The Conservatives Thread

Post Reply New Topic

The Government must not be in a position to decide who is and is not fit to parent a child. Eugeneticists were discredited as vile socialist scum generations ago.

We need to abolish all child labour laws, and put the children to work in mines and factories. That is the only Conservative means of ending the socialist welfare problem.

We need to put an end to both abortion and contraception.

As Cardinal Jaime Sin said: "Don't think about the mouths to feed. Think about the hands to work!"

Ditto for idiots like you.

In case anyone hasn't worked out yet, pandabear seems to be using this thread to parody co-called conservative beliefs. His proposal to put children to work in mines and factories would then be a parody of the supposed pro-free-market attitudes of conservatives.

When someone is so consistently sarcastic in an internet aspie forum, it can be difficult to work out where they're really coming from. But in this thread perhaps we should assume that all the ideas pandabear is articulating in this thread are ideas he does not actually hold. This implies that when he says "The Government must not be in a position to decide who is and is not fit to parent a child" he actually thinks "The Government should be in a position to decide who is and is not fit to parent a child". As someone who has an interest in countering "dysgenics" even I would not go this far.

Threads like these tend to be a magnet for trolls. You have to take that in consideration the first time you post in them.

What you are advocating here would suck the life blood out of capitalism in the USA. If you read the biographies of the top 10 business men in the states, you'll find that 9/10 crawled their way out of abject poverty. Of those, I can only think of Bill Gates as the exception. Had their mothers been not allowed to bear children, America would not be the innovator that it is today.

These business men usually became great philanthropists later in life. Rather than advocating state support of the destitute, they created foundations and such to promote education. More such endeavors would ease the need for onerous tax burdens. Social support should be voluntary and grass roots.

You can examine the sciences for the same sort of story. Almost as often, the great minds were people who had to fight their way into an advanced education.

So I dont know why you would support such a position.

I still want to know why we have to spend American blood and treasure defending Israel. If it's due to Evangelical end times theology, or something more sensible, I'd like to hear (read) it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

In the USA, a lot of children who might be classified by others as "poor" like to wear, as status symbols, expensive name-brand clothing and hundred-dollar shoes.

Said clothing and shoes are manufactured in sweatshops in other countries, by other children, many of whom are seeking to support their parents with their meager wages,

A superior Conservative alternative would be to permit American children to work in factories producing shoes and clothing, rather than letting them waste time in public schools and eventually live out their adult lives in luxurious American prisons.

A good factory job would help to relieve their minds of sex, hip hop and drugs, and be more likely to place them on a good path towards responsibility and good, clean Conservative values.

Did I really say that both people should be working? I may have implied it indirectly, in which case I am sorry - that wasn't the intended meaning.



Enough with the gotchas. Common sense is the obvious way to go about it. It's not about whether the person literally has a job, it's about their history of seeking them out and sustaining them. Nobody has the psychic power to predict whether they will be employed 9 months down the road. But they CAN ensure that at the time of conception they are in fact employed.

You and a couple of other posters (AngelRho, Fuzzy) take offense with the meaning that was not really intended.

I do not want to punish good people who are experiencing bad times. However, I DO want to get the blood-sucking bums out.
The difference between the two is this: for the former, the bad times are temporary, and they do their utmost to get out of them. The latter exploit welfare system by having more kids, and are content to keep receiving taxpayer money they are "entitled" to, perfectly fine with their status quo.

THE LATTER are the people that need to be HEAVILY dissuaded from having children.



Welcome to page 1

Just let pandabear/xenon13/Krachsturmfuhrer(whatever) argue amongst themselves.

Oops, no, you didn't say that both people should be working. Sorry about that.

I find it fascinating that, while President Obama has lamentably turned the United States into a totalitarian Marxist/Lennonist state, in his private life, he is actually more conservative than many people who like to label themselves as "conservative" in order to get money and votes.

For example, Sarah Palin. Her husband has a decent income, and there certainly is no reason for her to write books, run for public office, or work outside the home. Is it any wonder that her daughter turned into a fornicator?

Richard Cheney--while he did bring great wealth to Haliburton, which is certainly praiseworthy, he raised his daughter to a Lesbian lifestyle. He really has no chance of escaping eternal damnation.

Rush Limbaugh, John McCain--both have been divorced, which is liberal reprehensible conduct in the extreme.

Last edited by pandabear on 17 May 2010, 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why bother with this? Conservatives aren't welcome in the aspergers community. Damned if I know why but there you are. Any thread made with the intention of debate among conservative or libertarian or people who think outside the box will just be broken up by liberal trolls while the moderators stand by useless. If I want to express my political views I go on freerepublic and enjoy myself.

No problem, du0d. Thanks for clearing that up.

And yeah, I'm with you on that last one.

