Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
Well duh....if she accepted facts - she wouldn't be a liberal!Heritage.org???
Idiot
Oh, another one that discounts facts using the I don't like the source argument.
It is precisely because I accept facts, figures, history, and economic theory that I reject the poorly researched crap coming out of highly partisan think tanks like Heritage.org. Any outfit which is funded by the Koch Brothers to push their anti-government agenda is hardly an unbiased source.
Yet you accept what you call facts, figures, history, and shit economic theory coming from George Soros funded big government biased sources.
That you support big government Liberal policy proves you can't do things for yourself. If you could, you would and wouldn't expect the government to be responsible for everything.
No I don't. I use ACTUAL FACTS, gleaned from government records, not just in the US, but from other countries as well. All think tanks have a spin and a bias. There are some places that are non-partisan, like the Guttmacher Institute, which provides good stats and information, but their agenda is reproductive health, which everyone should be concerned about.
The problem is that the facts and figures almost never support the conservative agenda. So what you're left with is the same tired economic proposals that didn't work under Reagan and sure as hell didn't work under Bush.
So your argument is others use biased sources when you disagree but your sources are always on the up and up? That's the sign of a hack.
I'm concerned with reproductive help of MY family. I'm not concerned about the reproductive health of someone woman I don't know. If she claims that what she does with her body is her choice, why should I care what that choice is if I have no say in it?
I did well under Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. Why shouldn't I support things that benefited ME? Isn't that what you're doing? Why is it wrong for me to look out for ME if you are going to look out for you?