Right-wing dictatorships?  Care to name a few? I hope we aren't going to play the game of labeling Socialist dictatorships, like the Nazis and USSR, as right-wing, because that helps your argument. 

If you think the Nazis were socialist I don't even know what to tell you, you're just flat out wrong with that one and the worst part is you're so deep in your misinformation that I really doubt any amount of factual evidence or explaining will change your mind. Aside from that Islamic extremism is a right wing ideology or at the very least it's socially conservative. No it's not the same breed as Western conservatism but they're loosely under the same banner. Then there's Russia, not quite a dictatorship but definitely not a champion of human rights either.

No.  You see what the problem is is that people who want Socialism either lie about it to others or allow themselves to be lied to.  Even if someone tells you they are Socialist (Hitler or Maduro), if their regime turns to shit, others will make up poor excuses for it to actually have been a right-wing regime so that it is never Socialism's fault.  Of course, all of history teaches us one thing.  It will always fail.  And fail miserably.

The truth is Socialism is a lie.  It is just a tool to get the ignorant to willfully give up all of their power to a dictatorship, with the promise of equality for all.  Look at the people in power who push Socialism here in the States.  Are any of them truly one with the people they so want to "lift up?"  Nope.  They all take advantage of the power/wealth they are given by being a politician/celebrity.  They have several homes.  Fly in private jets.  Drive expensive cars.  Funny thing is, they are also the ones who push for climate change measures, while being some of the biggest contributors, according to their own standards, to it.  You think they are going to give that up?  Hell no.  They will continue to be massive hypocrites while pushing their large, all-encompassing government agenda that involves less freedom and leisure for anyone not of the elite.  Of course, I don't believe they are hypocrites.  Just liars.

Ignoring the rant about private Jets and what not what legitimately socialist policy did the Nazis put in place? Show me an example of the Nazis seizing the means of production. How did the Nazis eliminate the upper class and evenly redistribute wealth? Yes they had socialist policies but basically all nations have some form of socialist policies including the United States. Show me an example of an overtly socialist policy put in place by the Nazis that has no real equivalent in any largly capitalist society. 

No. It's a conspiracy theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians

There is zero empirical evidence that follows the scientific method that supports Alex Jones's assertions.

And even if it did, Mammals and Amphibians are very different... Some Amphibians will change their sex if there is a lack of one sex in an environment.

If you have a preference for Heterosexuality in the general population, then you will generally hold it's opposite, Homosexuality in contempt, especially when you start conflating it with various crazy conspiracy theories.

I have provided evidence.

Right-wing dictatorships?  Care to name a few? I hope we aren't going to play the game of labeling Socialist dictatorships, like the Nazis and USSR, as right-wing, because that helps your argument. 

And drop it with the gun lobby BS.  Gun lobbies exist because we have millions of people who believe in the 2nd Amendment, and support those lobbies and the products that they protect, not the other way around.  And considering gun deaths have declined in America over the past few decades, I'm glad we will continue to have millions still who will think logically about this issue when tragedy strikes, instead of using emotion to try to strip away freedoms.

Also, fun fact:  There are more guns in Australia today than were at the time of the buyback.  Guess you should be for more guns then if it is doing so much good.  It seems to me that they just followed the same progression that the US, as well as many other countries, did, declining in overall crime rates over the past 25 years or so.

"No. It's a conspiracy theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians"

first off wikipedia is not a valid source of evidence but regardless, did you actually read this?

"A 2008 study reported that tadpoles developed deformed hearts and impaired kidneys and digestive systems when chronically exposed to atrazine concentrations of 10 ppm in their early stages of life."

"A 2010 Hayes study concluded that atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females"

"In 2010, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) tentatively concluded that environmental atrazine "at existing levels of exposure" was not affecting amphibian populations in Australia consistent with the 2007 EPA findings."

the contention here is about what concentrations cause the frogs to become sterile and change their sex not that it doesn't happen at all

"And even if it did, Mammals and Amphibians are very different... Some Amphibians will change their sex if there is a lack of one sex in an environment."

yes mammals and amphibians are different but endocrine disruptors have adverse effects on both groups do dismiss that as a conspiracy theory is nonsensical

"If you have a preference for Heterosexuality in the general population, then you will generally hold it's opposite, Homosexuality in contempt"

you understand that you've pretty much described every human population that has ever existed right? its kind of necessary for most people to reproduce since that's kind of necessary to replace the people that die

that has nothing to do with homosexuality as a lifestyle, its simply a fact of reality

"especially when you start conflating it with various crazy conspiracy theories."

to reiterate endocrine disruptors being harmful, atrazine being one example is not a conspiracy theory

Right-wing dictatorships?  Care to name a few? I hope we aren't going to play the game of labeling Socialist dictatorships, like the Nazis and USSR, as right-wing, because that helps your argument. 

so you dropped the assertion about alex jones being part of a religious sect? why would you make a claim like that when you can't substantiate it?

