[raliv]

I couldn't give a fuck less if my president wasn't cool or funny. The only part that matters is does he follow the Constitution and does he protect the country?

You know, the stuff he is supposed to do.

[kerouac]

(07-01-2012 02:40 PM)scotian Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 10:17 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

So we got two cool republicans/conservatives in the history of the world:

Tom Selleck
Joey Ramone

That is actually two more than I thought would have ever existed.

Has there ever been a funny conservative?

Ever?

Dennis Miller.

Dennis Miller... funny?

I didn't even giggle

[thegmanifesto]

(07-01-2012 04:07 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 02:40 PM)scotian Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 10:17 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

So we got two cool republicans/conservatives in the history of the world:

Tom Selleck
Joey Ramone

That is actually two more than I thought would have ever existed.

Has there ever been a funny conservative?

Ever?

Dennis Miller.

Dennis Miller... funny?

I didn't even giggle

Yeah, Dennis Miller is just about the most UN-funny guy ever to walk the earth.

The only thing funny about him is how goddamn unfunny he is.

But then again he probably is the funniest conservative/republican person, famous or unfamous.

[Kona]

Wow.

I just googled some funny or cool conservatives. Ric Flair is on the list, so I thought I found one.



Then I read a little, and it turns out Ric Flair is a real jackass.

I'm gonna keep looking.

Aloha!

[soup]

Yeah- most conservatives are unintentionally funny.

[WestCoast]

If you are against people getting food you don't deserve to be alive.

I have been extremely poor, following the money is sometimes a falacy. I used to eat nothing but Mc Donalds and Burger King because on a cost basis it is actually cheaper than eating "healthy". Extremely conservative thinking is simply pampered, there is no excuse for it.

Roosh had a post on Brazil's obesity epidemic, note it is footed to fast food. Do the math.

Burger? $0.79? Look at the cost of bread and say ham at a super market. Say a buck for the loaf but the Ham costs $4... that gets you no where fast. Now compound that with the fact that if you are poor you work like a slave getting paid minimum wage... now you have no time to cook.... game over.

There was an article somewhere about people who actually survive being poor that make it "to high class" and can't relate to anyone, I 100% agree with this so the poor who succeed end up never having kids because their "mates" never get them. Hilarious catch don't ya think?

Anyway, whoever thinks people in general dont deserve at least comfort/bare minimum necessities even if it is a tax impact, go hang yourself. Thanks.

[RandalGraves]

(07-01-2012 10:17 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Has there ever been a funny conservative?

Ever?

PJ O'Rourke.

[Samseau]

WestCoast Wrote:

Anyway, whoever thinks people in general dont deserve at least comfort/bare minimum necessities even if it is a tax impact, go hang yourself.

The problem is that the term "bare minimum necessities" is stretched out over time, so as to become all-inclusive.


1. Bare-minimum used to mean food and water.



2. Then it became food, water, and a job.



3. Then it became food, water, a job, and a home.



4. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, and child support.



5. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, child support, and unemployment benefits.



6. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, child support, unemployment benefits, and health care.



7. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, unemployment benefits, child support, health care, and now cars are being added to the list.




Serious question: Where the fuck does it end?

[WestCoast]

Should simply be the following.

Bed to sleep in with roof over head
Health care
Food/water

That's it. Everything else is moot.

To people who don't believe in this i ask you the following...

When you are homeless how do you apply for a job WITHOUT AN ADDRESS. Good luck.

[MikeCF]

Conservatives absolutely supporting feeding and housing people.

Who do you think passes mandatory minimum and other draconian sentencing laws?

Who started the War on Drugs?

Who wants to turn the U.S. into a police state? Who wants to hire more police and pay them higher salaries?

Cops and prison guards are on welfare.

Who wanted to hire millions of useless TSA employees?

Liberalized welfare pales in cost to conservative welfare.

[Samseau]

(07-01-2012 08:12 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Conservatives absolutely supporting feeding and housing people.

Who do you think passes mandatory minimum and other draconian sentencing laws?

Who started the War on Drugs?

Who wants to turn the U.S. into a police state? Who wants to hire more police and pay them higher salaries?

Cops and prison guards are on welfare.

Who wanted to hire millions of useless TSA employees?

Liberalized welfare pales in cost to conservative welfare.

I wouldn't call myself a conservative.

