What do conservatives conserve? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14977860
Hindsite wrote:One other thing that conservatives want to conserve is separate public toilets for the two sexes, male and female.
So another non-issue. Fuck, these right-wingers are fucking morons! There isn't an issue amongst people with any education and intelligence. There's simply no justification for such a policy. None whatsoever.

Enforcement of such policies would pretty much require you to waste law enforcement man-power, as well. it would also require you to discriminate against a minority. Neither of these things would go well with the Constitution that REAL conservatives support.

This, is only important in the mind of dipshit twats who are afraid of their own sexuality, or inbred hill-billies lacking in education.

Hey brainiac! The public toilets are still for two sexes!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hindsite wrote:Liberals would allow a person to go into whatever public toilet they wish.
Yes, because that's what normal people do!!! :moron:

So there you have it, folks! The modern right-wing conservatives conserve toilet usage enforcement amongst the population! :lol:

Important, indeed... :roll:
#14977868
Godstud wrote:I used to consider myself a Conservative, and voted as such. As @Drlee has pointed out, however, I feel that the newer parties aren't representing conservatives like they used to.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible, want transparency in government, want small government, support good family and community values, good justice and laws, follow the Bill of rights/Constitution, etc.

Now it's simply seen as fighting change... and I don't feel that that is what Conservativism is, atall. I feel this is mainly from Conservativism being hijacked by populism, bigotry and racism.

Note: Prior to 2012 I've voted Conservative in every election that every took place, except once because our local MP walked from the PC bench over to the Liberal side, as he was a man of strong moral values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilgour

@Drlee I'd like to think that you're one of the few actual TRUE Conservatives left on this board, as I find it hard to consider the radicals as such(Right-wing is a more fitting term). I associate now with more with Liberalism(classic), since this hijacking of "Conservativism" by radical right-wingers.

I doubt you were conservative or liberal.

You are both economically and socially far away from conservatism and liberalism.
#14977871
Igor Antunov wrote:They conserve society. Liberals seek to destroy it. A cosmic ballet.


How odd. Guys like blackjack 21 voted for Trump to wreck the government, and he isn't on the left side. Not by a long chalk.
#14977891
One other thing that conservatives want to conserve is separate public toilets for the two sexes, male and female.
Liberals would allow a person to go into whatever public toilet they wish.


Uh. So let me get this straight. Conservatives believe it is of political importance to worry and fret over how the restrooms are labeled? The economy is on a roller coaster ride. Our elections are in danger of meaninglessness. We have a president who is incapable of telling the truth. Our military is involved in two major military actions and countless little ones. We have administration members under investigation for all manner of corruption. We have millions uninsured. We have schools that are failing. We have our old cold war enemies again challenging our hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and our influence around the world. We have a climate crisis that must be addressed. And much more. And what issue are "conservatives" rallying behind? Their abject terror that some woman might sidle up to the urinal next to them and pee.

Oh the horror. Oh the humanity. If this doesn't trigger the Big Cowboy to blow the horn of Armageddon, I don't know what will. Michael must be warming up as we speak. It is all so confusing for the boys and girls at Georgia Tech to deal with their mandatory History of the Confederacy studies and then be constantly looking under the door at the stall next to them lest the person there be plumbed differently. Can you imagine the scar on a little boy when he learns later on that someone without a penis pooped right next to him. :eek: Scared for life. Struck gay on the spot. Or God forbid he doesn't care and has to live with the label "liberal" for the rest of his life. God forgives all sins but doesn't forgive liberalism.

But what is a small business to do? Nobody in the world has a problem with only having one restroom used by both sexes. The problem only arises when there are two. Well that is OK too. You can have one men and one women or not even bother to label either of them. That is fine. It is only when fate should find two people in the same restroom at the same time that there is a problem. But that is where I get really confused. (And I am a conservative so I rail against baby changing tables in the restroom.) Well lets pause on that for a moment.

It seems that the problem is the absolute belief that the two sexes should never be together in the same restroom. Well this is a big problem. The other day, at the Atlanta Airport, I saw a man bring his baby girl into the men's room. They used the changing table and there she was for all to see. A girl in the men's room. Warm up Gabriel. I have, many times, seen mothers take their little boys into the ladies room. Not only are the woman in there in serious danger of being damaged but the little boy could be struck gay right on the spot. But you say I am joking. These are babies and small children. What if they were teenagers? It is about sexual behavior.