"but in the real world Alex Jones is a major homophobic and religious nut"

all i'm asking for is that you substantiate your assertions

"He regularly claims that certain people are demons and witches or possessed  by the devil only religious nuts do stupid stuff like that"

can you give me a quote or a video demonstrating this behavior?

"Also I guess you live under a rock or never followed the real news instead of your cult leader Alex Jones because on a regular basis there are news stories about religious leaders being exposed as being closeted homosexuals after being caught molesting their followers."

lol my cult leader? which cult are you claiming i'm a part of i wonder?

you stated they were a ton of closeted homosexuals who were religious leaders, can you give me 5 names?

You know that Nazi stands for nationalsocialists, right? As in, just one word in it's original German, as it meant to be social towards the state, or nation (and by extension, the Nazi party), and not it's people, hence the name. The state of the state was everything that really counted, it's inhabitants were only meant to contribute to it. The only socialistic part of it was that they were using a semi-planned economy in so far that they had 3-year and 5-year plans as targets for the economy as a whole. The economy was actually pretty close to the state capitalism nowadays used in China, but that's the extent of socialism in Nazi Germany.

Because, since you seem to think Nazi Germany was a socialistic state, tell me what socialist policies did the Nazis put in place? I'm waiting.

And to name a few others, how about Irak under Saddam? Saudi-Arabia? Augusto Pinochet in Chile? The Shah in Persia (named Iran since the people deposed him)? Actually easier to just name all those dictators who the US instated as a counterbalance to the USSR specifically because they were not socialistic - and there are a lot of them!

You mentioned Nazis and the USSR, not I. Thus mentioning either of those doesn't help your position one iota.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_dictatorship

There is a good list, have at it.

No. Gun lobbies exist because of Capitalism and legislation, there are lots of people who make allot of money out of Guns in the USA.
The NRA is a powerful organization that has admitted to interfering in American politics... And even in Australian politics.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/al-jazeera-releases-more-undercover-footage-of-one-nation-visits-with-nra/news-story/10449b3557197b8b3ce8761288da9c1a

Let's throw some facts then shall we.
* Australia's rate of Gun Massacres plummeted after gun legislation was enacted.
* Australia's rate of Gun-related suicides plummeted after gun legislation was enacted.
* Australia's rate of Gun-related crime plummeted after gun legislation was enacted.

Australia's gun ownership in general plummeted after gun control was brought in, the fact there are more guns in the country today means that our current legislation works... And you don't loose access to guns... So you have nothing to fear as you ultimately loose nothing. - So don't you think it makes sense for the USA to bloody copy it!?

But that doesn't tell the entire story. Gun owners per capita is lower today than it was before gun legislation.

If you can't recognize the fact that gun legislation has saved lives in Australia, has proven to work and you still don't loose access to owning guns... Then I am not sure anyone could convince you of anything.

I often hear this argument, but no one has been able to place a credible reason as to why it cannot be a credible source.

The thing about Wikipedia is that... Yes it is open to editing, but your efforts are in vain if you don't have this thing called a "citation". - Citations are the little pieces of evidence that is used to build a Wikipedia article from, thus as new information comes to light, then so can a wikipedia article general stance on an issue... And thus Wikipedia is as always as accurate as the available evidence.

I think people just get upset because Wikipedia proves their position as incorrect and thus will throw the "non-legitimate" claim out there, just because.

So without further-ado... I still stand-by that wikipedia link... It's certainly more reliable than that nut job Alex Jones.

In saying that, I did read the entire article... And the general consensus is that there is no consensus. - Did you not read it in it's entirety and within it's intended context? Many of the studies found zero links.

So until there is undeniable evidence, we can discard yours and Alex Jones's position for now.

One thing you learn about being in a Hazmat trained brigade... Is that all chemicals. All of them... Will have adverse effects depending on degree of concentration.

Again, there are a multitude of frog species that will change their gender without outside chemical influences. - In-fact, Jurassic Park played on this issue which allowed the Dinosaurs to breed.

At the end of the day though, you seem to have ignored the prior anti-homosexual stances that Alex Jones has propagated and intend to stick to this sticking  point, which I find very telling.

You can be Homosexual and reproduce, making that argument entirely redundant.

I never once stated they weren't harmful. Don't shift the goal posts.