The difference between the fringe on the left and the fringe on the right, is that on the right, the fringe* is actually in charge*. How many conservatives deny evolution again?
And to the point he’s been listening to cousin O’Reily, Beck, Savage, Levin and Limbaugh. You know, Clothy if you actually were informed about… well anything… you’d be a lot more effective at arguing your points.
Ha–I actually agree with both of these posts. I think SA is right about how liberals (and Lobo) debate issues, but I don’t see the application to Evolution. I think maybe SA’s point suffers from insufficient distinction between fiscal and social conservatives.
Have the Libs endorsed any flat earthers or geocentrists this round, or is the party pushed crazy pretty firmly biased to the right this year?
There’s always ‘some people’ with crazy mentation, it gets worrisome though when entire political parties embrace the crazy as is happening now.
It’s a fact that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climatology agree AGW is happening. Why do you get to side with the less than 1% that disagree? That isn’t an opinion, it’s denying scientific consensus.
That a stimulus was necessary was economic consensus from the majority of economists.
It is an observable fact that first world universal health care systems work better than ours.
Rand, bubbie, you didn’t understand what you were reading because you’re a stupid ideological clod. Now why don’t you go play pretend tax-man while your betters talk, kay?
So, right on the heels of your lament that people unfairly stereotype and attack conservatives without listening to their substantive arguments, you then immediately equate negative social trends with liberalism by definition.
Do you really think liberals want more STDs, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, etc? And do you really think liberal policies are more likely to result in these things than conservative policies? It’s liberals who are always pushing for sex education and drug rehab, you know, which has been shown to be far more effective than abstinence only education and zero tolerance drug laws.
I actually agree with you about the liberals who shout insults without bothering to debate – they’re annoying as fuck. But I see that just as much if not more from the conservative side.
Can I see a right-wing board shouting down anti-AGW? No. But I don’t see the SDMB shouting down socialists either. SDMB liberals are all too happy to count Socialists among their members instead of smacking them around with an anti-ignorance stick.
Then there’s a complete rejection of the law of supply and demand that’s so prevalent on the left. That, like creationism, simply comes from a lack of education. And as a result, you get things like protectionism enacted into law.
Socially, I tend toward liberal - that should be no surprise. Fiscally, I THINK I’m a bit more conservative - programs and projects are fine, but you gotta consider how it gets paid for.
Be gentle. In the PowerPoint* presentation of SA’s mind, there’s a fat red arrow leading directly from Pete Seeger to pregnant five-year-olds with taxpayer-funded breast implants doing barnyard bukkake to pay for their OxyRitalin.
A set of punchcards for the electronical computer box designed to help you sell more goods, say, velocipedes or patent medicine.
Three communities. My first concerned Boulder - and did link the anti-vaccination movement there to alternative medicine and to the Waldorf movement in a particular school with a very high rate of PBEs.
Also, frankly, there are very few conservatives in Boulder and there is a whole lot of whooping cough. Correlation can’t be confused with causation, but it is correlation, which is all I was doing right from the start here.
Are you kidding? It’s just another transfer payment. It doesn’t “work better” if you’re one of the people at the top, now does it? It doesn’t work better if you’re one of the citizens that have sufficient health care and are happy with it, now does it?
Which brings me to another product of the liberal stupid-making machine: the idea that rich people’s opinions don’t count. How many times, on this very board, do we get arguments that are basically “We’ll take from the rich and give to the poor, and that way, EVERYONE’S happy!”
Thanks for proving my point. It doesn’t matter how manny people share an opinion, it’s still an opinion, not a fact. And scientific topics deserve special treatment, as I’ve discussed at length elsewhere.
My point stands–you call others stupid while you believe that “Keynesian economics” etc are facts, which is a much more basic and fundamental form of stupidity than just beimg wrong on a specific issue (such as your dad is with evolution).
I can only count about 2 at the most Socialist-leaning posters that are as active as the 5 or more conservative counterparts on the SDMB. Granted, occasionally when they post their drivel, we are glad to step aside and let the Right and Left of the board fight it out, Admiral Stockdale-style, but some times there is hearty disagreement from more “mainstream” posters. And sometimes there is hearty agreement with them.
Because unlike the conservative posters, the Socialist-leaning posters are sometimes right.
It does if it does the job better and for less money.
Why don’t we make this thread about a more general stupidity on the conservative side, not your particular brand, kay? There are hundreds (I’m sure) of health care threads out there.
IT’S NOT EVEN CORRELATION! You’re not getting it. To show correlation, you need to show a systematic relationship over the span of two distributions. You’re pointing to two (or three?) single points which you’ve selected and looking at the rate. That’s not correlation, dipshit.
For example, following your links, I see that San Luis Obispo, which historically votes GOP, has a rate of personal belief exemption that is twice the state rate. Since you’re arguing from a pointilistic orientation, we have no idea of knowing whether your individually hand-selected anecdotal bits or mine are any better than one another.
Yep. Another product is the idea that there are no other consequences toa redistribution scheme–that increasing taxes to give money to poor people will only have the effect of poor people having more money. There won’t be any effect on employment, the price of goods, or the economy as a whole, and anyone that wants to talk about those effects is really just an evil person that hates poor people.
Consensus is the fact we’re talking about retard. I know you feel like you really have one here. But you don’t.
I notice that instead of dealing with the troubling reality that the ideological side you identify with is full of utter banal stupidity and bereft of a solid thought all you can do is pretend to have the goods on me.
Rand Rover. I’m sorry I made you look stupid. But all I did was shine a light. You’re the one that reflected it.