Outside of Georgia, going to the bathroom is not sexual behavior Hindsite. You will have to take this as a matter of faith. But here is more confusion. If a little girl dresses as a boy, how can you tell in a public restroom? Should there be a genital checker at the door. That could be a good retirement job for you. Who could object to a brief pants-down inspection at the door. I will grant that should you accidentally see a 18 year old girls vagina at the door to the men's room you might be turned into a pillar of salt but you will just have to take one for the team. Or you can let me do it because I am clothed in the armor of the medical profession and immune to genitalia. (Well other than Padma Lakshmi's but that is for another thread.)

But it is about what turns one on, you might say. You don't want a girl in the boy's room getting turned on by the penises. Some comments about that. First is that the boys do want that and always have. The fact that this transsexual girl actually would get more turned on in the girls room leaves us in a quandary. Should one use the restroom associated with what does not turn one on or the one assigned to their gender. That gay guy standing next to me might be turned on by my package but a gay woman wouldn't. So with whom should I be more comfortable? It is all so confusing. Now just because she (the gay woman) is not turned on by me does not mean that I am not turned on by her. I have met some smokin' hot lesbians in my day. So is the problem that I might be led into the sin of coveting my lesbian neighbors ass? Maybe that's it.

How big a problem is this? Well. In the 18-24 year old age group about .5% of people identify as transsexual. So extrapolating (look it up) we can conclude that in our rural elementary school of two hundred children, one of them might be identifying as the other sex. For more of them are gay and either don't know it yet or are hiding.

But you know Hindsite. This kind of issue gets small-minded people really excited. And they are really fun to watch. Wait for post two later. We will discuss the crisis of gay men using men's rooms.

Blow Gabriel Blow.
#14977894
Istanbuller wrote:I doubt you were conservative or liberal.
I doubt you have a brain in your head, so there's that. :D

Istanbuller wrote:You are both economically and socially far away from conservatism and liberalism.
:lol: You haven't a fucking clue what I am and you're making moronic assumptions. I am fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. So, suck it!

Igor Antunov wrote:They conserve society. Liberals seek to destroy it. A cosmic ballet.
That's not what the definitions are, no matter how delusional you are, and what you might believe.

Conservative:
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Liberal:
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

@Drlee You are so right. QFT. Gay men using men's washrooms! The humanity!!!

I have the solution, of course. People who have a problem with fearing that a transgender person might be using the toilet stall next to them can use the handicapped washroom, since they are quite literally mentally handicapped. :D
#14977900
Well, it's quite clear that you don't have a fucking clue, so maybe best to keep your ignorant opinions about my political leanings to yourself, fascist. :D

Fiscal conservatism (also economic conservatism or conservative economics) is a political-economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government debt.

The only thing I have come to not agree with is low taxes, as you need those taxes for government programs, infrastructure, etc.
#14977903
Medicare for all is a good idea. The best healthcare systems in the world are universal healthcare systems, and they are also far less expensive than privatized healthcare, like the USA has(pays double). You don't have to be a genius to figure out that it's fiscally responsible to do that, and provide a better system for your people. Healthier people are happier and more productive, as well. Good education has similar benefits. That fits in nicely with conservative views on prudence for government spending.

Nice note here: We pay more taxes in Canada, but it actually balances out nicely when we consider we don't have to pay for health insurance and take chances with pre-existing conditions and corrupt insurance companies. After that is accounted for, most Canadians actually end up with more money in their pockets, as a result of this.
#14977905
Godstud wrote:The only thing I have come to not agree with is low taxes, as you need those taxes for government programs, infrastructure, etc.

This kind of opinion has no place in conservative world. Conservatives are for limited government and minimal spending as much as it is possible.

You are in the same train with Donald Trump. He thinks that government should spend for instructure. So there is no reason for you to hate him. Both you are not conservatives at all.

Medicare for all is a good idea. The best healthcare systems in the world are universal healthcare systems, and they are also far less expensive than privatized healthcare, like the USA has(pays double). You don't have to be a genius to figure out that it's fiscally responsible to do that, and provide a better system for your people. Healthier people are happier and more productive, as well. Good education has similar benefits.

Medicare for all is a radical socialist idea which advocated by low iq people like Bernie Sanders. You like it.

Stop claiming people that you are/ were consertvative. You lose your credibility by spreading false claims.
#14977929
And now we arrive at the fact that “conservative” means different things in different places and at different times.

Conservatives support the status quo.

In Canada, that means supporting Medicare for all, because that is the status quo. And because they know they would lose any election if they did not support it.

Is this inconsistent with the positions of other conservatives in other places? Yes. But it is still a fact that Canadian conservatives support universal healthcare.

