The Conservatives Thread

Post Reply New Topic

Back to the topic of actual conservatism in the U.S., I find it interesting that the press considers Carly Fiorina's position on the no-fly list to be so conservative as to be out of touch with the electorate:

It's interesting that it's the conservatives that worry about due process rights, not liberals.

Other than the Democratic Party, what is the most liberal, socialistic, anti-American organization on the planet?

Any Conservative who knows his Catechism will tell you without hesitation: "Why, the United Nations, of course"

One of the UN's greatest crimes was eliminating smallpox. Imagine, vaccinating people against a deadly disease, for free. How unconservative can you get!

If Rothschild had simply given in to Hitler's demands, the Jewish people wouldn't have suffered such a significant loss. Just another example of greed over heritage.

And before this goes any further, this is just satire. There is no such thing as a greedy Jewish person just as there is no such thing as a greedy white person (no clue how they're different from european jews other than religion but that's another discussion for another day) or a greedy arab (no clue how they're different from jews other than religion but that's another discussion for another day) or a greedy black person (no clue how they're different from sammy davis junior.....).

Just realized how vague this would be for someone other than me: I'm making fun of the concept of race. The idea that any one group could be considered greedier than another and how people confuse the concept of religion with the concept of race.

I wonder if any of these lampshades are still around? Is there anyone selling them on EBay?

Anyway, a 15 year old Mexican boy apparently got his just desserts

http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/ne ... s/hof10091

And, another one

http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp ... =printable

I suppose that if you are going to kill off a racial minority, then you should at least allow private enterprise to make a profit off of the body parts.

Just think how the lampshade industry could benefit from a market in Jewish foreskins. Is there no enterprise left in the world?

David paid for his first wife, Michal, with 200 Philistine foreskins (1 Samuel 18). He carefully counted them out.

So, there was a market, at least for Philistine foreskins.

Yo, Baby John! Drill, John, Drill!! !

Who cares about a few birds covered in oil, anyway? Just some liberal bird-huggers, who now have an opportunity to go and hug a few birds.

And, fishermen. So, some bloody liberals think they should have more fish in their diets. Let them eat pigs and cattle that have been fattened on proper corporate feedlots.

Drill! Drill! Drill!

And, BP shouldn't have to pay a dime of restitution to anyone, except, of course, to the richest of beachfront owners of Caribbean property who are, coinicidentally, the biggest shareholders of BP stock.

Drill! Drill! Drill!

Just feel those profits, gushing out of the seabed and into the sea.

If anything, BP's executive officers should receive compensation from the US government for any loss in their incomes.

Drill! Drill! Drill!

but but but but but panda! if only those damn environmentalists hadn't forced our offshore drilling so far off shore we'd be doing it in SHALLOW water! that's WAAAAAAAAY safer! just look how easy it was to fix the Ixtoc blowout in 200ft of water in 1979! and our safety technology is so much better and our spill response technology is sooooo much better now than it was then!



oh wait, i've seen things drop out of a bull that couldn't be considered to be as bullsh** as that.

Which environmentalists?

Let's skin them alive!

People should be executed just for being environ "mentalists".

I would like to get rid of the income tax and go to a consumption (sales) tax instead. In order to make sure the poor don't get completely hosed, I have no problem with doing what states like New Jersey have done with their state sales tax and making food, medical stuff (though NOT purely elective procedures that have no basis in a physical condition or mental health diagnosis where the procedure is indicated as an appropriate remedy), clothing, and educational materials or supplies made tax-free. Purchases beyond that would be taxed. This way, there's no way to use the system to cheat and get out of taxes if you can hire a good attorney. And on the flip side, if you are an honest business or rich person, you wouldn't be getting hosed just for being successful. Something mostly like this (though with the tax-free "absolute necessity" categories similar to the NJ model) is what I would support: http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?page= ... _ctrl=1501

I would like to withdraw from the United Nations and evict them from New York City. Biggest waste of tax dollars ever, and for absolutely zero return. Let's see how well they get along without the disproportionate fees we pay them to put dictators up on a podium who stand there and badmouth us all day.