But I do know plenty of them. And few conservatives agree with the direction the Republican Party has gone in the last 10-15 years.

It's the same for most democrats I know. They call themselves liberal, but hate hate hate the policies modern democrats have done.

[assman]

(07-01-2012 03:30 PM)raliv Wrote:  

I couldn't give a fuck less if my president wasn't cool or funny. The only part that matters is does he follow the Constitution and does he protect the country?

The Republican and Democratic parties stopped giving a fuck about the Constitution a long time ago.

Both are leading the sheeple to the slaughter, the Dems more quickly perhaps, but the GOP will take us there as well.

Get armed, while it's still legal. Cuz shit will be hitting the fan in the USSA in our lifetimes.

[Hooligan Harry]

(07-01-2012 10:55 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(07-01-2012 10:53 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

There is nothing more tedious and surer sign of ignorance, low intelligence and immaturity than people who reduce politics to two positions and than say "everyone" who isn't in "their" simplistic category isn't "cool" or "kick ass" or "totally bitching." If you haven't outgrown these thoughts by the time you get a high school diploma, maybe politics isn't your thing and you should stick to other topics.

So we still have a total of two.

Bill Cosby, Bill Burr, Billy Crystal, Bill Engvall

Just the Bills if you like.

This is retarded. The arts and social sciences attract more liberal minded people. Business and STEM attracts more conservatively minded people. Always been the case. And if we are now going to say the definition of cool is fame? Jesus, what are we, women?

The dumbest, most pretentious and ignorant people I meet are almost always liberal. Losers of the highest order are almost always liberal because they need to believe society is the reason why they achieve or have fuck all. Most lack the ability to see past the simple. Its not all of them, but its most, and when I think of the liberal mind I think of the concrete wastes of Russia.

Liberalism is to 2012 what conservatism was to 1950. DEFAULT, which means its typically sheep who tend to fit the profile and often due to the fact that being the opposite opens you up to hateful shit like this. Its safer to be a liberally minded person.

Only in America are all conservatives religious whack jobs against drugs, abortion and immigration and support endless wars too. No wonder half the planet thinks you are a bunch of ignorant, arrogant pricks. Its maybe true of some American conservatives, but these blanket statements on conservatism as a whole are fucking retarded are do you no favours.

Ron Paul is true conservative. Other than being religious, exactly how the fuck does he fit any of the loose definitions of conservative that seem to pervade this forum?

[Don_Johnson]

Roosh is correct that there is an element of corruption with food stamps. One can make the argument that the entire vast system of assistance is about corruption, if only to employ so many thousands of people.

But the key issue here is one of intelligence and utility in the modern world.

This very issue highlights the danger of liberal political theory, and so-called conservatives are just as liberal philosophically as any self-professed liberal. Both believe in the tabula rasa myth, that all people are born equal and only social conditioning accounts for differences in key abilities, particularly intelligence. For self-professed liberals, the failure of the underclass is due to external social causes. For a long time, it was insufficient education. Then it turned into political correctness with racism, sexism, and homophobia being the cause. Conservatives also believe people are equal, but that the system works and that failure is MORAL failure.

But none of this is true.

These people at the bottom were born stupid, and there is no reason for their failure besides this. Once upon a time, people in the local community would insure that there was some work for such people, even if it was basic. Today, we warehouse them and put them on welfare.

There is no question that without public assistance, a substantial number of people would be unable to function or thrive in American society.

[Hooligan Harry]

(07-01-2012 08:02 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Should simply be the following.

Bed to sleep in with roof over head
Health care
Food/water

That's it. Everything else is moot.

To people who don't believe in this i ask you the following...

When you are homeless how do you apply for a job WITHOUT AN ADDRESS. Good luck.

Its not that simple

What kind of housing? What quality? What amenities?
What kind of healthcare? Medication too? What about service levels?

No one wants to see people go without, but what you are suggesting is an intangible, which means you never reach a stage where people are happy. You try to appeal to altruism and take the moral high ground with the demand, but it does not mean its practical or even feasible.

They have state housing here. The homeless were moved into apartments, but kitchens and bathrooms were shared. It was all the state could afford. In a few years, complaints were raised that it was sub standard and not good enough, more was needed. So then people got bachelor flats, then 2 bedroom flats, then eventually houses. Costs us a fortune.

