts of being a hateful little person.

A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters will eventually produce Hamlet, but in the meantime they write your posts.

Homo habilis discovering her opposable thumbs says what?

Ahh, the personal insults just keep coming. It's all you have left...poor baby. Nobody is proud to know you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The intellectually lazy have always had a problem with people who are not 100% on their side or 100% opposed to what they stand for. When people like you are presented with a curveball, you don't know how to handle it and regress back into your basic instincts of being a hateful little person.

A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters will eventually produce Hamlet, but in the meantime they write your posts.

Homo habilis discovering her opposable thumbs says what?

Ahh, the personal insults just keep coming. It's all you have left...poor baby. Nobody is proud to know you.

You misunderstand once again....

...I'm not insulting you, I'm describing you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

False equivalency as in the Tea Party = Conservatives.

.

Who are the Tea Partiers (with some name recognition) who can't be considered conservatives?

All A are B does not mean all B are A.

Pretty basic.

You claimed Tea Party doesn't equal Conservative. Who are the Tea Partiers who aren't conservatives?

 

[candycorn]

A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters will eventually produce Hamlet, but in the meantime they write your posts.

Homo habilis discovering her opposable thumbs says what?

Ahh, the personal insults just keep coming. It's all you have left...poor baby. Nobody is proud to know you.

You misunderstand once again....

...I'm not insulting you, I'm describing you.

But I am right; nobody is proud to know you. Probably been that way for decades now. Again, I'm not insulting you, I'm describing your life.

 

[GreenBean]

You can't EXPLAIN CONSERVATIVES without explaining LIBERAlS. Just as you cant explain SANITY without Explaining INSANITY.

IF I had to explain the diff. to a Child I would Open up any Magazine or Tabloid. Turn to the pages where all the celebrities go to rehab, get busted for drugs, engage in immoral acts, , etc. Point your finger and say LIBERAL.....

Find a picture of Ronald Reagan or Mitt Romney [Preferably with his Black Grand Child] point your finger and say CONSERVATIVE.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ahh, the personal insults just keep coming. It's all you have left...poor baby. Nobody is proud to know you.

You misunderstand once again....

...I'm not insulting you, I'm describing you.

But I am right; nobody is proud to know you. Probably been that way for decades now. Again, I'm not insulting you, I'm describing your life.

I’m not a proctologist, but I recognize you…

Let's be honest.....No one would ever consider taking your advice, nor counting on you for correct analysis....beginning with your selection of some slut as your icon.

See what I mean?

The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.

Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

 

[Truthmatters]

then why do the republicans have to cheat in elections?

 

[Truthmatters]

Because their historically failed ideas don't appeal to enough Americans for them to win elections

 

[Listening]

Who are the Tea Partiers (with some name recognition) who can't be considered conservatives?

All A are B does not mean all B are A.

Pretty basic.

You claimed Tea Party doesn't equal Conservative. Who are the Tea Partiers who aren't conservatives?

Pretty basic.

All Tea Party people could be conservative and still only make up a minority of conservatives overall. Which is the case.

That tells you that most conservatives are not members of the Tea Party.

Got it.

We are talking False Equivalency.

 

[Truthmatters]

PROVE it with some kind of facts

 

[PoliticalChic]

then why do the republicans have to cheat in elections?

How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

1. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).

2. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).

3. Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)

4. Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00).

5. Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00)

ConservativeAction.org Resources : How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud



Let me know when you want the other five.......

 

[Listening]

A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters will eventually produce Hamlet, but in the meantime they write your posts.

Homo habilis discovering her opposable thumbs says what?

Ahh, the personal insults just keep coming. It's all you have left...poor baby. Nobody is proud to know you.

You misunderstand once again....

...I'm not insulting you, I'm describing you.

Hey PC,

I am proud to know you. I've always appreciated your thoughtful and well supported posts.

I wouldn't waste my time with people who somehow suppose that a snapshot in time means anything more than what was happening at that time.

You never see them post the shift in the house in 2010.

Have a great day.

 

[Truthmatters]

then why do the republicans have to cheat in elections?

How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

1. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).

2. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).

3. Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)

4. Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00).

5. Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00)

ConservativeAction.org Resources : How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud



Let me know when you want the other five.......

talking points?


but you deny court documents that go right up to the SCOTUS?