This may seem paradoxical, but it is simply an effect of different places having different histories, which then creates different status quos.
#14978014
istanbuller wrote:Medicare for all is a radical socialist idea which advocated by low iq people like Bernie Sanders. You like it.

Stop claiming people that you are/ were consertvative. You lose your credibility by spreading false claims.
Ad hominem much?

:lol:
You have no idea what conservativism is. You're simply a far right-winger claiming to be a conservative, and having a rant. Government spending money wisely is conservative. A universal healthcare system saves the government money. They're very fiscally connected, and your childish argument doesn't change the realities.

Now go away, if you have no argument, and don't claim to know people when you don't even know the definitions of the English words you seek to use.

No, Trump is not for fiscal conservativism. He's lowered taxes but not reduced government spending one iota. He's running the largest deficit in decades. He's also a lying, racist, misogynist piece of shit. I guess I can't ignore the obvious glaring flaws, like Trump cultists can.

@Pants-of-dog Yes, you are correct, and as I already pointed out, Universal healthcare can be quite a conservative idea when it's been around for decades. it's only seen as liberal by those who haven't had access to it.

Also, a little historical perspective on taxes...
Image
#14978034
@Istanbuller

The only Canadians who don't support our healthcare system is a handful of greedy doctors. Most doctors are okay with their pay. Being conservative doesn't necessarily mean being against social systems, eg health care, the armed forces, schools, firefighters, police etc.
#14978074
Godstud wrote:The public toilets are still for two sexes!!!

I hope we conserve it that way. Praise the Lord.

@ Drlee
Your post about public restrooms was idiotic, but funny. :lol:
I am sorry to hear that you are so confused.
#14978096
Stormsmith wrote:How odd. Guys like blackjack 21 voted for Trump to wreck the government, and he isn't on the left side. Not by a long chalk.


Mass migration destroys societies. Trump is seriously trying to stop it in its tracks. Therefore voting for Trump = trying to preserve society.
#14978116
Igor Antunov wrote:Mass migration destroys societies.
Please provide a source for your claim.

The USA was created by mass migrations.
#14978170
Pants-of-dog wrote:And now we arrive at the fact that “conservative” means different things in different places and at different times.

Conservatives support the status quo.

In Canada, that means supporting Medicare for all, because that is the status quo. And because they know they would lose any election if they did not support it.

Is this inconsistent with the positions of other conservatives in other places? Yes. But it is still a fact that Canadian conservatives support universal healthcare.

This may seem paradoxical, but it is simply an effect of different places having different histories, which then creates different status quos.

This is not true. Conservatism is an Anglo-Saxon tradition. The ideology comes from within it. You don't have a different conservative ideology over places and time. Almost all conservatives intellectuals came from Britain and America. We, outsiders, learned and embraced it through education.

Conservative principles are clear. It doesn't make universal health care conservative just because some politicians do not stay strong and fall to traps.

Godstud wrote: Please provide a source for your claim.

The USA was created by mass migrations.

Roman Empire, invaded by barbarian tribes and fall apart as a result of mass migration.

Byzantine, invaded and looted by Latins and later fell slave to Ottomans. Greece did not re-exist as a country until the first world war. Population exchanges and forcing non-Greeks emigration made Greece possible again.

Abbasid Caliphate, raped by Mongol hordes. Arabs never emerged as a powerhouse again after this defeat and mass migration of Mongol tribes.

Armenia, lost all of its territories due to mass migration of Mongols and later Ottoman Muslims. Armenian identity is completely lost and today people who call themselves Armenian are not really ethnically Armenian.

Tatars, lost their all racial traits due to Russian invasion and Sovietization.

Uyghurs, once upon a time an independent country and now a Chinese backdoor which is being heavily populated by Chinese.

Palestine, sons and daughters of Prophet Mohammed. Once upon a time they were known as smartest Arab fraction and nation. Now it is not even recognized as a country. Jewish people took their lands forcefully.

South Africa, a journey from first world country to third world country. It was the shining star of Africa.

British overseas territories, were glories of "the empire on which the sun never sets". Now backward places populated by Asian and African migrants.
#14978179
Mass migration destroys societies.


Except Ireland? What happened to Ireland? It is the fastest growing economy in Europe and a sit ton of them moved here.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
Propaganda works

On a scale of 1 to 10 how scared are you? If yo[…]

Bisexuality among African migrant men may be a con[…]

Because they are a market economy, it's not a Com[…]

Pence is probably the most competent person in th[…]