They then had to be close to schools, transport, medical care. So it was not enough to put them in a decent home, it had to be in a great spot too. What was a temporary solution for people down on their luck quickly became a permanent solution that beats working

We now sit with prime real estate that tax payers want to use, and pay rates on to provide services to the community, that we cant do anything with. Im talking river ways and beach front.

You guys are not breaking new ground here. We tried it here in Aus, NZ, Canada and Scandinavia. The only reason it was possible is because we have tiny populations and massive resources to export. And even here its starting to fail because it becomes unsustainable even with those advantages you dont have.

[Hooligan Harry]

(07-01-2012 11:44 PM)Don_Johnson Wrote:  

Roosh is correct that there is an element of corruption with food stamps. One can make the argument that the entire vast system of assistance is about corruption, if only to employ so many thousands of people.

But the key issue here is one of intelligence and utility in the modern world.

This very issue highlights the danger of liberal political theory, and so-called conservatives are just as liberal philosophically as any self-professed liberal. Both believe in the tabula rasa myth, that all people are born equal and only social conditioning accounts for differences in key abilities, particularly intelligence. For self-professed liberals, the failure of the underclass is due to external social causes. For a long time, it was insufficient education. Then it turned into political correctness with racism, sexism, and homophobia being the cause. Conservatives also believe people are equal, but that the system works and that failure is MORAL failure.

But none of this is true.

These people at the bottom were born stupid, and there is no reason for their failure besides this. Once upon a time, people in the local community would insure that there was some work for such people, even if it was basic. Today, we warehouse them and put them on welfare.

There is no question that without public assistance, a substantial number of people would be unable to function or thrive in American society.

So much truth to this.

Modern day conservatives are not really conservative. Any democratic system is going to be liberal because liberalism appeals to the individual even though its "for the collective". Which means its all tax and spend, and the tax and spend is dictated by morality of the time.

Christians impose their morality, but so do liberals. They are both guilty of the same thing. Look at hate speech laws for example, or sexual harassment laws. For every retarded conservative law against drugs, you have an equally retarded liberal law removing constitutional rights. Look at family law alone and how men are raped in divorce. Look at paternity law.

Look at the dude in here saying that he wants to be able to smoke weed and see the chick he fucked in the toilets get an abortion. This is what the cool people do it seems.

Who pays for the abortion?
Who pays for the cancer treatments of smokers?
Who pays for the kid of no abortion is had?
Who deals with the kid if no abortion is had?

Now the modern day conservative believes you need to prevent the costs by legislating against it or enforcing morality that stops it. The modern day liberal believes you need to remove the legislation because its discriminatory (yay, fun!), and then everyone needs to share the costs of that individuals choices or actions, citing humanitarian grounds for it.

Both sides are lunatics, but both sides play to a particular side because it wins votes and gets people into power.

The true conservative minds his business and tells you to do whatever the hell you want, just dont expect me to pay for your choices in life and dont expect to say its fine to lay claim to my property.

And most of those archaic conservative laws, like the war on drugs for example, goes back to Womens Suffrage and womens involvement in government, WHICH IS LIBERALISM AT ITS FINEST. There is your liberalism. And with it came fucked up laws against prostitution, drugs, booze, family courts, the works. Not religious conservatives, women who used conservative morality to drive politics!

The modern day American conservative is not a conservative. He is just an old school liberal with a different sense and basis of morality.

The system will fail.

[durangotang]

If a child is hungry and it needs food, I am in favor for it. If a man is laid off, I am in favor of it. These should be temporary solutions. It should be embarassing, and you should have to do something in exchange for them. My problem is the mindset that goes from temporary to permanent. This is a LBJ Great Society consequence. The ad cited promote the mindset that it's more than just ok, you'll look amazing and don't feel bad because your neighbor is doing it too. That is why we now have 46 million people on food stamps as a permanent solution. That and bad government (monetarist) policy.

In terms of the big picture we really need to end the Federal Reserve system, re-implement the Glass-Steagal Act, and implement a credit system similar to the RFC (Resource Finance Corporation) like FDR did in the 1930's. Otherwise derivates will waste us. We have been through this all before. A real estate bubble, massive Wall Street speculation, insolvent banks, high unemployment, and bank bailouts. Only it is bigger this time. Basically if we follow FDR's example and invest in the development of natural resources and technology for a productive future on a massive scale through a new credit facility (employing tens of millions) we will make it as a country. If we don't, I see no solution in sight as a nation. It is also essential that our new FDR doesn't take us into WW3 this time, no matter how crazy the world gets, because the world now has thermonuclear weapons.

