I have a hard time, personally, understanding people’s obsession with bacon specifically. I admit bacon is delicious, but if I had to choose between bacon and chicken, I’d have far more difficulty giving up chicken.

Your idea that conservatives generally are against government waste is an issue that I think conservatives are right on. Whether they’ve ever implemented it well (like you mentioned), or whether they apply it sanely (like military vs. healthcare)… None of that matters since I was talking about the issue itself. So, I think this is an almost unanimously held conservative belief that is correct.

I was originally going to take issue with some of your other points (and had actually written quite a few things), but the challenge was to give me one issue that conservatives are correct, and you’ve done that.

I’m not sure they’re worth blocking. Their account will probably be banned soon, anyways, presumably like their previous accounts were.

Well, then, it should be easy for you to come up with examples. You wouldn’t just get all worked up and morally righteous if you didn’t have tons of examples where conservatives were correct, would you? I’m sure you can list hundreds, but let’s start with one.

Edit: Dagwood_Sanwich has made 9 comments in the time since I made this one, so I think it’s a given that they can’t come up with one answer. If anybody out there needs to learn how to deal with conservatives, I suggest you take notes from LBC’s James O’Brien. Conservatives tend to make general statements and grandstand, but just ask them to explain one thing and they crumple.

Of course, James O’Brien’s style works best when you are in a conversation with them. On the internet, they’ll just find somewhere else to go and spread their misinformation. But if we all acted like James O’Brien, there would be nowhere for propagandists to go.

I also had a sensible chuckle.

Are there any issues where conservatives are correct? I mean, like even if it means they agree with progressives.

I was thinking both are against murder, but conservatives seem to support the genocide in Palestine. They seem excited about the idea of a civil war.

I was thinking both reject the rape of children, but conservatives lately seem to have been warming up to that.

I think the reason it’s hard to find a good answer is that their opinions aren’t based on anything logical, just whatever they’re told to believe at the moment. A person with no truly held convictions cannot be right about anything.

You’re right. There would definitely be a problem of heat disposal. For people who are confused by this concept, I suggest you watch this video about entropy.

If you’re going through the trouble of inventing a different universe, why not just invent one with an infinite energy source, rather than going about it roundabout?

Also, I don’t imagine that people really imagine “limited rate” when talking about “unlimited energy”. With that definition, I could sell you unlimited energy today for the low price of one hundred billion dollars. The rate is limited to 1 Joule per decade, but it will eventually pay off big during the heat death of the universe.

You and I must have different concepts of “unlimited”.

On this planet, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

First covfefe and now Bela

There’s a possibility for a darker meaning for these things.

Similar to how there are some cults that get their members to send blackmail material on themselves to the cult leader. Because if you knew the cult leader had embarrassing nude photographs of you, then you leaving or betraying the cult is less likely.

So, covfefe and Bela could be public proofs of submission from Trump to somebody else. There may be more proof from before this that demonstrates somebody ordered Trump to post these things, and if Trump ever betrayed them, then they could use these to present absolute proof that Trump is compromised and subservient to, for example, a foreign government. But without that proof, it just looks like a slightly embarrassing typo.

You’re right. Think about this. On January 6, 2021, Trump was illegally inciting an insurrection. He was surrounded by Secret Service agents who are only ostensibly paid to protect him.

Secret Service agents first oath is to defend the Constitution. So, they actually had a primary duty that day, not to protect Trump, but to arrest him.

They had all sworn a solemn oath that required them to take action against Trump, but nobody did anything of the sort. In fact, they famously broke the law by not retaining the information from their phones from that day.

Removed by mod

If the flag symbolizes those who are ethnically Jewish, then to me, that’s the fault of the person who originally selected the flag, or the fault of the nation for being inherently racist itself. It should always be an acceptable political statement to burn the flag of a nation.

The article calls Epstein a “disgraced financier”, but it fails to call Trump a “disgraced president” or “disgraced businessman.”

I also mention this because it’s somewhat ironic that these two disgraces were after somebody who was actually graceful.

It’s always pork.

When allied soldiers came back after the end of WW2, Nazis and fascism were fairly unpopular among them.

I think it is no coincidence that fascism’s popularity has increased at right about the time that virtually all of those soldiers have passed away.

Nothing you’ve said has anything to do with whether my comment was logical.

“logic bomb” is not the same as “truth bomb”

I watched one PragerU YouTube video, just to see what all of the fuss was about. I have no idea if this is typical of most of their videos, but the one I watched was like this:

It features a group of teenagers, and one video covered one topic. The topic they covered was a controversial one where there is no clear right or wrong answer, but conservatives typically lean one way, while normal people lean the other way. I don’t think it was about gun control, but I’ll make it about gun control as an example.

Group of kids talking: “Did you hear about the school shooting?” “Yeah. My parents think the government should have stricter gun control.” “Oh, my parents think the problem is that there’s not enough security at the schools. But could guns themselves really be the problem?”

Scene changes to girl, talking authoritatively directly to camera: “No. Guns are not the problem. No school with metal detectors and armed guards has ever had a school shooting.”

(I just made up whatever sounded like something that they’d say. I assume the fact I made up is wrong.)

And then, it’s just like that, over and over. Kids bring up complicated issues, and some other kid just tells them the “right” answer, every time, giving the flimsiest explanation as if it’s the gospel truth.

I would characterize showing these videos to actual children as a form of child abuse. Poisoning their minds and inhibiting children’s ability to think for themselves.

Although I like history, I wouldn’t call myself a history buff. And I basically don’t think about the Roman Empire unless somebody else brings it up.