Simple question....

Thank you for kind reply.
But is it not the conservative point of view to allow "big business that like money" free rein
to operate in any way they see fit, in the name of creating jobs?

I keep hearing that Republicans want less taxes and environmental restraints on business because it is in the best interest of the country?

It seems to me that the main goal of a business is to profit. A business is not based on loyalty to any particular country.
Nor is a business concerned with creating jobs. Their goal is to produce more with less employees if possible. And with
more and more technology there is less need for man power. Take a tour of a GM plant and try to count the number of robots.

So how on earth does a "Male" conservative like yourself justify corporate tax breaks?

Thank you for your time

 

I still haven't given up trying to make sense of you.
You seem to be saying that you are against abortion because it will decrease the number available for harnessing.
Since there is already a lack of harnesses, where is the logic in your statement?

 

No it's not. The conservative view is that there should be equal oportunities for all, and that people should look to help themselves rather than be a burden on others. Hence why we want small government. If a government is small it can't affect as many thing, and thus there's not much a big corporation can get out of bribing officials in any way. The more things the government is supposed to look after and monitor the more oportunities there are for businessmen to manipulate it in their favour. So contrary to what you might have though, big government mostly helps the big business.

Yes it is in the best intrest in many cases. Laws and regulation means less oportunities, and more time going to make sure one doesn't break them. Higher taxes means that there's less incentive and less money to expand the enterprise with, which would lead to more jobs.

The goal of a business is to profit yes, is there anything wrong with that? A business is a group of people cooperating to provide services to other people who voluntarily buys them, and the result is that both parties are better off. What's the alternative even?

No, the goal of businesses isn't to create jobs, it's making money. They do create jobs while they strive for money though, and that's what counts. If you can produce more or the same amount with less employees that's a good thing as it means that it's more efficient. And that's freeing up people to do other things. We could have people dig canals with spoons, that would give lots of jobs, but instead we have a few guys with really big machines. Do you see anything wrong with that?

What does my sex has to do with anything? I can justify them with the reasons above, although I'm not in favour of a flat tax; I believe that a dollar's worth less to a millionaire than to a poor guy and it doesn't hurt them as much if they contribute more.

 

I only quoted "Male" because you prefer to distinguish that fact with your Newton quote.
No insult was intended.

 

I'm not at all insulted by being called male, I just did not why. good quote ain't it?

 

Yes there are some good ones.

Found on a thread by Pardy...

"Liberals, if conservatives call your post 'stupid', 'ignorant' or 'hilarious', or attack you, have patience; it's just their frustration from losing the argument."

Definitely some creative people here!

 

On the one hand, life is what you make of it.

Ultimately, succes in life is your personal responsibility. You have to have a certain amount of ambition to make it through life.

On the other hand, there definitely is a rather hypocritical premise behind much of what passes as conservatism here.

The abortion issue displays it in the way that the OP described. If you're tired of spending so much on welfare, then keep abortion legal. Banning just means more welfare spending.

On the other hand, if you actually care about the children born into poverty and desperation, don't curse the public spending on it. And before anyone goes into a pie in the sky discussion of charity handling all of it, read up on the nasty things that happened to the poor before welfare. Poor children were the people most negatively affected back then.

The premise of the personal responsibility line of thinking is that the idea that individuals are best served by limiting government assumes that most people are capable of taking care of themselves and have ambition to an extent.

This is not compatible with the extreme cynicism that many conservatives seem to have about the general public. You can't believe in the personal responsibility ideal if you believe most people or at least most poor people are simply poor due to laziness. To believe that, you have to assume that they don't have ambition or any significant struggle they face.

So, a rational compromise is simply admitting that a social safety net is necessary for temporary help, so that people can rise out of poverty. Spending a little bit of money to help someone learn new job skills pays much bigger dividends in tax revenue later on.

The Nordic countries already understand this. They've used this system for years, so that continuing education is a simple and practical process. The end result is that most citizens in these countries do well for themselves and have successful careers.

While abortion is legal in these countries, they have a considerably lower abortion rate than we do. So if the end goal is to reduce abortions, a ban isn't the way to do it. Having a practical system in place that minimizes poverty is.

 

Thank you for reply.
I think the shear complexity of the chaos is finally sinking in for me.
If conservatives think that there should be equal oportunities for all That is a nice thought but the opportunities even for college grads are very slim.

A few years back, I argued with a conservative about a woman who while walking gets struck down by a drunk driver.
The conservative claimed that it was the woman's fault for being there when the drunk driver drove by.
He surmised that because he (the conservative) had never been struck, that the drunk driver was not the issue.

So I guess it is the conservative view that unemployment exists because of people who simply refuse to help themselves.
Am I on the right track so far?

 

Anecdotal comments are just that. Neither side should use them to continue their argument. If you have a point of view, present that view. To me, using anecdotal comments is like "See, I am right!"

Just an opinion.

 

Do you have a plan? And how can I help?

 

Agree completely.
Far too many unnecessary comments in this thread.
Including my reply.

 

lol thanks... Honestly, my plan is just moving to a country where this is the norm. Canada and Australia are somewhat like this.

America could learn a lot from some of its peers.

 

I felt so guilty that I re-read my anecdote a few times.
I believe my intent was actually more as a note to myself
that I seemed (or at least hoped) to have discovered a distinct difference
in the way a conservative thinker processes info compared to the progressive
or liberal or what ever is PC.
But could have also been for selfish reasons as you suggest.
Either way I appreciate the advice!

 

My girlfriend and I are also considering Canada.