And since we are so far morally down the line as a nation, we need to reform or repeal most permanent welfare. No more welfare queens and baby mommas. Lots more work.

In terms of solutions I supported Ron Paul as a candidate, but I like Lyndon LaRouche's solution better:

http://larouchepac.com/credit/#.T_E7Umt5mK0

Here's a link to a little history on FDR, the RFC, and the 1930's (19 minute video):

http://larouchepac.com/node/23139

[soup]

(07-01-2012 07:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

WestCoast Wrote:

Anyway, whoever thinks people in general dont deserve at least comfort/bare minimum necessities even if it is a tax impact, go hang yourself.

The problem is that the term "bare minimum necessities" is stretched out over time, so as to become all-inclusive.


1. Bare-minimum used to mean food and water.



2. Then it became food, water, and a job.



3. Then it became food, water, a job, and a home.



4. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, and child support.



5. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, child support, and unemployment benefits.



6. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, child support, unemployment benefits, and health care.



7. Then it became food, water, a job, a home, unemployment benefits, child support, health care, and now cars are being added to the list.




Serious question: Where the fuck does it end?

I think all of those are valid as bare necessities.

You forgot education- how can you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if you a) don't know how do it, or b) can't afford boots in the first place.

[durangotang]

Soup, where do you live?

[soup]

NYC

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 01:33 AM)soup Wrote:  

NYC

Move to a Scandanavian country like Denmark for a while, let us know how you like it, because they have that system. We have a different system. I can't move anywhere else to get what we have and I don't want people to do nothing and expect everyone else to provide for them. That said I do want the things you mentioned for everyone, I just want to go about it through full employment and reform. No free handouts.

[soup]

I believe we need to restructure our values, sort of like how the music industry needs to find a different way to create value after the record sales plummeted (I believe that tickets for live shows should go up in price).

I think there is enough money in the world to support everyone. However, the majority of it is locked up in the hands a of small group. If someone wants to spend their entire life staring at a wall, then let them do it. Give them a place to live, and food etc.

That's not going to stop someone else from living a more "meaning" or helpful life. If anything, the less money is an issue for people, the less they will be motivated just to make money. There will still be doctors/scientists etc. who are motivated by their passion for studying nature and helping people.

I also believe that people should not be allowed to have as many kids as they want. There should also be mandatory testing to make sure that people are capable of being parents.

I'm also against superfluous feminism, so Scandanvia and me wouldn't get a long. I hate how every Swedish girl I've hooked up with wouldn't suck my dick.

That said, I think we need to have more socialized democracy here.

[Hooligan Harry]

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 02:05 AM)soup Wrote:  

...

I think there is enough money in the world to support everyone. However, the majority of it is locked up in the hands a of small group. If someone wants to spend their entire life staring at a wall, then let them do it. Give them a place to live, and food etc.

That's not going to stop someone else from living a more "meaning" or helpful life. If anything, the less money is an issue for people, the less they will be motivated just to make money. There will still be doctors/scientists etc. who are motivated by their passion for studying nature and helping people.

I also believe that people should not be allowed to have as many kids as they want. There should also be mandatory testing to make sure that people are capable of being parents.

...

That said, I think we need to have more socialized democracy here.

Two words for you: scarcity and choice. There are limited natural resources on the planet. Politicians and beauracrats can't possibly know the needs and wants of billions of individuals better than themselves. In fact they do a horrible job (see 20th century Russia for one example). The free market is not only highly efficient at resource acquisition and distribution, it accurately arrives at price through supply and demand. And not only allows for needs, but wants as well, which is essential unless you want to live in Soviet style block apartments or drive a Yugo.

One more word for you: freedom. Don't you believe you have rights? Don't you believe the ghetto welfare queen has rights? If so she can have as many children as she can provide for. It is her body and her life. So can you.

If you didn't believe in coercive taxation and redistribution (even for someone staring at a wall all day) of a persons labor and property, you just might like freedom a little more and (gasp) enjoy being American!

[durangotang]

(07-02-2012 02:20 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Yes Harry, true colors always come through.