I would like to see school vouchers become an absolute right. Schools should have to compete on the basis of merit, and bad schools should be flushed out by the free market. I do think the government still has a place in education, though I think the focus on "college for everyone" is very skewed, and there needs to be a much more honored place for the skilled trades as well. I have the distinct feeling that a lot of people who get "stuck" in fast-food and menial jobs would actually have the right skills for some of the woefully understaffed "trade" jobs that it seems like Americans turn their noses up on. (I have a friend who works in a factory, and he makes twice what I do, because his skills are so prized. He would take a pay CUT if he went into management/office work.) My other reason for supporting vouchers is to curb public-school indoctrination and cut the power of teachers' labor unions. If the government uses its resources on indoctrination, competition will ensure that these abuses are flagged and parents unhappy with it will have the means to vote with their vouchers against it.

Education is the bulwark that gives us all equal OPPORTUNITY, and that's why I think the government still has a place there in ensuring that everybody gets one appropriate to their skills and interests (though they absolutely SHOULD NOT be responsible for the results if you decide not to apply yourself). But once that's done, it should be up to your choices. Bailing people out of their debts for their own stupid decisions is not something that should be the government's responsibility. Now, I DO absolutely support the work of private organizations and companies, and of religious organizations, to help people who truly have fallen on hard times. That would be given freely--and FAR more efficiently--than anything the government is capable of doing. (Whatever good intentions some in the government may have, it's like a law of physics--bureaucracy WILL screw it up, always.)

I should note for the official record that I am NOT comfortable with or endorsing the racial talk (or other jokes about harming people) in this thread. In a truly conservative society, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on should NOT be deciding factors in the marketplace, AT ALL. Neither discrimination nor "affirmative" discrimination should be acceptable. If we all get the same shot at a decent education, then it should be solely up to our decisions and our performance, period. Bigotry in ANY direction (and it doesn't matter whether it's majority-to-minority or minority-to-majority) should be absolutely unacceptable.

(One final caveat on welfare. If someone is UNABLE to work, has a legitimate condition that prevents them from doing so, I believe such people should be helped because it is not their own fault that they're in that situation. That is still society's responsibility. But if their "condition" is "being irresponsible" when they could have done better...no.)

Nope. In a truly conservative, free society, the government must not dictate to anyone what his deciding factors must be. If an individual wishes to make a market decision based upon race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc., then the government has no business telling that person otherwise.

Both discrimination and affirmative action are acceptable, depending on the viewpoint of the marketplace participant.

The civil rights acts of the 1960s hippy days need to be revoked.

But if the government becomes corrupted by such influences, which it would if that law was revoked, then they are no longer by and for the people as a whole, and only for segments of the population (that is to say, this state would be exacerbated, given that our government already does not truly represent us). This verges upon a tyranny.

The government cannot and should not tell a person what attitude to have inside their head. On THAT we agree. But I think the law as it stands is fine--it just needs to be regarded in a truly equal manner, to where ALL are protected, not simply a "protected class." As far as I am concerned, making hiring and firing decisions, or other such decisions based on factors a person cannot control, when said individual meets the qualifications for a position, isn't just morally repugnant--it is destructive from a marketplace standpoint as well.

Affirmative action is excess regulation. But the Civil Rights Act should stand.

Well, if the truth must be known:

Blatant discrimination is, in fact, rampant. You just have to be careful, and can't be open about it. You just have to come up with some reason other than "race" for a decision (hiring, firing, whatever), and the burden of proof is on the victim. It is almost impossible to "prove", unless the perpetrator gives you a written letter stating that his decision was based on race (or whatever), and no-one is going to be that stupid. Just ask any victim of discrimination. EEO laws are pure sham.

Actually, you seem very liberal with a point of view like this.

Remember: Barack Hussein Obama was born in the ultra-liberal state of Hawaii, which had no anti-miscegenation laws.

If Barack Hussein Obama's parents had lived in a conservative state, where inter-racial marriage was prohibited, then Barack Hussein Obama would never have been born.

And, if Barack Hussein Obama had never been born, then we wouldn't currently be suffering under a totalitarian socialist tyranny.