Also have talked about Sweden. She has relatives there.

 

The National Socialist Democratic Party or National Socialist Party might be of interest to you. They used to have a euthanasia program and a Final Solution prejudging offspring of Untermenschen. It was really crude and used calipers, but science has come a long way since then.

The simple fact is we cannot prejudge without extensive expensive tests as to whether you or your progeny would be worthless.

Maybe you should do a cost benefit analysis to show whether there is greater profit in society cutting funds from current social programs to pay for the tests.

On page 8 CHARnobyl brought up “Soylent Green” in reference to your desire for recycling centers for Untermenschen. I think it is a bad idea but certainly there is always a need for good cheap cat and dog food.

So maybe the Soylent Green Puppy chow idea would be profitable enough to pay for the tests.

 

Actually..I don't know what to say..except..Thank you??

Your nickname Divine Comedy refers to Dante's Inferno. Is that right?
There is novel out now called Inferno. Deals with overpopulation.
Have you by chance read it?

 

Sorry I messed up. Please see below

 

I am not fluent in the language of abortion issues, and could use your advice.

Is the conservative view that it is the unborn child's right to be born?
That allowing abortion is infringing on a child's right to be born into this world?
Is it the conservative view that outlawing abortion is protecting a child's right to be born?
Thank you for your time.

 

I just passed that Inferno book at the store, but my budget will not handle it right now. Anyway I usually wait until any series has a few before starting on one. Still haven’t got around to the last book of the Wheel of Time or Abaddon’s Gate, both of which just showed up for Kindle. Right now I’m on Game of Thrones Storm of Swords, and so far I like it. My wifey keeps pointing out new books, and I have barely made a dent in everything written before I was born.

I picked DivineComedy because the book was sitting in front of me on a shelf with about ten other poetry books, but I have mainly switched to using a Kindle. The number of free books or cheap ones available online went through the roof within the last ten years. Even the library is catching on, although their educational and science section is almost empty. I even have a pouch to use the Kindle in a tidal pool; no more getting suntan oil on the library books, which was really bad when I went through the Waverly novels, as they were like falling apart from not being read in thirty years.

Dad: “Where are your Books? I told you to bring every book home regardless of whether you have homework. I used to lug this huge backpack full of books every day through the snow for ten miles.”
Son: “But dad, all my books are right here in this chip.”
Dad: “I wondered why kids were getting soft.”

If worthless just get a big stick, a robe, a rope, a solar backpack, a tiny fishing pole, a Kindle (something waterproof for it), and get a life as a beach bum after checking out “Life of Pi,” so that you know you are a winey baby if you ever had it better than that. In fact it might be best to just read dead authors for a while to constantly bring tears to your eyes like the last chapter of Chapterhouse Dune.

 

Yes. Except that "unborn child" is a misnomer in how conservatives use it. Conservatives use "the fetus is a child" to argue the rights of the fetus. My religious opinion is not the same as the legal opinion but I abide by the legal opinion and want to protect a woman's right. Others try to change the goal post to argue their point. "When the fetus moves", "When the fetus feels pain" "When the fetus could live outside the womb" are arguments to try and overturn Roe v Wade. Those opinions should be fought in court and are not reasons to deny a woman her rights until recognized as legal.

 

COOL! Made my day. Picked up "Life of Pi" just yesterday.

 

I'm thinking that perhaps their faith is what keeps them from demanding evidence. If you have to demand evidence, your faith is weak. If your faith is strong, well so is your belief.

 

Good point Sir.
I overlooked that but do agree.

 

Thank you for reply.

My reason for asking may sound a bit strange,
but if the Right-winger is truly concerned about the rights of the fetus,
then what about the right of the fetus to not be born.
You can't chose one right without automatically denying the other.

- - - Updated - - -
And who is to say that the mother's choice is not influenced by the unborn fetus or God?

 

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [NAZIS with a Final Solution to the worthless humans problem]." (Obama)


"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that follow Koalemos the god of stupidity]." (Obama)


"[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing." "AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)"


“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gl...akhan-declaration-obama-messiah#ixzz2UDLrVBj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiG-gz1xt9I


"When Sen. Barack Obama 'rejected' and 'denounced' the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

Fortunately for Obama, most black people understand the game.

Obama should have found a way to escape Russert's trap without denigrating Farrakhan's legacy.

But, like I said, we understand." (BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/821131,CST-NWS-mitch02.article


"[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"


“Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;

(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;

(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;

(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;

(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Punishment for Basic Offense.— The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and

(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.

(c) Incitement Offense.— Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091


"Matthew 12:30-32: 30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."


"[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse."


“Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. “


"18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:18-20)


“Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.


The non-binding resolution on ‘Combating the Defamation of Religion’ is intended to curtail speech that offends religion -- particularly Islam.


Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432502,00.html#ixzz2UDEiYrCo


“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3479-its-actually-closer-us-being-idiots.html


“Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..” (Peaceful Muslim, from Chicago) http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/8170-now-4.html#post242088


"(3) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (Book #62, Hadith #137)"


As a worthless human maybe you can help us out as to the right to choose the proper course of action of the “spontaneous demonstration” of a Tea Party with regard to the above.


******

{Is it logic?}

My reason for asking may sound a bit strange,
but if the Left-winger is truly concerned about the rights of Freedom of Speech,
then what about the right of the Freedom of Speech to not be born.
You can't chose one right without automatically denying the other.

And who is to say that the female captives’s choice is not influenced by the unborn Freedom of Speech or Allah?