Something else I'd like to say is that I went from my undergrad program in the Mississippi Delta to a graduate program in Northern New York where I stayed for two years. My observation of the general attitude of more liberal northerners towards southerners is that it isn't based on reality. The "Yankees" I got to know were very sweet, direct people that I could easily relate to, whereas here in my home state I'm too easily misunderstood. Many of those people would go on and on about welfare and affirmative action and so on, and why we need it, and how all southerners were a bunch of mean homophobic racists.

Well, I got nothing for you on the homophobes, but the parting from reality of my Yankee friends was over racial bigotry and entitlements. For better or for worse, the kinds of problems that exist in the south are unique, and it's hard to reproduce these kinds of conditions in the so-called "Great White North." My friends were amazed when they'd engage me in these conversations because I dared to make racial distinctions--culturally they don't tend to think of other people as white or black. Stepping out of the predominantly white north into certain pockets of the south that are predominantly minority demographics, my friends would probably recognize their own hypocrisy in an instant. Many in the black population in the Delta don't seem that willing to let go of their disfranchisement roots, nor do they seem willing to work their way out of their situation. When I started teaching in my first two jobs, I felt like I was almost being blamed for being white. With practice I was able to relate to those kids, and I loved them dearly. But it's extremely difficult trying to crack that mentality, and I'm not sure these welfare baby-mommas even care to reach out beyond their circumstances.

They've been through several generations of this since the 1930's. Women and children back then could live in government housing since they didn't have access to better education and jobs, but they'd be forced to leave if the husband was living with them. Over time and throughout successive generations, the husband/father became a less prominent figure in lower-income black families until he disappeared altogether. I used to work for a lawyer who dealt mostly with bankruptcy cases, so I know all about disability claims, SSI, and 8-member households that can't pay their bills. These people would complete a chapter 13 bankruptcy, close the case, and file a new one within months! One time I was having trouble with a particular client who was obviously an abuser of the system. I buried a court notice in the file ("I was just doing my job!") that basically indicated that the client was not complying and the case would be dismissed, just to see what would happen. My boss nearly ripped my head off when he figured out what I'd done. I solved the problem within 30 minutes, but it definitely put a bad taste in my mouth and diminished my faith in the welfare system as well as the courts.

I worked there because I needed the job, and this lawyer was particularly aggressive in pursuing people who had legal notices in the paper about losing their homes to foreclosure, and a lot of the time these people have no clue that anything is wrong.

In places like the Delta, this kind of thing is rampant. I don't know who's worse: Those who don't try to help themselves, or the predatory lenders who try to trap those who do. I think more of those liberals on the outside would change their tune if they had to deal with those baby-mommas who like to scream "I want my CHECK!"

I think they should. If you spend more, then you have the means to pay more versus the person who makes less shouldn't be required to pay more. This also gives a person with less money a means to save more. If they don't go to Best Buy to buy a new video game, television and surround sound system that means they have MORE money to save.

I'm sort of in the situation now. While I'm not broke, I'm also trying to conserve my money, savings, and income. The laws right now are setup to tax 45% of what I make.

The thing is, that's the kind of attitude aggressively cultivated in former Soviet Union where I'm from. Hell, in Britain they've already brainwashed most people into expecting government to do things for them. That's all they care about. It's frightening.

People living in brainwashed societies don't know they're brainwashed. They watch movies about other brainwashed people but don't realize that they, themselves, have been encased in an ideology bubble by their upbringing, by their friends, and by the largely liberal college professors.

Many of us former Soviets become staunch conservatives upon arrival to America. After all, we've been programmed and deprogrammed already, and can recognize the familiar. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Great Leader, plastering his face all over the social networking for the youth (we used to read a newspaper made specially to brainwash children - "Young Leninist"), and television... vague exclamations about hope and change... "spreading the wealth around" (possibly some of the most dangerous words an American President ever uttered)... government usurping more control over businesses... a bill changing healthcare into a system that will eventually drop the pretense of competing businesses and shift under complete government control...

I've had Soviet healthcare. Having your teeth drilled without anaesthetics and suction as a child was pretty scarring. And mandatory - the government forced the schools to lead kids to the dentists.

Here in America we now see the government attempting to "force kids to be healthy". This movement is beginning... because government, of course, is here to help. It's not the parents' responsibility to exercise their kids and watch their diet. No, it's the government's.

People in America are giving up their freedoms way too easily, and it troubles many of us ex-Soviets.

Last edited by monsterland on 17 May 2010, 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, I didn't write that. I don't know how I got stuck with that quote.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I see. A sales tax would be to your advantage, since you are trying to spend as little as possible.

But, a flat tax would be more fair. When you go to a movie theatre, you pay the same price regardless of your income. Taxes should be the same. "Means tests" are very liberal.

People who were completely broke could turn to private charities to pay their taxes for them. Or else put their children to work.