LeviF

We're running into fundamental philosophical differences now but a lot of it hinges on what we consider a "quality" life. It's ok to differ on that but my problem with Conservative, Inc. is that they have swallowed whole the underlying theoretical premises of postmodern liberal thought and just added endless war and blind shilling for megacorps.

I don't mean to sound like a douche but, define "better off." I didn't say things were bad for average Americans during many of those years but I think the precedents and the ideas put in motion in our government starting in that time period got us way off track with no course correction in the meantime.

Yes, I'm not rich by any reasonable American standard but I had several non-random advantages that much of the population could also have with certain targeted legislation. Somewhere along the way the American conservative movement got completely hijacked by corporate oligarchies and abandoned many of the principles of nation-building that made this country great. Somewhere between Hoover and Kennedy the US lost the mandate of heaven. Technocratic corporatism and managerial politics have led to this weird two-headed monster in our government that has completely lost sight of the average American citizen and worker in favor of CEOverlords and weird obsessions with narrow economic issues and principles that affect less than 10% of the population. Pile on top of that several gerontocrats refusing to give up power even as they slide into mental failure and we're left with a failed society. For those of us with some means the effects of this are felt on a much smaller scale as we can: pick up and move to an area where we can be left to our own devices (USA is big and in many places is sparsely populated), find alternative routes for our children in education and trade, arrange communities that self-govern, etc. For the average American this is impossible, which is why the "leave me alone" camp will always lose: they fail to recognize or simply don't care that the people they claim to represent do not benefit from most of their political stances.

I'm sanguine dude. I manufacture my own left-alone-ness.

Yeah I'm never gonna dunk on people who want real health care/health insurance reform in the states. Unfortunately a lot of that is downstream of lifestyle which has trended more to convenience and comfort (byproducts of urbanization of living spaces and monopolies in the food industry) over actually beneficial habits. As a result we have HUGE issues that won't even be fixed with proper single payer on one side or gutting the massive administrative burden on health care on the other. But again I'm not going to fault people who want to find some acute solutions that will make some progress.

Yeah this is about right. The only thing that's missing is the fact that people that just want to be left alone will always lose societal and political battles to those who wish to impose their will on others. It's time to re-define conservatism to something that actually has a battle plan.

You could probably get similar advice if you wanted to go to Detroit.

Yes. The weight of the mother has many effects on not only gestational health but the early health of the child as well.

It’s too bad Clay sold his soul to become another useful Conservative, Inc. idiot. Teaming up with “former” intelligence officer Sexton was the nail in the coffin.

She had dumps like a truck, truck, truck Thighs like what, what, what All night long Let me see that thong!

Figures. COs can’t shoot worth a damn.

The point is that he’s unimportant you maroon. He serves as an example.

Ha. Federal law enforcement is not here to enforce true rule of law. Leftists can and will threaten and even employ physical violence against their political opponents and face zero consequences because they own the media and the entire government apparatus. This is why I don’t debate. It’s a friend/enemy dichotomy all the way down.

I hear the strip clubs in Atlanta have pretty good wings.

This is correct, but also hilarious coming from the dude whose schtick has gone from pretending to be a communist version of a football talk show personality to just reacting thumbs down on every post they could find. And again, I'll accept the Supreme Court line once we can have a discussion about how the entire national political agenda of the LGBTQ crowd was shoved down our throats, so to speak, by the courts, and then those same courts were used to punish the perceived political enemies of the gays. This of course all coming AFTER the largest state in the union voted gay marriage down by direct vote. In summary, shut up, dork.

Are conservatives advocating for the unfettered slaughter of those children? Can you point to a link? They use it because they believe it to be dehumanizing. It betrays their line of thinking, which has no logical endpoint re: the time at which it is no longer ok to kill the child.

You know, I was almost ready to have a serious conversation with you until you dropped this and demonstrated how unserious you really are.

How is this issue analogous?

There is no moral imperative to educate or persuade those who would toss their children into Moloch’s gaping maw.

And Cleveland has to be being stubborn on that point. As mentioned above his salary is fully guaranteed, everybody knows he isn’t their guy, and Cleveland has earned zero favors from anyone in the league at this point.

Before modernist/postmodernist thinking we had bastardy laws on the books and bastard trials where the father most likely responsible was determined and care for the child arranged for. Leftists are constantly reinventing the traditional ways that they are trying so hard to forget. lol this idiot. We can put capital punishment on the table for rape. You good with that?

If you let them keep going long enough, they re-invent traditional marriage. Leftists: “Well, if men are going to pass laws outlawing the killing of pre-born children, they should pass laws that the fathers of the children can’t leave and need to take financial care of the mother and child!” Trads: “…ok then.”

And the answer to that question is still "yes." But then you change the question. You add caveats and qualifiers and pretend as if I'm the unreasonable one for asking that you just not. And ignore the fact that abortions legally fall under the same category as another example you provided yourself - stop signs - while firearms explicitly do not. That the answers to the initial questions are inconvenient to your backwards political "thinking," if one can truly call it that, really isn't my problem. If you wish to know my more complete thoughts on how the AR-15 is found in the Constitution, we have a reasonably active gun thread in this subforum that you may ask your silly questions in.

Why do you keep changing the question? If you don't like the answer to the original question perhaps you should examine why that is rather than play silly games.