Conservative Political Forum

I've gotten sorta used to feeling like the crazy one. It goes with the territory! 

This child TEACHES for a living? Teaches what? Don't you find that frightening?

Do I detect a bit of trolling here Solar?

You finally said something I absolutely agree with, and you just described TEA.

Show me one racist post!

So now you want me to explain the difference between a nationalist and a racist? I just can't be bothered any more. Don't worry, I'm leaving soon.

It's strange you should say that, it's what the liberals tell me, seriously.

When you pay your taxes, that’s State interference,

but they’re need to pay for the roads, armed forces, police . . . that you use, or depend on to live in a civilized society.

When your taxes are used to prevent absolute poverty from occurring,

that’s to prevent the type of death and starvation you see in Africa happening in America.

When your taxes are used to try to promote equality with a working population, that’s socialism. On the one hand, you don’t want mass absolute poverty, as seen in the 1930’s, but on the other you seek to prevent a dependency culture. The point of my op is that under socialism and its emphasis on equality, you’ve now joined Europe in which increasing numbers see welfare as a life style choice and THAT is bad.

You now live in a post-industrial society; the huge car manufacturers, the ship building, steel . . . are now industrial wastelands. Wall-Mart and Wall Street are the new industries, neither of which produce, but speculate and sell; they’re what are referred to as service industries. The times of plenty from the 50’s to the 80’s were courtesy of the war dead in an employment market short of workers and you now have a new generation of people entering a non-existent employment market.

Revolutions start in countries of absolute poverty, not in those of nations with some sort of guarantee of daily requirements necessary to sustain life. You wouldn’t have had a Bolshevik revolution in Russia if the people weren’t starving. All governments across the western world now have to provide the mass unemployed with some form of income, because the alternative is another revolution of the type that ends in a ‘people’s socialist’ republic. Think it through, take all the unemployed off welfare tomorrow and what would follow? No, they wouldn’t find jobs, there aren’t enough jobs to cater for them all, but what I argue for is welfare with strings attached. Perhaps voluntary community work, or subsidized food instead of cash payments, which allow people to sit drinking beer and watching Oprah Winfrey all day.

I’m both amazed and sad that I have to write this sort of thing for people in a supposedly educated first world country and the best you can do is throw insults? It proves my point about dumbness?

I’m all for personal wealth accumulation, small government, individual choice . . .

but I’m also a realist and America is symptomatic of a society of laissez faire materialism and dog eat dog that people are now voting against.

Conservatism isn’t some right wing nationalistic ideal hijacked by the Americans, its about self-reliance, it’s about the family, its about values and morals which make a country strong and prosperous. It’s about providing opportunities for people to work their way up . . . left wing communism/progressivism or right wing fascism was never part of the American dream.   

I believe his statement of:    "I’m all for personal wealth accumulation, small government, individual choice . . ."

Is nothing more than a lie, especially after reading the link he supplied.

How can you teach much of anything -- especially social science -- when your grasp of economics is so tenuous that you think money and wealth are the same thing? How can you expect to be taken seriously in any discussion when you present statements like, "Poverty is absolute," and three sentences later use the phrase "relative poverty?" Why should I waste time on someone who originates a thread entitled "The case against relative poverty [!?] and the minimum wage," then criticizes my reply as being from "someone who writes a long post about something entirely different (economics)?"