Why do conservatives blame everything on liberals?
Let me add a more general thought here. Yes, each side blames the other. We’ve designed politics as a competitive game, so that’s what they are supposed to do. But this political game blinds us to one really important, and quite recent, development. Specifically, it has only been in about the last half century that thinkers in various fields—economics, immunology, climate science, and so on—have actually had the conceptual and data analysis tools to know how to diagnose and solve or mitigate collective and societal problems. The major difference between the parties is that Dems, haltingly and imperfectly, want to take advantage of these tools to solve problems. The GOP just wants power and wealth for itself. In these more enlightened and interconnected times, we can see that government DOES play a central role in problem solving. Government is not the enemy. There really is a difference between the two approaches, and blame is properly directed at those who deny science and progress for their own selfish advancement.
Why does most everything Glenn Beck says come true but Liberals deny it and attack him?
He warned years before about Bin Laden and how we would get attacked by him - 9-11 happened. He has warned us about most of what Obamas policies would do to America- all happening. He said the govt would pass netnutraility and take our freedom- happening. He showed us Obama's video when he said his energy policies would cause our bills to skyrocket- HAPPENING. He told us to buy Gold a couple years back and gold prices nearly tripled since. - Happened. I can't really think of anything Glenn was wrong about? He Glenn Beck bashing robots- TELL ME ONE THING GLENN So called Lied about?
Why do Liberals deny the will of God?
Liberals neither deny nor support the “will of God.” Liberals support the society and the rights of the individual. Generally speaking, this tends to be in opposition to the “will of God” which usually is whatever you say it is.In modern societies it has been a constant battle to insulate the rights of the individual from the rights of a specific clergy to require their specific dogma on everyone.If you are Christian, you KNOW the will of (your) god. If you are Muslim, you KNOW the will of (your) god. Unfortunately that will is decidedly different from that of other gods and their dogma. So if we assume that there must be a “will of god” then we must choose which of the thousands of gods and religions are the “real” god. If I am in one country, god wants me to subjugate women as non-human things that must be controlled. If I am in another country, god wants me to honor women but keep them in their place. In either case, the god never asked the women if they wanted to be placed in that condition.However, if you go to a country ruled by a more non-religious government, women tend to have many more options for their lives. And that is just one difference.So, if you can show me, give evidence that your specific concept of the “will of god” is the right and only one, then perhaps we can talk about how it might be implemented. However, since there are thousands of gods, you would also have to show how and why all of the other gods are wrong.Liberals are not controlled by religious dogma. They generally feel that religion should be part of your belief set, but that gives you no right to impose your specific set of dogma on everyone else. That doesn’t mean that they deny the will of god, it just means that they may have their own god, who is focused on the rights and conditions of all humans, and not just the subset you adhere to.On the other hand (and I think this is where you are really going) liberals tend to be secularist and humanist rather than theist. So they don’t find you need to impose a specific dogma on everyone. In fact, many (not all) liberals may be atheist. (God forbid.)
What are liberals tired of having to deny?
Tons. That we want all guns taken away from everyone as opposed to wanting better regulations to ban assault weapons and to prevent mentally unstable and otherwise dangerous people from buying guns. That we’re gung-ho pro-abortion as opposed to pro-choice and knowing the decision is heart-breaking, not capricious. That we’re all commie libtard leftists that hate our country and our veterans and our soldiers and our first responders and probably even Mom and apple pie, which is especially galling when the Republican Congress screws over our vets and warriors with their budget proposals and will likely cause Mom to die if God-forbid she have a life-threatening illness caused by a pre-condition.
Why do liberals deny that race exists?
How can they possibly be so anti-science? I hear all the time liberals saying "Don't you know race is only skin color!". Obviously humans were separated in different populations for 10,000's of years in some cases. Non-Africans diverged from Africans 70,000 years ago. This was the first split. One consequence of this is that africans are the only race that grows afros, and all other races have straight hair. If you applied the same standards to homosapiens as you do other animals, then it would be impossible to deny that races exist. Even after the race deniers lost, I still hear these stupid arguments "we're all just one race". And meanwhile, companies just take your ancestry test and tell you your race. Humans aren't even very heterozygous, compared to other species. The total genetic variation between polar bears and grizzly bears is only a factor of .68. That is less than humans who have a genetic variation of .735 across our entire genome. There's 19 recognized subspecies of coyote, when their total genetic variance is only .629. Physical anthropologists can recognize the race of a skeleton by their bone structure and skull shape. Biologists can give you an ancestry test and determine your exact race even down to a fraction of a percent. Why are liberals so far behind in science? When will they admit that over the many 1,000's of generations, the only morphological difference humans evolved wasn't just skin color.
Liberal Fascism, why do liberals deny it.?
there blindness
Why are liberals denying "anti-racist" is a code word for anti-white?
Because it’s not! Code words, especially about race and ethnicity, are and have long been the province of right-wing, anti-immigrant and racist politicians and in post WWII America that means REPUBLICANS.an·ti-rac·ist | an(t)ēˈrāsəst,ˌanˌtīˈrāsəst/noun 1.a person who opposes racism and promotes racial tolerance."a committed anti-racist who used his vocal genius and popularity to break racist picket lines at schools"adjective 1.opposing racism and promoting racial tolerance."he was active in the anti-racist movement in the US"Liberals are not anti-white! At most, a tiny fringe of African-American and other racial minorities well outside the political discourse of the Democratic Party have articulated anti-white sentiments in response to the continued embrace of discriminatory attitudes on the right and the continuing significance of racist attitudes that shape American politics as was so tragically apparent in the 2016 election and is no overtly apparent in the policies and appointments of Donald Trump. And who can really blame them. But they have never used the word “anti-racist.”The idea that "anti-racist" is a code word for anti-white is a false accusation concocted by the right to mislead voters. The sad fact is that it is one of many lies promoted by Republicans.Liberals and the Democratic Party reject both Donald Trump’s policies and all political hostility based on race.How can Republican deny that they have waged a campaign of lies.
Do liberals deny science?
I see this challenge in two ways:There are those who have an instinctive distrust of anything they consider “chemical”. Of course, the entire world is chemical. But there is a group of liberals who refuse to listen to science about the safety and benefits of chemicals (e.g. Vaccines or fluorinated water) and prefer to fall back on superstition.There are liberals who take everything to an extreme.For example, smoking certainly involves major risk of cancer.But, now this group starts talking about the carcinogenic risk of 3rd hand smoke. Really? Just because “anti-smoking” was successful doesn’t mean it should be taken to extraordinary extremes.And they take it to an extreme like “all Teflon coated cookware is bad”. The science is that taking a bath in one of the key chemicals involved in Teflon manufacture is a major problem. Yet by the time Teflon is baked onto cookware, there’s virtually none of that chemical left.A group like the Environmental Working Group leads that extreme - using scare tactics to raise money while damaging the economy.I’ll equate them with anti-tax conservatives who refuse to listen to economists and make all taxes bad - to the extreme that leads to no taxes, no government, complete anarchy, and destruction of society.Or anti-science conservatives who choose to ignore science on global warming.