English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I see a lot of partisan back and forth here but I don't see the conservative viewpoint being backed up by a great deal of fact. I like a substantial opponent when I argue. Can conservatives consider all sides of an issue, or do they form a blanket ideal from what they heard on Fox News?

2007-06-08 09:24:58 · 13 answers · asked by Dull Jon 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Thanks for proving my point. You say you want facts to support MY question, look below.

2007-06-08 10:25:10 · update #1

Wow people, read the qualifying language before you go off half-******.

2007-06-08 10:59:30 · update #2

Notice that every question upon which I'm quoted here makes no request for fact. They ask for opinion, try again.

2007-06-08 11:11:49 · update #3

13 answers

Well, they dont often have the intellect to remember what Faux News tells them, so to make sure the "less equally" intelligent have Conservative Nonsense to spout, we have Rush Limbaugh and HIS science fiction, posing as political discussion.

See what REAL journalists think of Rush:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh

2007-06-08 09:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

Call Johnny Cochran if you need to argue, no one is that smart but we all like to act like it. What is fact, but information that other people (morons) have made up. For instance, our school system is still teaching that evolution if a fact. OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM!. You know, where you went for 13 years+. Still teaching it 1-1/2 years after the top scientist IN THIS WORLD, declared," that with the new evidence gathered over the past 20 years, there is no way that evolution could have ever taken place". Remember "INTELLIGENT DESIGN". In other words it is the simple things that confound the wise. Keep thinking that you are so intelligent and get nowhere, or gather real meaningful information that is applicable to life, practical/ practice- able/ able to practice, or you are just wasting time on semantics. arbitrarily perhaps as a conjunctive participle, inductive of an decopo alefino mezzo forte' anti- sectarianism persuasion conductive to the ultimate anti climactic result of "ejaculatorializationalictical-ism". Or in short"self mind masterbation puffed by unwarranted pride". Anti- climactic. Next time you want an substantial opponent aim lower but don't shoot yourself in the foot.
I am a wrden in the prison system and I thank God for them everyday. Imagine life with- out the cops and robber element. Woud be no God father movies or cop and robber shows. Boring. I cannot hate convicts for without them I would not have a job paying me $100,000.00 a year for practically doing nothing but B.S.-ing with the inmates.

2007-06-08 17:00:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Conservatism is based on facts not feelings. Liberalism is the feel good way. The liberals believe that criminals are that way because of their life and should be forgiven always. Conservatives believe if you do the crime you do the time. Political Correctness is a liberal idea.

2007-06-08 16:30:32 · answer #3 · answered by LIL_TXN 4 · 7 2

The same could be said for Liberals (okay, maybe not the part of Fox News) . . . I use fact to back up my opinions, when needed. For the most part, common sense works . . . Liberals here tend to bash the conservatives, calling them names, and using liberal sites/papers for their back up. Can liberals consider both side fo the issue?

2007-06-08 16:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by vinsa1981 3 · 6 3

Now this is how you people go wrong and end up irking us. The first part of your question was fine and not insulting. Your last sentence is insulting and nothing more than a bait. Not all of us are glued to FOX news although I certainly don't put down people if that's what they prefer to watch.

So, if you truly want to begin a dialog without the put downs and baiting, you might luck out. :)

2007-06-08 16:30:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7 3

Cons aren't the ones throwing that ridiculous 655,000 number around, or claiming that the USA supplied Saddam the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds.

2007-06-08 16:32:25 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 5 2

How can you defend George Bush with facts?

You can't.

2007-06-08 16:37:13 · answer #7 · answered by trichbopper 4 · 1 0

If you want to have a substantial argument, you have to present a question with substance.
What you just wrote lacks anything that resembles knowledge or character as well as truthfulness.

2007-06-08 16:30:55 · answer #8 · answered by Philip H 7 · 5 2

most of the lefts garbage on here isnt worth a thought out response. let us know when you have something you really want to debate or ask without some idiotic undertone.

2007-06-08 16:32:12 · answer #9 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 4 2

They were born that way

2007-06-08 16:36:57 · answer #10 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers